Co-op play is SO important these days for dungeon crawlers. It is almost the norm now. Co-op also allows proper SOLO play. Descent got with the times with it's Road to Legend app. Doom better do the same otherwise it's a no-go for me and probably A LOT of other board gamers.

Who else here agrees that a Co-op app is very important for this game?

It's completely dependent on the vision of the designer. It can be argued the Imperial Assault would not be the same game if there wasn't an Imperial Player. It wouldn't have the same atmosphere or same complexity involved in reinforcing and defending/attacking with the Imperials and also upgrading them over the course of the campaign, because you can't design well functioning AI in a board game to work with all of those other mechanics in play without probably being extremely clunky or tedious or killing some of the strategy and choice. You should probably be expecting this same approach to DOOM. There's going to be a competitive element to it because that's what the designers wanted out of the game. Of course, it can be argued that DOOM may not require the same level of decision making as Imperial Assault from the bad guys, but it really remains to be seen.

Having a solo option is certainly important, but I won't expect that all existing games now turn to full coop. It's nice to have some variety, and I'll be getting the game regardless of the app.

Clearly, the more options a game has, the better, but still, I would not expect now that normality = app

My group has pretty much abandoned the 1 vs. Many style of games in favor of pure co-op, but that doesn't mean that those style of games aren't still appealing to others. I'm still looking at this pretty hard, even though it will probably be a hard sell with my current set of players.

I'm sure there will be some coop variant posted on BGG. If they managed to create solo version for games like Imperial Assault or Android: Netrunner, I don't see why they shouldn't create something for Doom as well. After all, it's still a loved IP

Co-op play is SO important these days for dungeon crawlers. It is almost the norm now. Co-op also allows proper SOLO play. Descent got with the times with it's Road to Legend app. Doom better do the same otherwise it's a no-go for me and probably A LOT of other board gamers.

Who else here agrees that a Co-op app is very important for this game?

Co-op dungeon crawlers have been a fad for the last five years or so, but that hardly makes them "the norm." Competitive games still have their place in this genre, as any other.

I'm sure there are plenty of gamers who wouldn't be interested in this game without a solo option, but I'm equally sure there are plenty who would be. I've seen far worse games succeed with far greater oversights in their design than this.

Don't worry though, I'm sure there are plenty of other games to keep you busy.

Agreed, Coop is key if I want to play with casual friends and family.

Honestly I really dislike Co-op. I prefer to smash heroes and bully them.

I think there is nothing better than knowing three turns ahead that the heroes won't win anymore and that you could finish them right now with a mighty blast (like in Descent) but letting them try to give their best and if you are merciful you let'em win.

Also I am not a big fan of fighting a boardgame together (unless you can make your playmates worse of so that in the end you are the only one left) since it's boring as heaven and hell. If there is an option for single player or pure co-op it's fine for me but I wouldn't use it.

So it's okay if you don't wanna buy it if there is no co-op mode against a fictive foe. There is sth out now which will satisfy your preferences - it's called Mansion of Madness 2nd ed.

i wouldn't mind the 1vsMany style if the games were actually balanced.

Ive played with numerous people and ever since Descent first edition Road to Legend and all the 1vsMany Fantasy Flight games ive played have been drastically favored to the solo player. After a while it just gets to the point its not even worth trying anymore. And why I will be making a pass on this game.

Honestly, Road to Legend was rather off balance in favour of the Heroes, to the point that the highest level of the campaign was almost worthless to play...

Honestly, Road to Legend was rather off balance in favour of the Heroes, to the point that the highest level of the campaign was almost worthless to play...

if heroes ever managed to get to gold level yes this could be the case. But pre tomb of ice (so no feats) and OL going eldrich silver skeleton rush with double crushing blow was a straight joke. Yes i know crushing blow was eventually limited but it was well after we had played out RtL.

and why would an OL seeking to win ever NOT go that cheese.

You are not gonna stop 4 lieutenants, with each encounter destroying two items on the party. You just aren't going to win the campaign before they eventually take the main city. in the 20+ campaigns i started heroes never won once. Not. Once. And I played with a group of 9 people, cycling various ones in and out in different roles and campaigns. So it wasn't always the same OL or heroes etc.

I see, thanks for sharing the experience. I don't have your bag of knowledge of the AC to actually be able to answer these points; I played a lot Descent not in a campaign mode but I imagine this was different.

Anyhoo, I hope 10+ years of development brought this type of game to better levels both in terms of balance and testing

I see, thanks for sharing the experience. I don't have your bag of knowledge of the AC to actually be able to answer these points; I played a lot Descent not in a campaign mode but I imagine this was different.

Anyhoo, I hope 10+ years of development brought this type of game to better levels both in terms of balance and testing

One can dream.

But if imperial assault is any indicator i doubt it. It was almost as badly swayed toward IMPS again. If not more so.

Ive started to think the FFG playtesters just do something completely different than the standard player. Or they pull some really weird cheesyness. (like warriors dual weilding shields in descent. I mean cmon....) Or maybe its having extra knowledge to hidden mission information. (that was definitely a huge issue in imperial assault)

Whatever the case, I just know this is a common and consistent problem with all FFG 1vsMany games.

I kind of wish this new Doom game turned the 1vsMany aspect on its head and went for a TRUE Doom experience...

One player is the ultra badass Doomguy/Doom Marine/Doom Slayer (he has many nicknames in the new game)
and every other player has a selection of demons at his/her disposal.

I'm still holding out hope that FFG will release a Doom Slayer miniature down the line for this game, because you can guarantee that I'll make houserules so what I just suggested can be a thing.

Honestly, Road to Legend was rather off balance in favour of the Heroes, to the point that the highest level of the campaign was almost worthless to play...

if heroes ever managed to get to gold level yes this could be the case. But pre tomb of ice (so no feats) and OL going eldrich silver skeleton rush with double crushing blow was a straight joke. Yes i know crushing blow was eventually limited but it was well after we had played out RtL.

I take it your hero group(s) never stumbled upon the "get halfway decent Silver gear and then hide in a dungeon until the final fight begins" exploit to RtL1E.

It was super-cheesy - probably the single cheesiest board game exploit I've ever seen - and pretty much everyone online unilaterally agreed to ban its use as poor form, however, it was legal by RAW and it didn't even give the OL a sporting chance at victory.

Ive started to think the FFG playtesters just do something completely different than the standard player. Or they pull some really weird cheesyness. (like warriors dual weilding shields in descent. I mean cmon....) Or maybe its having extra knowledge to hidden mission information. (that was definitely a huge issue in imperial assault)

Based on my experience, I think it more likely that their playtesters don't pull any weird cheesiness. They just sit down and follow the most obvious "happy path" through each quest until it seems reasonably well balanced. Then the game gets released and all the gamers who care enough to really think through the corner cases get their hands on it, and things go downhill ridiculously fast. Then the game becomes a mess in FAQ as FFG desperately tries to address all the weird-ass questions we come up with.

I kind of wish this new Doom game turned the 1vsMany aspect on its head and went for a TRUE Doom experience...

One player is the ultra badass Doomguy/Doom Marine/Doom Slayer (he has many nicknames in the new game)

and every other player has a selection of demons at his/her disposal.

That could be very interesting, indeed. It could even work as a homebrew in DooM 1E, since there's 3 sets of demon colours... Oooh.... >: )

I'm still holding out hope that FFG will release a Doom Slayer miniature down the line for this game, because you can guarantee that I'll make houserules so what I just suggested can be a thing.

How would this Doom Slaywer mini be any different than the UAC marine figures already provided? No helmet? You could probably mod that easily enough by cutting the head off your favourite marine and replacing it with a 40K marine head or something...

Honestly, Road to Legend was rather off balance in favour of the Heroes, to the point that the highest level of the campaign was almost worthless to play...

if heroes ever managed to get to gold level yes this could be the case. But pre tomb of ice (so no feats) and OL going eldrich silver skeleton rush with double crushing blow was a straight joke. Yes i know crushing blow was eventually limited but it was well after we had played out RtL.

I take it your hero group(s) never stumbled upon the "get halfway decent Silver gear and then hide in a dungeon until the final fight begins" exploit to RtL1E.

It was super-cheesy - probably the single cheesiest board game exploit I've ever seen - and pretty much everyone online unilaterally agreed to ban its use as poor form, however, it was legal by RAW and it didn't even give the OL a sporting chance at victory.

we knew of it. But my group (thankfully) avoids the ultra cheesy and non-intended style of playing. Mostly because if someone started to pull something like that we'd all just stop playing anyway lol. So for the sake of keeping the game going, we don't do things like that.

Although double crushing blow was debatably house ruled to 1 long before the nerf, and simply depended on the group playing at the time to decide. Toward the later life of our games though it was usually reduced to 1 before the FAQ did it officially.

I m not bothered about games having apps. I can usually design some way to play solo or coop with out the digital age. One aspect of software is at some point it will stop being supported and get left behind. If your enjoyment is relying entirely on the support of a app it will have a life span. Where as I have games over 25 year's old that I can still play with equal enjoyment from the first day I started playing them. I don't buy games that require apps to play for this reason, but welcome apps that enhance game play as long as they are either free or have a reasonable price.

Yes, yes FFG please do release a co-op app! I own the 2004 edition and it's expansion and have no intention of buying this edition, so free apps are always great. I wouldn't even mind if I had to change some rules on the fly to compensate for differences in the newer edition. Heck I'd even pay a nominal fee for said app. Bottom line, anything would be an improvement over the unbalanced 1VsMany of the original.

If this game has an app for the Invader then I will definitely purchase it. Descent engendered too much animosity towards the Overlord player that it soured the mood of the session until that wonderful app Road to Legend came out. Plus, it's DOOM! It screams for a satisfying solo mode. Without an app I will regretfully skip this release.

I m not bothered about games having apps. I can usually design some way to play solo or coop with out the digital age. One aspect of software is at some point it will stop being supported and get left behind. If your enjoyment is relying entirely on the support of a app it will have a life span. Where as I have games over 25 year's old that I can still play with equal enjoyment from the first day I started playing them. I don't buy games that require apps to play for this reason, but welcome apps that enhance game play as long as they are either free or have a reasonable price.

Yes, this! I am sure we could work out the rules again with Golem Arcana, but those pieces will likely never see the light of day again. Not to mention the wands have probably had batteries die in them. I don't mind some app support, but I don't want an app to be required.

I m not bothered about games having apps. I can usually design some way to play solo or coop with out the digital age. One aspect of software is at some point it will stop being supported and get left behind. If your enjoyment is relying entirely on the support of a app it will have a life span. Where as I have games over 25 year's old that I can still play with equal enjoyment from the first day I started playing them. I don't buy games that require apps to play for this reason, but welcome apps that enhance game play as long as they are either free or have a reasonable price.

The fact that I can still play computer games I bought in 1994 means I don't think we really need to worry about the longevity of access to the board games that use an app.

I believe in games like this you Neff am overlord. The overlord is like a GM. He must keep the game engaging, have them on their toes.

I believe in games like this you Neff am overlord. The overlord is like a GM. He must keep the game engaging, have them on their toes.

Nope. Not this game. I have played it five times as the Invaders now and you have to be outright murderous and use every single underhanded tactic you can employ every single turn or else you aren't going to get the kills needed to win. The marines have plenty of options to heal in the game. Especially if someone is playing as a medic. Meanwhile your options are to just attack, attack, attack and try to whittle those health pools down.

The space marines are overpowered to the point of insanity with a single marine easily dropping multiple opponents per turn if they pick up something like a chainsaw or chaingun. The game loves to kick out imps as the main spawn but their health pool is ridiculously bad and if they take one point of damage they can be glory killed.

You have a very, very simple goal as the Invader player, kill the space marines, but they don't make it easy to accomplish at all.

If you up against a solo marine, god help you because you are essentially playing against Doomguy (one extra action per turn, double HP, one extra card in hand, two cards in the initiative stack). You can clog the board with minis and he will just keep on mowing them down. In the event you do manage to drop him, he just comes back angrier than ever.

A human player is a much tougher opposition than an app. You just need to find a brilliant, cold, cruel and mercyless bastard to make your road to hell much more painfull (and interesting).

Regards from Buenos Aires, Juan Pablo.

Game is fun as leader of the demons. It would be way different if an AI had control. It would have to know when to play cards, to stand on medkits to make things harder, etc. Deckbuilding is important too, particularly when the number of players varies.