Got my core set a couple of days ago and after sifting thought the rules and contents sat down this afternoon to take my first run with the game. I did the learn to play mission and then read the skirmish rules. Honestly, I'll probably never play the campaign stuff. If I want to do that, I'll just dig out my d20 RPG books. It was the same reason I passed on Descent. Why wold I want to play a limiting combat scenario when I can get far more flexibility in full-on rollaying? Maybe as my kid gets older, this will be a fun distraction to ease him into RPG gaming, but that's a long way off.

But the skirmish game on the other hand....

I've been excited for this from the moment I talked to the designers about it at GenCon, and the rules for it do not disappoint. It looks really well balanced and offers the tactical component the old WotC game seemed to miss with its beer and pretzels approach.

But the skirmish game on the other hand....

I've been excited for this from the moment I talked to the designers about it at GenCon, and the rules for it do not disappoint. It looks really well balanced and offers the tactical component the old WotC game seemed to miss with its beer and pretzels approach.

Which part adds that tactical element? The mission-centered nature? The Command Deck? Both? I'm curious to hear more of your thoughts on this.

I was with him for this conversation at Gencon; we're both SWM players. I think he means the maneuvering and shooting and out-strategizing and out-flanking kind of thing. The missions and command decks are both tactical elements that (IMHO) lift this game above what SWM could ever have been.

Honestly, I'll probably never play the campaign stuff. If I want to do that, I'll just dig out my d20 RPG books. It was the same reason I passed on Descent. Why wold I want to play a limiting combat scenario when I can get far more flexibility in full-on rollaying?

Actually, for the same reasons you gave later on : Descent offers a lot more tactical options than a RPG, and much more tension too, because there is no way to circumvent the fact that dying in an RPG is an arbitrary thing (ie : the opponents are chosen by the GM, and he can alter the dice, change whatever parameter suits him). So basically, dying in an RPG is akin to be punished by the GM for taking actions he deemed inappropriate.

On the other hand, a pure dungeon crawler (Hero Quest, Warhammer Quest, Descent...) does not allow the "Dungeon Master" to take arbitrary decisions. He too has to follow a set of rules, so the results are much "purer" : ie, if you die, it is for the same reasons you lose in a skirmish game (balance, luck, and skill), and has nothing to do with pissing the GM off or not.

So basically, even though some RPGs offer almost as much tactical options as Descent (Heavy Gear, maybe D20 3.5 if you play a caster), tactics is much less important than in Descent (as it will be the main factor in your success or demise).

That said, the watering down that resulted in Descent 2 made things much harder to decide : Descent 2 ended up (IMHO) with much less tactical depth than Descent RTL, which made it much harder to pick over a RPG IMO.

I personnaly hope that Imperial Assault will bring back most of the tension of Descent RTL (my main hopes were the more sensible reinforcement system, and the permadeath for heroes), because I already have too many 1v1 games compared to the times I get one on the table.