It's official, imperial assault is a better game than descent 2nd edition.
At least according to the rankings on board game geek.
I encourage all players to rate the game, honestly, on BGG.
A good rating will increase sales, which will increase the amount of support FFG give this game.
That's because it's true. IA is a better game than D2e.
IA has many changes that are both a direct result of and would directly benefit Descent 2e.
Plus, ummm, Star Wars?
IA has many changes that are both a direct result of and would directly benefit Descent 2e.
See, I don't get all this "successor" talk. The true successor of D2e will be D3e, not IA. IA is a cousin, not a son of D2e.
IA is a game that was inspired by D2e but then followed its own path, using Star Wars as a theme.
Putting the changes from IA into Descent would make it a different game altogether, but not necessary a better game.
If you are talking about specific changes only, please list them here.
Edited by GridashI believe the more reactive gameplay (individual unit activation flipping between the opposing sides) is a better design, and not indicative of, or owing to, a particular setting or genre. It seems a small tweak, but definitely seems to keep the players more engaged throughout a round. I think this may be a big reason why IA is near a full point above D2e over at BGG.
While it's an interesting feature on its own and a refreshing change from the way D2e does it, I'm not really convinced that it has the impact that some people claim it to have.
Waiting time has the potential to go up, not down, making the game less engaging. You have to decide which Rebel to move first, which one has the most advantageous position. The IP player still activates a group of minions at once, etc.
So you end up having have less control therefore more potential analysis paralysis, unless you play with a group that that plays by gut feeling/knows the game well enough to avoid number crunching, but that also applies to D2e.
What I actually believe that makes the game more engaging for certain people is a combination of changes they did to IA. For instance, there are no Overlord cards or dynamically assigned Hero class cards. (Edit: And limited map exposure means less things to take into account when doing turns). Less things to take into consideration allows for quicker games, BUT that also gives D2e more depth in a certain sense.
Some people prefer product A, others prefer product B. I actually like them both.
Taking the separate activations and putting it into D2e without any other changes (and I'm not talking about map/scenario balance) would actually slow the game down. It's part of a set of features in IA.
Edited by GridashI like both games but I firmly believe that IA is better.
The big improvements for me are hero's that can die, side missions and the threat/reinforcement mechanic.
I like both games but I firmly believe that IA is better.
The big improvements for me are hero's that can die, side missions and the threat/reinforcement mechanic.
Sure, everybody has their preferences. IA does things in a different way than D2e. I find the threat/reinforcement mechanic more fitting for a Star Wars game, since you get the feeling of having an endless amount of enemy troops pouring in while your team desperately tries to fulfill their objectives. The threat level shifts from mission to mission giving more reinforcements over time.
Not so with Descent, it would work but I prefer having Overlord cards there and its current reinforcement system. The amount of minions is more limited there but the Overlord cards make it very tactical. It gives both games a distinct feeling.
Edited by GridashSame with IMDB, just because more people like it better doesn't necessarily make it "better".
As an example, the Dark Knight was an amazing movie, but it was hyped beyond reason on imdb (and held first place for quite some time) simply because of one of the main actors died.
Boardgame fans might have a more distuingished taste than people watching movies because it's less work to watch a movie than to read the rules for a board game and play it but even on BGG you get people up- or downvoting games based solely on internet reviews, fandom and or title.
Yes, don't underestimate the theme here. I'm neutral towards Star Wars, it's not bad but I'm more of a Warhammer40k person when it comes to my cup of science fiction.
I think the theme does a lot to make people "like" the game better. That's at least 1 point on BGG.
There are a massive amount of people who give the game a 10. To me people who give out 10s are just fanboys since no game is perfect. Ironically out of the 1809 people who voted, 532 people gave the game a 10. Almost a third of the votes.
Edited by GridashYes, don't underestimate the theme here. I'm neutral towards Star Wars, it's not bad but I'm more of a Warhammer40k person when it comes to my cup of science fiction.
I think the theme does a lot to make people "like" the game better. That's at least 1 point on BGG.
There are a massive amount of people who give the game a 10. To me people who give out 10s are just fanboys since no game is perfect. Ironically out of the 1809 people who voted, 532 people gave the game a 10. Almost a third of the votes.
Maybe a 10/10 is a game that a player feels is better than their 9/10 games. Giving a game a high or perfect rating doesn't make one a fanboy...
Yes, don't underestimate the theme here. I'm neutral towards Star Wars, it's not bad but I'm more of a Warhammer40k person when it comes to my cup of science fiction.
I think the theme does a lot to make people "like" the game better. That's at least 1 point on BGG.
There are a massive amount of people who give the game a 10. To me people who give out 10s are just fanboys since no game is perfect. Ironically out of the 1809 people who voted, 532 people gave the game a 10. Almost a third of the votes.
Maybe a 10/10 is a game that a player feels is better than their 9/10 games. Giving a game a high or perfect rating doesn't make one a fanboy...
True, not necessary, but it's most likely the case, especially with a theme like Star Wars.
And hey, I would probably do the same if it was a Warhammer40k theme, but these are emotional votes that don't say anything objectively about the actual gameplay/mechanics of a game. Whether we realize it or not, we're all influenced by this and I think it is a serious influence in case of IA.
Thinking about this more, maybe we should look at the "better game" part of the OP's post. What makes a game better? Some people think solely gameplay/mechanics but the truth is that a game also includes theme, and it's the theme that carries IA to be a "better" game, because the fanbase of Star Wars is just bigger than Descent. There is a reason why FFG is so heavily invested in Star Wars.
If you were to strip out the theme, replace every miniature by a dull pawn, replace every map piece by the same dull texture, strip every card of its flavor text, etc and do this for both games, the gameplay/mechanics wouldn't really be that decisive in determining what game is the "better" game.
The theme is what is most likely making IA a "better" game and fans are part of that. So yes, a third of the votes being 10/10 is VERY likely to be heavily influenced by the theme.
To further differentiate between both games, let's us just conclude that IA is the better thematic game . Descent doesn't have such a rich background, there is no EU or lore that goes all the way back to 1977, nor people that have been fans for decades.
IA beats Descent theme wise hands down, but that's no surprise at all. Warhammer(40k), Star Wars, ... these are all behemoths when it comes down to theme. So bravo, IA beats Descent on BGG, but don't mind me not being impressed there with that kind of accomplishment.
Seriously, what did you expect?
Edited by GridashAs a player (both as hero and overlord) of Descent 1 and Descent 2e, and as an Imperial player in IA, here are some of the changes IA made to the D2e core mechanics that I feel are better.
Alternating Activations: This mechanic gives the game a much more "real time" feel than the wave of hero activations followed by a wave of monster activations. You mention analysis paralysis, but in my experience, this is a much better than watching the heroes not give a crap who goes first, wiping a bunch of monsters off the table and then watching the remaining monsters react to that. Plus, it adds a much more robust tactical element to the game where final position is important, and big gambles can pay off big, or can have devastating effects.
Lack of a hand of dirty tricks: IA has all the dirty tricks baked into the missions, no hand of cards required. This is a huge time saver. There are only so many rocks you can drop, pit traps you can expose, or other traps (like my taking control of a hero to smack another hero) you can spring in the middle of nowhere where it just seems like the Overload is just being a d-bag. IA's scripted events all flow from a narrative, and while there are certainly some d-bag moves in there, they all seem justified.
"Monsters" actually matter: Both D2 and D2e suffer from the "hordes of monsters that nobody gives a crap about, they're gonna all die, and I am going to replace them anyway" mentality. IA's threat system generates at a constant rate, and you aren't ditching cards from your hand to build up more threat. The pace is measured, and the actions you take as the Imperial player often reflect the fact that a living "monster" is still a big enough threat to the heroes than a dead one.
"Skirmish Mode" : There is no analog for Descent, but the fact that they were able to design this into IA is completely awesome. Would something like this even work in Descent?
"Player Defeat" : IA handles "defeat" much differently than Descent does. Descent 1 monetized player defeat for the Overlord, which tended to result in the Overlord continually finding the weakest member of the group and focusing fire on that one repeatedly. Descent 2e made the mistake of allowing player to recover from defeat, but situations would often arise where a few monsters could easily defeat the hero again, leaving him stuck in his own space. The option was available for a second hero to help another hero recover from defeat, but that hero was often so wounded that it was too easy for the Overlord to defeat that player again. IA lacks a "healer" class, and as such, gives the heroes themselves an action to recover strain(fatigue) and ultimately, damage. Victory conditions for the Imperial player are often "wounding" all the rebels, so they have to be mindful of their health and act appropriately.
Those are just the big ones that stand out. There are many more reasons I can go into later. But I can tell you that in my gaming group, Descent has pretty much been shelved in favor of IA.
Edited by FizzAlternating Activations: This mechanic gives the game a much more "real time" feel than the wave of hero activations followed by a wave of monster activations. You mention analysis paralysis, but in my experience, this is a much better than watching the heroes not give a crap who goes first, wiping a bunch of monsters off the table and then watching the remaining monsters react to that. Plus, it adds a much more robust tactical element to the game where final position is important, and big gambles can pay off big, or can have devastating effects.
Not sure in what kind of a group you were playing if your heroes were "not giving a crap" about who goes first. Synergies are very important in Descent so moving together as a team is key, plus you don't know what cards the Overlord has so this is a big exaggeration.
Lack of a hand of dirty tricks: IA has all the dirty tricks baked into the missions, no hand of cards required. This is a huge time saver. There are only so many rocks you can drop, pit traps you can expose, or other traps (like my taking control of a hero to smack another hero) you can spring in the middle of nowhere where it just seems like the Overload is just being a d-bag. IA's scripted events all flow from a narrative, and while there are certainly some d-bag moves in there, they all seem justified.
Yes, scripted events. What happens the next time you play the scenario? IA is balanced around the hidden information that only the IP has access to, until you finally played the scenario. Afterwards you'll know exactly which door leads to where, what kind of minion deployment there is, what was scripted, etc.
Descent benefits from an open map structure where both teams can plot accordingly, some people miss the dungeon delving aspect of D1e, but I think this just gives more tactical options to D2e and it increases replay-ability.
There are plenty of options for the Overlord to mix & match his deck of Overlord cards to give a wide varieties of game effects. There is no such thing in IA, which makes the game quicker, less things to have to take into consideration, but it also gives Descent more depth. It hardly becomes as dull as you've mentioned.
The heroes in D2e experience a certain sense of paranoia, like "we could move through there, but what if he plays this card or that, etc".
Fine you don't like this aspect, but it's not because you dislike this feature that it's a bad feature.
"Monsters" actually matter: Both D2 and D2e suffer from the "hordes of monsters that nobody gives a crap about, they're gonna all die, and I am going to replace them anyway" mentality. IA's threat system generates at a constant rate, and you aren't ditching cards from your hand to build up more threat. The pace is measured, and the actions you take as the Imperial player often reflect the fact that a living "monster" is still a big enough threat to the heroes than a dead one.
Oh please. In all these games (D1e, D2e or IA), monsters ARE merely tools for accomplishing your objective. That didn't change in IA at all so this a moot point. Also FYI, you can't ditch cards from your hand in D2e either to get more monsters and there are no spawn cards. You're clearly referencing D1e, but we're not talking about D1e here are we now?
"Skirmish Mode" : There is no analog for Descent, but the fact that they were able to design this into IA is completely awesome. Would something like this even work in Descent?
They managed to create a pretty good solo version of the game so who knows?
"Player Defeat" : IA handles "defeat" much differently than Descent does. Descent 1 monetized player defeat for the Overlord, which tended to result in the Overlord continually finding the weakest member of the group and focusing fire on that one repeatedly. Descent 2e made the mistake of allowing player to recover from defeat, but situations would often arise where a few monsters could easily defeat the hero again, leaving him stuck in his own space. The option was available for a second hero to help another hero recover from defeat, but that hero was often so wounded that it was too easy for the Overlord to defeat that player again. IA lacks a "healer" class, and as such, gives the heroes themselves an action to recover strain(fatigue) and ultimately, damage. Victory conditions for the Imperial player are often "wounding" all the rebels, so they have to be mindful of their health and act appropriately.
Trying to kill weaker heroes isn't really as beneficial as you might think since it only takes 1 action to bring said hero back on his feet. It's better to focus on your objective at hand UNLESS some dare devil hero such as a runner ventures too far away from the main group, usually going for the loot. That's also what usually triggers a party wipe. Tsk tsk, greedy heroes.
Look, we can compare features all day long and make claims to what game is better, but ultimately it's what you personally like and dislike. We're not talking about broken features here, these are merely twists of similar features that you personally like better. Good for you !
Yeah, I wasn't trying to convert anyone. And I am not saying D# is a bad game. Merely that we have outgrown it, and find IA to be far more enjoyable. Since I enjoy it more, that makes it better.
Your results may vary.
Edited by FizzYeah, haven't played a lot yet, but the analysis paralysis hasn't felt as severe... or present. My group has been working as a team to formulate a plan, and so they all feel engaged. As I listen in on their plans, I am entertained. As I'm the only one making a decision for the Empire, my activations move along at an acceptable pace. The game has felt more chess-like to me than D2 ever did, but that may change as we head deeper into the campaign. I think the replayability exists, but the game will take on a different dynamic once the surprises are mitigated.
Edited by shaddai