Ok, so I know it's the best selling boardgame at FFG (the best selling game is still X-wing but looking at SW:Imperial Assault I can't take of my mind of one very wierd thought. Can SW:IA be a prelude to Descent 3e? We all know that D2e is a great game at already we have a lot of stuff to it that we can play years from now using only it. But we all also know that there are some bugs in it that needed to be fixed.I liked D1e and D2e but still I can imagine that FFG could do a Revised or 3e of Descent. Such a edition would fix some bugs like the lack of balance when there's less then 4 heroes, some LoS trouble and so on. Besides it could go into a diferend direction then Descent 2e is. Personaly I'm not a huge fan of all players knowing the map and with no suprises waiting for them when they open a door, or that the heroes are immortal and can stand up every time they got KO, so in that case I like it better the way it was in D1e. But I like many of ideas in D2e for example: basic equipment, the shoping step, custom and smaller Overlord deck.

Now after 3 years I'm looking at D2e and see a good game but with someting missing in it. Even the new co-op scenarions are not the best I played. So the way I see it is if nothing will change then this game will meet it's end in a year or two. I think that we will see one more small box, one more POD and maybe one more big box (but only maybe). H&M collection will also give us new minis but that's all (2 annouced are on the way). And after it there's a chance for a revised or even better 3e of this game.

If 3e will come I hope it will correct some mistakes from the past like using and mixing many parts of each expansion (not just monsters and heroes - see a topic Expansions using expansions), and have more modes of play in one box the way SW:IA will have.

Those are just my thought I wanted to share with You all here, maybe some of You will agre with me some will not. But like I said it's just my personal opinion about the future of this line and how I feel about it.

Cheers

PS. I do not see it that FFG would release a co-op big box expansion for D2e but maybe that is the idea for 3e to go in that direction? Make it a classic dungeon crawl the way Warhammer:Quest was with an optional Overlord. This twist could be a very interesting way the game could go in the future with 3e.

While Imperial Assault has it's tweaks, to me it seems less like a prelude to Descent 3E, and more like a Star Wars Descent 1.5E. It seems strange to me that FFG would release a 3E that's mostly just somewhere between the first and second editions. Also, D1E was out for 7 years before 2E came around. 2E has only been around for a little over 2 years- that's a real quick turnaround for a whole new edition.

I agree with both of you. The current edition of Descent does have a few issues that fixing them can only improve the game but I also think it's much too early for a completely new edition.

An expansion similar to Road to Legend or Sea of Blood that focuses on adjusting the game mechanics instead of adding more pieces could solve many of the problems (though not all of them).

I got into Descent shortly before 2E was released and immediately made room in my budget to buy it (I even got the Jonas the Kind promo figure from the launch event for my troubles). Before most people had even finished their first campaign, many people were asking for Co-op play. It took a few years but FFG did deliver so it's apparent to me they are listening to player feedback/request.

Instead of contemplating a 3E, perhaps a detailed list of the current issues would be a good starting point. Then other players can propose solutions or add to the list of things they feel need fixing in future expansions and/or errata.

Some of the expansions have already incorporated very interesting mechanical twists- for example, the Influence effects in Shadow of Nerekhall add a degree of mystery and uncertainty to the quests which is less present in the rest of the second edition. An expansion which makes a point of playing on mechanical differences would be very interesting. That being said, I (somehow I feel like I'm in a minority saying this) really like the way Descent 2E handles most things. The mechanics aren't perfect, but they're really not that complicated when everything is boiled down- and to me the streamlined mechanics make the entire experience much more enjoyable than if it were mechanically more complex and cumbersome.

Additionally, the relative simplicity of the game allows for huge amounts of custom quest content- and quest specific rules can add many of the features people seem to be missing (for example, there could be an environmental effect which adds a requirement for stricter definition of LOS, or hidden tokens can spawn randomized monster groups, or even change the map layout, etc.)

Remember, there are only 3 large expansions and 3 small expansions. Granted that seems like tons of content, but I imagine they won't stop making content as long as it is there top selling board game. Plus, they have like 50 heroes from D1E that need to be updated in the hero/monster packs.

I see this game going until something like 2018-2020.

My two cents:

I hope they keep making a few more expansions for this game. My group loves it, even with a few flaws. It's fast, fun, and, overall, balanced. We just have a great time with it.

I'm concerned that nothing new has been announced for a few months. Manor of Ravens was announced months ago...and they've usually had something announced prior to the general release of a big box or small box expansion. Of course, I'm not counting the Hero and Monster collections.

I fear that they may be slowly dropping this in favor of Imperial Assault. Of course, I may just have to buy that one, too...

Remember, there are only 3 large expansions and 3 small expansions. Granted that seems like tons of content, but I imagine they won't stop making content as long as it is there top selling board game. Plus, they have like 50 heroes from D1E that need to be updated in the hero/monster packs.

I see this game going until something like 2018-2020.

There's a 3rd large box expansion? I only count 2, Labyrinth of Ruin and Shadow of Nerekhall. Am I missing something I should own?

You are not missing anything. I assume they are counting the base game as a big box. The following have been released (as I am sure you are well aware - but for others):

Base Game - Big box

Lair of the Wyrm - Small box

Labyrinth of Ruin - Big box

Trollfens - Small box

Shadows of Nerekhall - Big box

Manor of Ravens - Small box

You are not missing anything. I assume they are counting the base game as a big box. The following have been released (as I am sure you are well aware - but for others):

Base Game - Big box

Lair of the Wyrm - Small box

Labyrinth of Ruin - Big box

Trollfens - Small box

Shadows of Nerekhall - Big box

Manor of Ravens - Small box

In addition to those, there's the hero and monster packs (more are likely to be announced) and all of the lieutenant packs.

1st - FFG does not need to converte all Heroes and Monsters from 1e into H&MCollection

2nd - 2e at this point has more expansions then 1e ever had

3rd - it looks like they are slowing down the line, no new announcement - maybe after Crusade of The Forgotten we'll hear something

4th - remeber that FFG is always planing 2/3 years ahead when making a game

5th - if they see the potencial at maikng 3e then nothing will stand in there way to do that

6th - the game needs more variants of play and more bugs fixed. not nececerly every thing can fixed or added based on 2e and that could be a reason to make 3e

Just my personal opinion

I sincerely hope they're not going thinking of going to 3e so soon. Eventually, I'm sure it will happen, but it would be a bit soon right now, IMHO.

Of course, I'm also glad they've slowed up a bit on the expansions. It was getting to be a chore just keeping up with this game, and I had already written off the H&M packs since I own 1E already!

If they've decided to slow it down and just release 1 box per year (plus whatever H&Ms and LTs on the side), that's cool with me. Maybe they're putting more effort into the co-ops of late.

I doubt the game is finished just yet. Taking a breather, maybe, but not finished by a long shot.

I'm confused. What bugs are you talking about?

Will FFG plan for a 3rd edition at some point? Eventually, yes. Is this the answer you wanted to get? Not sure what your point is.

I really wonder why people think D2E is done. Right now the people demanding D3E are the people who openly criticize D2E's design (LoS, overlord, fixed map, which are all strong design choices, not bugs..), which are legion on these forums. But to me this point is applicable to any game you don't like whether it's had a short life or a long one. I don't understand why people feel the urge to press FFG for a third edition for a game that is completely fine. Like I said, if you don't like D2E then it's in your right to gather your points and put them forth to the community, but what I really dislike is the way it is put which forces the D2E players who like the game to rally to the idea that a 3rd edition is on its way while it's not. Don't force these people to think D2E is done. It might not be your intention but that´s how it looks like, combined with the rest of these other IA threads.

A non-debate in my opinion, at least until you can explain what you think are the inherent flaws of D2E or bugs that "require" a new edition so we can get rid of them (yeah, as if a new edition would magically sort everything out anyways...). I don't think everybody shares that idea of the game.

I'm confused. What bugs are you talking about?

Will FFG plan for a 3rd edition at some point? Eventually, yes. Is this the answer you wanted to get? Not sure what your point is.

I really wonder why people think D2E is done. Right now the people demanding D3E are the people who openly criticize D2E's design (LoS, overlord, fixed map, which are all strong design choices, not bugs..), which are legion on these forums. But to me this point is applicable to any game you don't like whether it's had a short life or a long one. I don't understand why people feel the urge to press FFG for a third edition for a game that is completely fine. Like I said, if you don't like D2E then it's in your right to gather your points and put them forth to the community, but what I really dislike is the way it is put which forces the D2E players who like the game to rally to the idea that a 3rd edition is on its way while it's not. Don't force these people to think D2E is done. It might not be your intention but that´s how it looks like, combined with the rest of these other IA threads.

A non-debate in my opinion, at least until you can explain what you think are the inherent flaws of D2E or bugs that "require" a new edition so we can get rid of them (yeah, as if a new edition would magically sort everything out anyways...). I don't think everybody shares that idea of the game.

I agree with much of what you say. In fact, one of the "reasons" that D2e was created in the first place was the perceived issues of D1e (of which it certainly had some).

The one area where I do disagree with you is your statement (or how I am interpreting it) that D2e does not have any issues/bugs/flaws/<insert some other synonym>.

Like any other complex game, it definitely has these. In my opinion, it has quite a number of them. There are things that could certainly use tweaking. To blindly state that it doesn't, and instead state they are simply "design choices", is just burying your head in the sand.

But that does not take away from the fact that it is a good game in its own right, with much time left in its life.

The one area where I do disagree with you is your statement (or how I am interpreting it) that D2e does not have any issues/bugs/flaws/<insert some other synonym>.

Like any other complex game, it definitely has these. In my opinion, it has quite a number of them. There are things that could certainly use tweaking. To blindly state that it doesn't, and instead state they are simply "design choices", is just burying your head in the sand.

Ok, let me clarify this.

I know there are a lot of things that need clarification, many interactions that are not obvious from the rules, unintuitive situations occur from time to time etc. I'm not blind to the fact FFG should at some point release a big errata/corrected cards for these situations to facilitate our future games, or at least centralize the information somewhere in a big handy document you can print out. This being said, these "issues" have never put me in a situation where I sat and considered stopping playing this game because it was too much for me to handle. I don't know, there is a lot of support to be found on the internet. Once you find the information, you're set.

I get that some of these situations can be annoying, like these one-sided quests for instance, but when you do the research, you almost always find that these quests can be done by both sides assuming the correct combination of abilities/heroes/monster choices is met. I know it's not comforting, but every quest cannot be made 50/50 sided I guess, but that's a good thing because it forces one side to go all-in. Since each game has its own setting, there will inevitably be quests of that kind, I guess. I mean, I don't think the game can be perfect considering all of these factors.

I guess there are also different levels of "bugs", but most of them I consider to be the result of the amazing number of abilities, equipments, quest settings and other combinations of things that is currently occupying 6 boxes on my shelf. I'm not saying some of these flaws are not obvious sometimes and shouldn't have been caught during the quality assurance process, but people need to realize that playing a game with many powers and infinite combinations of them is always going to lead to situations where players need to sit down and make a decision for lack of better guidance.

My point being that if you bar the very very few number of crazy situations (which you can house rule away if they're that bad), it comes down to your attitude towards the game. You can nit pick everything and demand a 3rd edition, or you can enjoy the game as it is and be prepared to make decisions during these tough calls. So yeah, I'm all ears to these "issues" but I don't need to bury my head into the sand if I am just prepared to meet these situations. Don´'t know if this clarified my view

Still, I really would like to know what's that "unbearable" with D2E for the people who think so.

The one area where I do disagree with you is your statement (or how I am interpreting it) that D2e does not have any issues/bugs/flaws/<insert some other synonym>.

Like any other complex game, it definitely has these. In my opinion, it has quite a number of them. There are things that could certainly use tweaking. To blindly state that it doesn't, and instead state they are simply "design choices", is just burying your head in the sand.

Ok, let me clarify this.

I know there are a lot of things that need clarification, many interactions that are not obvious from the rules, unintuitive situations occur from time to time etc. I'm not blind to the fact FFG should at some point release a big errata/corrected cards for these situations to facilitate our future games, or at least centralize the information somewhere in a big handy document you can print out. This being said, these "issues" have never put me in a situation where I sat and considered stopping playing this game because it was too much for me to handle. I don't know, there is a lot of support to be found on the internet. Once you find the information, you're set.

I get that some of these situations can be annoying, like these one-sided quests for instance, but when you do the research, you almost always find that these quests can be done by both sides assuming the correct combination of abilities/heroes/monster choices is met. I know it's not comforting, but every quest cannot be made 50/50 sided I guess, but that's a good thing because it forces one side to go all-in. Since each game has its own setting, there will inevitably be quests of that kind, I guess. I mean, I don't think the game can be perfect considering all of these factors.

I guess there are also different levels of "bugs", but most of them I consider to be the result of the amazing number of abilities, equipments, quest settings and other combinations of things that is currently occupying 6 boxes on my shelf. I'm not saying some of these flaws are not obvious sometimes and shouldn't have been caught during the quality assurance process, but people need to realize that playing a game with many powers and infinite combinations of them is always going to lead to situations where players need to sit down and make a decision for lack of better guidance.

My point being that if you bar the very very few number of crazy situations (which you can house rule away if they're that bad), it comes down to your attitude towards the game. You can nit pick everything and demand a 3rd edition, or you can enjoy the game as it is and be prepared to make decisions during these tough calls. So yeah, I'm all ears to these "issues" but I don't need to bury my head into the sand if I am just prepared to meet these situations. Don´'t know if this clarified my view

Still, I really would like to know what's that "unbearable" with D2E for the people who think so.

Fair enough ... and well stated.

For me, off of the top of my head, there are three major things that really annoy me with the game. I don't think they are bugs, but I also don't think they were well thought out.

First, LOS (line of sight). I don't like how it works. It causes far too many issues and/or situations that simply don't make any sense (when it comes to some things being in LOS and some not). I could probably write a book on this, but most of it has been hashed through before.

Second, I abhor how large based monsters move. The whole mechanic of shrinking/expanding and the result in additional, unforseen movement, is just plain stupid. I understand that this is probably one of those "design decisions", as most of the dungeons in D2e are far, far smaller than D1e. As a result, if they wanted large based monsters, they had to come up with a method that allows them to move within the smaller confines of corridors, dungeons, etc. Still, what they came up with is just plain bad. It also results in many conflicts with cards, abilities, etc., which in turn results in the need of multiple FAQ entries to address all of the issues. Not good.

Third, I really, really hate how one side can lose each and every encounter and/or quest, but win the finale, and thus win the game. This is a really, really bad design choice, and makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

I know that I have other issues as well, but those were just the ones off of the top of my head. When I spend more time thinking about it, I will create another post.

Despite all of the above, I know that no game is perfect, and I still do like D2e.

P.S. One last thing, and this is more to improve the game ... and quite frankly ALL FFG games. FFG needs to start putting an appendix in all of their rules called Definition of Terms . Then they need to fill that appendix with all major terms that they use in the game, and define them appropriately. This will allow them to expand on text on cards, base rules, etc. I think the inclusion of just this one thing would probably shrink their FAQs by 90%.

Definition of Terms .

For sure, that would be heavily necessary !

Thanks for explaining your view.

I also think some of the gameplay would have been much better (especially less prone to inbalance) had it been done a different way. I too have ideas about how this game could have been made better, and I would be really happy if some of these ideas were put to trial and represented in the next edition, but as for now I am globally happy with the game. It is currently keeping 9 persons (from different groups) on their toes, and they are asking for more.

I agree about the fairness issue of winning the campaign off the Finale alone. My view though is that even though it puts a bad taste in the mouth of both winner and loser, if you look retrospectively at the campaign as a whole and look for the epic moments you've had, I think there is still some satifaction to get out of the game. I like to win obviously, but I sleep better after a fierce fight I lost than a cheap win I got off Dash or a mistake from my opponents.

I guess there are also different levels of "bugs", but most of them I consider to be the result of the amazing number of abilities, equipments, quest settings and other combinations of things that is currently occupying 6 boxes on my shelf.

My point being that if you bar the very very few number of crazy situations (which you can house rule away if they're that bad), it comes down to your attitude towards the game. You can nit pick everything and demand a 3rd edition, or you can enjoy the game as it is and be prepared to make decisions during these tough calls.

First, LOS (line of sight). I don't like how it works. It causes far too many issues and/or situations that simply don't make any sense (when it comes to some things being in LOS and some not). I could probably write a book on this, but most of it has been hashed through before.

Second, I abhor how large based monsters move. The whole mechanic of shrinking/expanding and the result in additional, unforseen movement, is just plain stupid. I understand that this is probably one of those "design decisions", as most of the dungeons in D2e are far, far smaller than D1e.

Third, I really, really hate how one side can lose each and every encounter and/or quest, but win the finale, and thus win the game. This is a really, really bad design choice, and makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever.

FFG needs to start putting an appendix in all of their rules called Definition of Terms .

Not to jump in the middle of the conversation, but at the same time to do exactly that:

1) Indalecio, I agree- especially when you start combining the abilities from multiple expansions, there are going to be strange interactions that just aren't foreseen, and that's just a consequence of making a game with diverse abilities- however, those interactions are relatively rare, and for the most part, the game functions very well within a surprisingly simple framework.

2) Any2cards, regarding LOS- sure, there are a fair number of times when you say, "Jain should really be able to see that zombie," or, "really? Your archer can get a clean shot through the tails of those two huge dragons?" However, (and this is what I appreciate the most) in almost every situation (save those crazy things with the map edges,) there's no confusion over whether or not the rules say one figure has LOS on another, and it can be determined in a matter of seconds. The LOS system may not translate to reality well sometimes, but it's a breeze of a mechanic.

Regarding large monsters, same thing. I personally don't mind thinking of the shadow dragons just stepping around the heroes, and the "shrunk square" being where their feet land as they're moving, etc. The fact is that in order to use movement points at all, they have to be treated as a single square whilst moving. It can be annoying, but it keeps the overall movement system as clean as possible- during the move action itself, they work like any other figure. Sure, this can make a figure with 3 MP move quickly- but is that anything more than our brain saying "3 MP should be a slow creature, but why is it fast?" You may not like the design choice- but I submit that it's one of the simpler ways overall to deal with movement in small spaces, like you said.

Again, overall the decisions were geared to making the game easy to play, rather than necessarily making "realistic sense," when one came up against the other. I suppose being a physics person affects my outlook on this- mathematical models are used all the time- and when you're making them, you run up against the problem that reality is very complex, so you're faced with a choice. You can design the model to work well under certain conditions but fail in others and be relatively simple to use, or you can try and account for as many nuances and variables as possible, but this results in the model becoming sometimes ridiculously complex (there are calculations that run on super-computers for a year at a time.) D2E chose the simpler, gamer friendly route, and I think that was a good choice overall.

I personally love the way this game is based on the finale, because it mitigates the ups and downs of sometimes unbalanced quests. The Shadow Rune, at least, gives me the feeling of a rising threat of evil, and the heroes are fighting to stop it wherever they can- but there are too many plans in motion for them to even attempt to stop them all, because the OL's forces are just too numerous. However, along the way, each battle affects the next- and ultimately has an impact on the finale- whether it's powerful relics, the presence or absence of key lieutenants, or which quest it is that decides the fate of Terrinoth. The finale does not by any means exist in a vacuum- so the likelihood of the heroes losing every quest along the way and winning the finale (or the reverse) are very slim. I guess I'm very wordily saying that the entire campaign isn't decided by the finale, but rather the finale is partially decided by the entire campaign- and I think that's really cool.

Lastly, a definition of terms would be great . I've actually been thinking about trying to compile one of those myself- there are a few exceptions, but for the large majority, while these words haven't been explicitly defined we have enough information to do so.

I just wanted to post on this discussion for one reason.

Wow, this is the most pleasant and intellectual back and forth discussion I have seen on a board in a very long time.

Thank you for the views on all sides.

Co-op Descent is (and should be) the future

Co-op Descent is (and should be) the future

Is co-op better because there is no Overlord? Or do you mean the map should be random? Feel free to think any of this, but Descent 2E is not that game you wish it was. This said, I'm really glad the co-op expansion allows for meeting players' demands, like yours, but again, please respect the people who like D2E as it is and do not make these players believe Descent is done as a game, as if there would only be one possible direction for the game: the co-op direction. It's not. There IS a future for normal Descent 2E and assuming a vast majority of people would want the co-op direction to take over the game is a gross exageration. I'm really happy Forgotten Souls is having so much success and I hope it will promote D2E as a whole and not only the co-op elements of the game.

Gameplay-wise, D2E i far, far more modern than any Hero Quest, Warhammer Quest, even Myth or Arcadia Quest (which are in fact more recent) and the likes. The co-op expansion brings something more traditional to Descent. It doesn't mean the mechanisms are archaic or something, I'm sure it has its own modernity, but it's just a purely traditional way to play dungeon-crawls at its core. Therefore I strongly encourage people I know to try out D2E, because it's nothing like I´ve played before. It would be a shame if this game had to fall into darkness because people assume the only way to play dungeon crawls is to do it the traditional way.

I have no problems with people who think D2E is unsatisfying and wait for D3E or the co-op releases to take off, but I have a big problem with people who want to force their overly negative feeling about D2E upon the people who enjoy it. That's lame. It's great we can discuss and criticize, but the "D2E is dead/should be IA" people should keep their rant constructive and bear in mind the fact people come to these forums because the game is ALIVE. We're not here to convince players that they should stop having faith in D2E because "IA is soooo much better" or "co-op: the ONLY possible future for that wreck of a game". Seriously guys, shut up. At least here on the D2E forums.

If they announce something drastic like the 3rd edition or a 100% co-op direction for Descent then sure, let's talk about it. But for now people just assume things and I haven't got any indication that FFG would bury "classic D2E" for one or another reason.

I understand that you mean that co-op expansions should be promoted in the future, and I agree with that, but I strongly disagree that it should be done at the expense of the regular product line for Descent.

Likewise, I'm happy if Imperial Assault is doing well if it can promote Descent in form of getting positive influence out of other good mechanisms out there. This said I like the fact D2E is unique in its genra so blending it with other products or borrowing some gameplay elements might imply that the game loses a bit of her soul. I am no purist, in fact I would like this game to evolve as much as possible, but I would want it to keep its spirit. So yeah, you got it, what I cannot stand is the automatical dismissal/denial of D2E just because somebody think some other things might be cooler. It's fine to prefer other games over Descent, but you don't have to spit in other people's soup.

Co-op Descent is (and should be) the future

I can't disagree more ... I don't mind that a co-op version exists, but I absolutely don't want it to take away or eliminate the expansions for the main game. Having the option to play a co-op every once in a while is nice, but it absolutely is not why I got into this game in the first place.

In fact, it really can't be the reason anyone got into the game in the first place, as that option didn't exist to begin with.

Co-op Descent is (and should be) the future

I can't disagree more ... I don't mind that a co-op version exists, but I absolutely don't want it to take away or eliminate the expansions for the main game. Having the option to play a co-op every once in a while is nice, but it absolutely is not why I got into this game in the first place.

In fact, it really can't be the reason anyone got into the game in the first place, as that option didn't exist to begin with.

I share your situation as well.

Edited my previous post to explain my view a bit better.

And yes, I thought "how boring" when they released information about the co-op expansion. Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure I would enjoy playing a co-op game of Descent, I'm sure it is interesting and well-made, I have no doubts about that. I am happy FFG released it when I see how many people were asking for something of that kind. I just felt this way because I thought ah well, back to traditional dungeon crawl. I also like random maps and full co-op but I feel like there are a lot of other good games at it, and would rather keep Descent 2E as my little niche game with these awesome twists no other games have. Plus the minis can always be ported to any other game system I suppose.

I agree with both of you (Any2cards and Indalecio.) There's nothing wrong with co-op expansions, they provide a new way to enjoy Descent in a less antagonistic (or solo) setting- and that's great. However, for me, what makes this game is the strategic battle between a party of heroes and an intelligent, scheming, human OL. That's why I haven't yet bought the Co-op stuff (though I will at some point,) because that's not what draws me to this game. To see the game go in a primarily co-op direction would (to me) be a loss of a lot of what makes this game so attractive.

For anycards and Indalecio, overall I agree with your points - especially the definition of terms and enforcing they refer to them when writing cards (instead of writing the same description in different ways).

There will always be "bugs" in games, but in our circle we just put workarounds in to get around them. The great thing about boardgames is that ultimately the players control the experience, so if you dislike the line of sight rules or find an ability over powered you can just house rule over them. It's crazy to keep playing with rules all the players don't like or are overpowered for a particular player and reduce the fun of the game just because they are RAW.

I love the fact that Descent is so open, there is even a quest creator that encourages us to make our own content.

I doubt that 2e is finished just yet, and 3e will be a long way in the making. I believe they will get feedback from IA to use base 3e on, which I would assume will be a couple of years yet. I believe their resource pool will be stretched between Descent and IA so things might slow down a bit. I hope I am wrong, but I can handle a slow down as FFG have done a fantastic job at getting the extra content out.