The point was that they are likely going to be gun shy about publishing on a license after being burned twice now. Hence the thought that the next thing we will see is them outright buying a game system and/or setting as opposed to licensing.

1 hour ago, Joelist said:

The point was that they are likely going to be gun shy about publishing on a license after being burned twice now. Hence the thought that the next thing we will see is them outright buying a game system and/or setting as opposed to licensing.

I don't think that's true at all. One of the issues with buying a license is finding a company that wants to sell the license and make a lump sum rather than long term profits with little to no risk. FFG is hardly going to say no to licenses the size of Star Wars, because they can easily make their money back during the terms of the license even though there is NO way they could afford to purchase the setting. If the SW license doesn't renew for some reason, then they move onto the next games (and see how they can salvage something from the cancelled games once any delays built into the license agreement expire) but they certainly aren't going to be able to BUY the rights.

Rumor has it that the GW license was not renewed by FFG/Asmodee, probably to focus more of their other lines of products, especially the Star Wars license judging by how much that seems to have grown since the ending of the agreement of GW.

On the other hand, Netrunner was lost as WotC would not renew. However, they do still have the Android setting (FFG produced a board game called Android in 2008, four years before they obtained the Netrunner license), they just can't produce the Netrunner card game, or (likely) any card games closely resembling it. This could be because WotC say that FFG made Netrunner profitable again and wants to do their own re-release of the game, WotC has some other company interested in purchasing the agreement, or just because WotC/Hasbro (parent corporation of WotC) is starting to view FFG as competition, and wants to take a property away. Regardless, it's not like FFG didn't make a fair amount of money during the length of the license.

6 hours ago, Caimheul1313 said:

This could be because WotC say that FFG made Netrunner profitable again and wants to do their own re-release of the game, WotC has some other company interested in purchasing the agreement, or just because WotC/Hasbro (parent corporation of WotC) is starting to view FFG as competition, and wants to take a property away.

That's where my money goes. Hasbro, through acquisitions of the major game companies, essentially owned the games aisles at Walmart and the like for a long time. But they haven't innovated much, and as a result, they've lost out on the gaming growth in non-traditional-big-box retail, and with some of its recent acquisitions, Asmodee has started to make inroads into the big-box stores, as well, with some of their titles (Catan, Ticket to Ride, etc.) outselling some of the old staples that Hasbro has run for decades.

So as someone who knows nothing about the old Warhammer game this is supposedly based on, can someone explain to me how this is not just Descent 2E but without the grid or Overlord?

That's not a slight BTW. I'm intrigued by this game and want to know if my perception is correct.

3 hours ago, Pollux85 said:

So as someone who knows nothing about the old Warhammer game this is supposedly based on, can someone explain to me how this is not just Descent 2E but without the grid or Overlord?

Um... well, to begin with, it's 2 player only, player vs. player. And you have armies, instead of skirmish-level units, which you can build in whatever way you please, up to a certain point limit.

But the biggest noticeable difference are the command tools. Instead of taking turns moving your pieces, at the start of the turn, each of you give your units orders for what they're going to do that turn. Each action has a speed associated with it, and both players do all the speed-1 programmed actions first, then the speed-2, then speed-3, up to speed-9. This leads to a fog-of-war approach, where you may well find out that the move you thought was wonderful wasn't, because your opponent did something you didn't plan on (or because you simply screwed up).

Each unit type has a different set of commands and abilities available to them. So, for instance, your zombie figures tend to move shorter distances (and at a later initiative), and attack at slower speeds than most other units. The elves tend to have a lot of maneuverability options than other units. The knights are better at getting rid of panic than other units. And so forth.

And, of course, you can customize the units you have. What you can add to the unit depends on the unit. For instance, some of your army types can get musician upgrades, some can't, and some can only get them if they're big enough. There are also upgrades for training, equipment, heraldry, champions and other special units, artifacts, and upgrades specific to individual units only.

Ignore this, for some reason, I mixed up which forum I was in. This is a description of Runewars Miniatures Game, not HoT.

36 minutes ago, Xelto said:

Um... well, to begin with, it's 2 player only, player vs. player. And you have armies, instead of skirmish-level units, which you can build in whatever way you please, up to a certain point limit.

But the biggest noticeable difference are the command tools. Instead of taking turns moving your pieces, at the start of the turn, each of you give your units orders for what they're going to do that turn. Each action has a speed associated with it, and both players do all the speed-1 programmed actions first, then the speed-2, then speed-3, up to speed-9. This leads to a fog-of-war approach, where you may well find out that the move you thought was wonderful wasn't, because your opponent did something you didn't plan on (or because you simply screwed up).

Each unit type has a different set of commands and abilities available to them. So, for instance, your zombie figures tend to move shorter distances (and at a later initiative), and attack at slower speeds than most other units. The elves tend to have a lot of maneuverability options than other units. The knights are better at getting rid of panic than other units. And so forth.

And, of course, you can customize the units you have. What you can add to the unit depends on the unit. For instance, some of your army types can get musician upgrades, some can't, and some can only get them if they're big enough. There are also upgrades for training, equipment, heraldry, champions and other special units, artifacts, and upgrades specific to individual units only.

Wait I'm confused. The announcement page clearly says it's for up to 4 players who each control a single hero.

51 minutes ago, Pollux85 said:

Wait I'm confused. The announcement page clearly says it's for up to 4 players who each control a single hero.

Oops, wrong game. For some reason, I thought I was in the Runewars Miniatures Game forum, because I've been hanging out there, and Descent is far more like RMG than it is to Heroes of Terrinoth. Even though they're not all that close.

This game has little in common with Descent. They will share some of the characters (both heroes and villains) and the general dungeon-crawl feeling, but this game has cards only, no figures or maps. It's fully co-op, not all vs. 1.

4 hours ago, Pollux85 said:

So as someone who knows nothing about the old Warhammer game this is supposedly based on, can someone explain to me how this is not just Descent 2E but without the grid or Overlord?

That's not a slight BTW. I'm intrigued by this game and want to know if my perception is correct.

So FFG actually still hosts the rules for the WHQCG. I'm not linking directly jic, but a google search for "Warhammer quest the card game rules" turned up the pdfs on the FFG website as the top two answers (learn to play and full rules reference).

Warning: Very basic description of gameplay follows

I don't know how Descent works, my perception is that it is very similar to Mansions of Madness or Imperial Assault, where you move minis around to complete quests with one player controlling the "opposition." So the first major difference is that all the players are working together against the board, and unlike the other games, no app is required to allow that. Instead, decks are prepared to randomize enemies, rooms, and treasures encountered in the course of the quest. Also, the game is entirely based on cards, no miniatures.

Each player selects a hero, and takes the four action cards that the hero starts with: Attack, Rest, Explore, and Aid. A turn consists of each player taking a single one of their actions, performing that action by rolling some number of dice to determine success or failure (as detailed on the action card), and then "exhausting" it (turning it sideways). After each player has taken a turn, you resolve an enemy phase, where each player takes turn activating an enemy card that is "readied" (not exhausted). After all enemies have been exhausted, they are then readied and you move on the the Location phase. If there are enough explore tokens (typically earned through Explore actions), then the Location card is discarded and replaced with the next Location in the deck. The players then get another turn. Players cannot use Actions that are exhausted, but one of the four actions will allow you to Ready all of your actions, which differs depending on the hero being played. For instance, the elf's Attack action readies all of her actions, while the Dwarf's Aid is his Ready action.

This is a VERY well designed card game. The players are each playing a character and together they complete quests - the game system is the "Overlord". Also it is full co-op - everyone wins or loses together. Now while it is a card game it does not use "decks" and as such is neither an LCG or CCG. Expansions would be in the form of new quests with new creature, location, equipment, character and other such cards.

I hope they add enough base cards to play with more than one character of each class. In the descent 2e core, we played many times with knight and barbarian or rune master and necro. Its too boring to play with scout,warrior,healer and mage each game, even with the different specs and heroes.

15 hours ago, BoardRadio said:

I hope they add enough base cards to play with more than one character of each class. In the descent 2e core, we played many times with knight and barbarian or rune master and necro. Its too boring to play with scout,warrior,healer and mage each game, even with the different specs and heroes.

It looks like there are 4 classes with 3 heroes each. The hero has a unique ability, but all heroes from a class appear to use the same set of 4 action cards. That means a 4-hero game will always have the same 4 classes in each game (until expansions arrive).

I look forward to seeing if the hero abilities make each hero feel very different. I also wonder if there will only be 32 action cards or if there will be more variety than that (that's 4 basic actions and 4 advanced actions for each of the 4 classes).

I assumed it was 4 standard actions for each class,and 4 actions for EACH spec.

It's 4 archetypes (basic actions), 8 classes (advanced actions), and 12 heroes (hero ability and health).

I'm guessing weapons etc. will come in unrestricted, archetype-only and class-only flavors.

On ‎6‎/‎8‎/‎2018 at 10:25 AM, ringofox said:

I just see this TOO MUCH similar to WHQTCG, thats why i would prefer a different setting (and terrinoth is not interesting to me)

On ‎6‎/‎10‎/‎2018 at 3:43 PM, Caimheul1313 said:

I am in the camp that thinks fantasy suits this style of game a bit better, especially as running across mixed groups of enemies in a dungeon is a normal thing. If they put it in Star Wars, it's easy for the feel to be off. So you enter a room and find the following enemies: Stormtroopers, sandpeople, and the boss, a rancor. All of which solely focus on attacking you, no in-fighting. Compare that to zombies, goblins, and an ogre, which is something I'd expect to encounter in a fantasy dungeon.

Also, I'm not sure how well some of the mechanics would work to represent people primarily fighting with guns. The rules feel more like melee combat.

I'd actually have loved to see it done for Twilight Imperium. It'd just take a bit of 'tweaking' but the core mechanics could work very well.

To me, it's a chance to see a third part of the Twilight Imperium's history.

• Twilight Imperium is the founding of a new Imperium on the ashes of the old one.
• Rex is the fall of the old imperium (the assault on Mecatol Rex at the height of the collapse)
• We know this is the end of a series of wars and crises which went on for decades, and the Lazax themselves may have ruled the Imperium for a lot longer than that.

Essentially, I see a game with these core mechanics:

• Being set during the period of continuous crises before this point.
• The players are 'Imperial Delegates' or some similar phrase - basically a group of senior nobles, commanders and administrators sent out by the Lazax with a bag of money and a battlefleet and the instruction 'deal with this civil war/crisis'.
• The players' characters are therefore from any of the respective TI races. Between them they have an Imperial Warrant/Symbol of Authority/Whatever you want to call it. This is the 'The Lazax Say We're In Charge' badge, and the representative token replaces the 'torch' for the current party leader/initiative tracker for who gets doubled actions if there are three players.
• Each 'location' card becomes a minor crisis to be dealt with, and an overarching mission with rules and nemesis on the 'quest' card driven by the scale of the crisis ('peril' track).
  • For example - Pirate Invasion as a quest, with a 'peril'-triggered nemesis of the Pirate flagship.
• 'Location' cards are therefore things like 'riots', 'famine', 'pirate attacks', 'rebel blockade', 'hidden naval base', and so on - with the former spawning minor enemies (criminals, rioters) and the latter spawning major enemies (rebel cruiser).
  • More militaristic crises will spawn major enemies and not let you complete them (or even place progress at all) until you've destroyed all spawned enemies.
  • More diplomatic crisis will only spawn minor enemies or even none at all to start with and will instead 'eat' progress tokens, start spawning enemies, or cause 'damage' if you take too long to solve them.
  • Most will be somewhere between the three; a battle might spawn a few enemy ships, but even once/whilst beating them off you still need the political progress tokens to solve the problem which caused them (by stopping a famine, eliminating a weakness in planetary defences, or addressing a grievance causing rebellion) and stop them coming back.
• 'Health' becomes Resources - anyone depleting their resources is eliminated.
• Ranged combat becomes stand-off engagements with torpedoes and fighter wings whilst normal combat is 'broadside-to-broadside' fights. 'The Shadows' is long sensor range (which is why you might be unable to identify an enemy initially)
• 'Action' types are mechanically broadly the same rules effects.
  • 'Attack' - Military (destroy enemies)
  • 'Explore' - Political (places 'progress' tokens to solve the current minor crisis and call in other assets via political support)
  • 'Aid' - Espionage (provides 'support' tokens - some espionage-centric crises or nemesis may specifically require you to have/spend these tokens to place any progress or to damage opponents)
  • 'Rest' - Logistics (recovers resources - 'health' - and lets you enhance the assets you have access to)
• 'Action' cards are now assets of the respective type
  • Military Asset - Cruiser, Troops
  • Political - Diplomats, Leverage
  • Espionage - Spies, Encryption, Saboteurs
  • Logistics - Supply Fleets, Bases, Personal Fortunes
• As ever, everyone gets a 'basic' and 'advanced' version of each asset class, with each player having a weak/refresh 'action' and a strong 'action', plus some signature assets (the equivalent of 'signature gear'), which would be equivalents of the racial flagships and technologies from TI. So, for example:
  • Hacan Character
    • Military - Guild Cruiser (2 die)/Guild Carrier (3 dice)
    • Political - Economic Pressure (1 dice, refresh)/Economic Warfare (2 dice, refresh)
    • Espionage - Paid Informants (2 dice)/Paid Agents (3 dice)
    • Logistics - Trading Convoy (3 dice)/Trade Fleet (4 dice)
  • Letnev Character
    • Military - Baronial Cruiser (3 die)/Baronial Dreadnought (4 dice)
    • Political - Military Enforcement (2 dice)/Martial Law (3 dice)
    • Espionage - Commando Team (2 dice)/Elite Special Forces (3 dice)
    • Logistics - Munitions Reserves (1 die, refresh)/Fleet Arsenal (2 dice, refresh)
  • And so on.