I was going to post this yesterday, and while this mornings "Lost Legends" announcement certainly changes things a bit, I do believe it only underlines the fact that FF still has plans for Descent.

I'm fairly certain that for all the doom and gloom that's been floating around, FF is almost certainly working on a third edition. And I think that may turn out to be a better thing than you might think.

The problem with a third edition is mostly the fact that some of us have sunk a ton of money into second and/or first edition components, and are loathe to start all over. And even though FF does often do conversion kits and makes at least some effort to incorporate previous components into new versions, there's still a lot of stuff that'll never be used again. And that's a powerful deterrent.

There's also the fact that second edition has missing components. Lost Legends fixes a lot of this, but we're still missing a dozen heroes. I think a lot of people are reluctant to support a reboot until the previous version is topped off.

There are however some very big benefits to a third edition provided it isn't a total reboot. A soft reboot that incorporates nearly all previous components, while adding or replacing problematic ones, could be exactly what this game needs. Essentially a new Core box with largely minor alterations.

I'm suggesting in particular that third edition should, and almost certainly will have a skirmish mode. And not necessarily for the obvious pvp aspects.

Currently there are 56 different monster groups, 20 unique lieutenants, and 72 heroes (60 without the missing dozen from first edition). But to amass all of these is no small task, and even I don't yet have all the Hero and Monster packs. And frankly I don't have a lot of incentive to pick them up. Why? Because while the monsters get added to the list of available spawns for pretty much ALL content, the heroes only matter at the beginning of a campaign. You may see dozens of different monster groups throughout the story, but you'll only ever see those 4 heroes you picked at the very beginning. You would have to play through at least EIGHTEEN campaigns to use all the heroes, and then only once each. Let's face it, most of them will never hit the table. There's a similar issue with the classes, but it's not quite as dramatic. FF knows this . And you can bet they've realized that it's a hard sell to get people to pick up the whole line. At this point each expansion faces serious diminishing returns.

However, those who've played Imperial Assault know that it doesn't have to be this way. In that game your 4 heroes are regularly joined by allies who provide much needed variety throughout the campaign. Descent has toyed with this a little, most notably in Labyrinth of Ruin, but not nearly as much as they could. The problem is that in descent the only hero cards are the traditional large stat cards, and the weapons and class abilities come from separate decks. IA has this as well, but also has "skirmish" versions of all the heroes, giving them simplified one-card versions on par with the cards used for the enemies. This not only allows for proper balance in selecting a skirmish group, but it also allows for heroes to be used interchangeably with allies.

Imagine if one map you had Elder Mok helping you out as a fifth member, then replace him the next map with Steelhorns, or a group of Daquan infantry. These wouldn't be full powered heroes but they would have one or two signature abilities. This would add variety and flavor to the group, making each run through a campaign even more unique. The same could also be true of lieutenants, as IA has also demonstrated.

I would love to see a final second edition box set based on a tournament of champions, with a campaign built around heroes facing off against other heroes. OF course the whole event would get corrupted, and you'd wind up facing monsters again as well as enslaved/corrupted versions of heroes. It would introduce the skirmish mechanic and give us a whole lot of uses for the piles of plastic they keep nudging us to buy. Perhaps this would be a good place to add those missing 12 heroes from first edition, while also serving as a conversion kit/capstone for second edition. I would have expected the missing class and cross-class cards to fit in here as well, but they've already fixed that issue.

In addition there is another issue which I am less hopeful towards. I have ZERO interest in tabletop wargaming. But I would have bought the entirety of Runewars and Legion if the minis could have been used in their respective sister games. There are certainly sizing issues with some of the minis there, but I would hope that FF starts to look into cross-game usability for these titles.

There are certainly other rule and mechanic issues that need to be addressed, and I think they should be. Gently. In a new core box. But in particular this would give them a strong finish to second edition, while setting things up for a new skirmish-enabled third edition without pissing off the people who supported them so far.

The biggest issue that D2e has had in my opinion (and that of many others), is FFG's long term insistence that all you ever need to play the game is the original box. Rarely (albeit they did some later on) have they incorporated expansions into campaigns.

What this game really needs is a campaign that utilizes boards, characters, monsters, LTs, etc. from ALL expansions. Yes, that means it may only be viable for the subset of people that have purchased everything.

Never the less, I think it would be a big seller. This is true from a physical standpoint as well as a digital standpoint.

FFG really needs to get past the mindset of not mixing and matching expansions.

If they truly do come out with a D3e, I will not buy it if they don't plan from the outset to develop and support the game in this manner. Further, I want to also make it clear that while digital, cooperative play is welcome, I also want to play this game as 1 v many ... in other words, an active Overlord role.

I recently picked up Mansions of Madness, Second edition. Then I rapidly picked up everything else for it. If a D3E were to be released, I sincerely hope that they would follow that model; however unlikely that would be considering that while a little clunky Rtl is fine.

D2E Will not be going anywhere until the original mechanics of the game no longer represent a better experience in comparison to its peers. Such an event would be loathe to come, but I would be profoundly excited to see a game blow descent out of the water enough to make ffg reevaluate their library.

4 hours ago, Radioactivepanda said:

I was going to post this yesterday, and while this mornings "Lost Legends" announcement certainly changes things a bit, I do believe it only underlines the fact that FF still has plans for Descent.

I'm fairly certain that for all the doom and gloom that's been floating around, FF is almost certainly working on a third edition. And I think that may turn out to be a better thing than you might think.

The problem with a third edition is mostly the fact that some of us have sunk a ton of money into second and/or first edition components, and are loathe to start all over. And even though FF does often do conversion kits and makes at least some effort to incorporate previous components into new versions, there's still a lot of stuff that'll never be used again. And that's a powerful deterrent.

There's also the fact that second edition has missing components. Lost Legends fixes a lot of this, but we're still missing a dozen heroes. I think a lot of people are reluctant to support a reboot until the previous version is topped off.

There are however some very big benefits to a third edition provided it isn't a total reboot. A soft reboot that incorporates nearly all previous components, while adding or replacing problematic ones, could be exactly what this game needs. Essentially a new Core box with largely minor alterations.

I'm suggesting in particular that third edition should, and almost certainly will have a skirmish mode. And not necessarily for the obvious pvp aspects.

Currently there are 56 different monster groups, 20 unique lieutenants, and 72 heroes (60 without the missing dozen from first edition). But to amass all of these is no small task, and even I don't yet have all the Hero and Monster packs. And frankly I don't have a lot of incentive to pick them up. Why? Because while the monsters get added to the list of available spawns for pretty much ALL content, the heroes only matter at the beginning of a campaign. You may see dozens of different monster groups throughout the story, but you'll only ever see those 4 heroes you picked at the very beginning. You would have to play through at least EIGHTEEN campaigns to use all the heroes, and then only once each. Let's face it, most of them will never hit the table. There's a similar issue with the classes, but it's not quite as dramatic. FF knows this . And you can bet they've realized that it's a hard sell to get people to pick up the whole line. At this point each expansion faces serious diminishing returns.

However, those who've played Imperial Assault know that it doesn't have to be this way. In that game your 4 heroes are regularly joined by allies who provide much needed variety throughout the campaign. Descent has toyed with this a little, most notably in Labyrinth of Ruin, but not nearly as much as they could. The problem is that in descent the only hero cards are the traditional large stat cards, and the weapons and class abilities come from separate decks. IA has this as well, but also has "skirmish" versions of all the heroes, giving them simplified one-card versions on par with the cards used for the enemies. This not only allows for proper balance in selecting a skirmish group, but it also allows for heroes to be used interchangeably with allies.

Imagine if one map you had Elder Mok helping you out as a fifth member, then replace him the next map with Steelhorns, or a group of Daquan infantry. These wouldn't be full powered heroes but they would have one or two signature abilities. This would add variety and flavor to the group, making each run through a campaign even more unique. The same could also be true of lieutenants, as IA has also demonstrated.

I would love to see a final second edition box set based on a tournament of champions, with a campaign built around heroes facing off against other heroes. OF course the whole event would get corrupted, and you'd wind up facing monsters again as well as enslaved/corrupted versions of heroes. It would introduce the skirmish mechanic and give us a whole lot of uses for the piles of plastic they keep nudging us to buy. Perhaps this would be a good place to add those missing 12 heroes from first edition, while also serving as a conversion kit/capstone for second edition. I would have expected the missing class and cross-class cards to fit in here as well, but they've already fixed that issue.

In addition there is another issue which I am less hopeful towards. I have ZERO interest in tabletop wargaming. But I would have bought the entirety of Runewars and Legion if the minis could have been used in their respective sister games. There are certainly sizing issues with some of the minis there, but I would hope that FF starts to look into cross-game usability for these titles.

There are certainly other rule and mechanic issues that need to be addressed, and I think they should be. Gently. In a new core box. But in particular this would give them a strong finish to second edition, while setting things up for a new skirmish-enabled third edition without pissing off the people who supported them so far.

I dont want a 3rd Edition, i want more physical stuff for the 2nd.

A final tournament of champions box would be amazing! With the last 12 heroes and skirmish rules! Woohoo! 🤪

...and when i can wish more, a desert and a ice expansion with brand new stuff please! 😁 👍

I dont think FFG will make a D3E, you only need to look at forums to see that is more profitable to exploit D2E and make new mechanics that make a new edition, because nobody will buy it. The base game works very good and Imperial Assault and Mansions of madness plays with similar rules as D2E.

As for what you are saying, I do not think there is a need for a new edition. You can create a new manual (Like the Heirs of Blood) with corrected mechanics, like so many other games (D2.5E). It would also be viable the option of a new campaign (either in physical format or in the RTL App) with your suggestions. An official PVP mode or a new campaign in which different characters you didn't choose at the begining are added in temporaly in different missions, to force you to play with them.

As someone that has played since the original Descent and bought a lot of the products for 2E until my group started disliking it I would really like a 3E to take over for 2E which is really showing its age. My wishes for a 3E should it happen are:

1. A more robust Overlord upgrade path. Reducing all the upgrades for the overlord to one monster level up halfway through the campaign and then the cards was very underwhelming, especially considering all the ways the heroes could customize their characters. It also left the Overlord very hamstrung should the heroes chance into some of the more broken combinations of items and abilities. There was a lot less personality for the Overlord as well.

2. Way better playtesting. For a while I was buying the expansions for 2E the day of release. Without fail at least once per game session there would be a situation where something happened outside of the expectations of the developers which would result in us having to on the fly house rule something. In an adversarial game like Descent that meant one side was typically having to concede and the other would take that advantage and win the map leaving a bad feeling for everyone that it wasn't earned. Usually the faqs and errata would fix this but in something like Descent where you are expected to play over the course of many sessions to complete a campaign you don't usually play scenarios more than once or twice with the limited time most working people have so your one experience is hampered unless you wait for a while as the early players to work out the kinks. The character kit for the 1E characters was also wildly unbalanced.

3. Less power creep. I think the base game of Descent 2E is pretty well balanced. However as expansions came out newer heroes, classes, and items were sometimes indisputably more powerful than the base set. It's been years but in one campaign a character got one of the latest expansion items very early through some luck and he steamrolled the rest of the adventure.

4. Better rubber banding to get the weaker side back in the game. If the heroes start getting too powerful, I feel there is really no way for the Overlord to recover. Part of this is due to the severe lack of real options the Overlord has since monster choice can only do so much when even level 2 monsters are either being one shot by heroes if there are multiple per spawn or just beat up by all four if there is only one. I've had some luck as the Overlord by going really hard initially to make sure they got very little upgrades so the inevitable snowballing was delayed. This ended up making the hero players unhappy since the goal of these games should be to increase your power levels. This might just be an inherent flaw in the 1v4 game style since in a typical RPG a (good) dungeon master isn't trying to just win the game against the other players and very difficult to balance effectively.

5. Fatigue being used for movement should be much more heavily restricted, if anything it should just be removed and a more conventional mana system for abilities replace it. The boards simply aren't big enough to allow the characters the ability to run so far and then gain extra movement on top of it. A lot of the scenario breaking moments we've had were due to the heroes being able to either kill monsters before they ever had a chance of moving regardless of where they were spawned or being able to use actions while also moving just enough squares to get around most Overlord traps.

6. A more robust campaign system. On one hand I do like 2E's simpler system than 1E but I think they went a little too far and it's just a bit too bare bones in between maps.

While I don't really think a 3E is on the way or anything I would really like a new version of Descent. 2E had a lot of promise and we tried to play the campaigns multiple times but the issues I listed always ended up leaving players either unsatisfied or angry due to rules disputes.

While I think it is almost even more unlikely than a Descent 3E, a new 2.5 rule and campaign book that incorporates the models and map pieces from 2E while fixing the more unbalanced parts of 2E and giving new Overlord options would be really, really cool.

7 minutes ago, Radish said:

As someone that has played since the original Descent and bought a lot of the products for 2E until my group started disliking it I would really like a 3E to take over for 2E which is really showing its age. My wishes for a 3E should it happen are:

Way better playtesting.

LOL ... way to go way overboard ... what a fantasy ... you want them to play test it for a significant amount of time to make sure all of the interactions that may occur are accounted for?!

You sir must be what they call a "Dreamer".

Next you are going to want them to have card editors, professional manual writers, etc. so that they consistently use the same phrases across all cards, rule books, etc.

😝 😱 (Just in case my sarcasm did not translate ... I am only teasing you ... I couldn't agree more)

I think it's a fair point that many heroes will never actually hit the table. I mean, I've had the game for over a year now and am only halfway through a single campaign (though, to be fair, I've been painting for the majority of that time).

I think that the reason I wanted all the heroes was just for player options. Maybe no one will ever pick Karnon, but at the same time, isn't it cool that players have the option to play as a freakin' Yeti thing?

Then, of course, are the monster groups. I don't think they can really be understated when talking about these packs. The heroes are awesome, but if you think you're gonna get use out of your monsters, then I don't see why you wouldn't want these monster groups. Even at 30ish dollars, split between three monster groups, that's only about ten bucks a group.

Maybe that sounds like a lot, but consider:

1. The Lieutenant packs run about that much, if not more. They include the plot deck stuff too (if you even use that) but it's also a single figure vs an entire group of plastic.

2. Obviously you're still getting the other 4 heroes and the missions, anyway.

For the sheer amount of components, it's really not a bad deal. Sure, you're not getting classes or new tiles (which we really don't need anyway) but it's a ton of new plastic for a relatively cheap price. Almost a big box's worth, for roughly half the price.

Honestly, as someone who mains Imperial Assault, I'd love to see that game get 9 releases of its Heroes and Monsters equivalent. That would be incredible.

This is discuused in previous threads, tons of nice ideas exoposed. I mentioend about mercenary (ally) mechanics, mounts, Free for all modes, skirmish modes.. There's so much that can be done
A full rework of the combat mechanic could be nice as Gloomhaven had such unbelievable reception even though it is way more complex than this.

But at this point, seeing what is going on with this market I have one desire for 3rd edition above all: please , please, please: REMAIN COMPETITIVE
If the amount of sales for those who want solo/coop puzzle modes is too tempting then the app companion works well , but please dont take away the real game mode away from us!

3 hours ago, any2cards said:

LOL ... way to go way overboard ... what a fantasy ... you want them to play test it for a significant amount of time to make sure all of the interactions that may occur are accounted for?!

You sir must be what they call a "Dreamer".

Next you are going to want them to have card editors, professional manual writers, etc. so that they consistently use the same phrases across all cards, rule books, etc.

😝 😱 (Just in case my sarcasm did not translate ... I am only teasing you ... I couldn't agree more)

Yeah I feel bad because I understand game design and testing is a hugely difficult deal and it's really not my place to say how to do that sort of thing. It's just as a consumer of the end product you can see some large flaws that we caught just by playing the maps one time. I think the most glaring was there was a map in the Trollfens expansion where as the Overlord after setting it up I told the players they had already lost regardless of how their first turn went. They were skeptical but then I just moved a figure the way I was allowed and the map was over in one turn. We spent twenty minutes trying to figure out how anyone wouldn't do exactly what I did since it was so clear and we had to be missing something but couldn't. That bug was fixed in an errata but it really should have been caught and caused my group to lose faith in the game since that sort of thing can wreck a campaign that awards bonuses based on scenario victories.

6 minutes ago, GralQ said:

This is discuused in previous threads, tons of nice ideas exoposed. I mentioend about mercenary (ally) mechanics, mounts, Free for all modes, skirmish modes.. There's so much that can be done
A full rework of the combat mechanic could be nice as Gloomhaven had such unbelievable reception even though it is way more complex than this.

But at this point, seeing what is going on with this market I have one desire for 3rd edition above all: please , please, please: REMAIN COMPETITIVE
If the amount of sales for those who want solo/coop puzzle modes is too tempting then the app companion works well , but please dont take away the real game mode away from us!

I agree the game needs to be competitive. We are actually going back to my closet and dusting off my Descent stuff to give the coop app a try soon (crossing fingers since I really want to play) but fundamentally Descent is a game with a player Overlord and if it doesn't have that it isn't Descent.

Personally I dislike and avoid competitive games. I play the overlord as a GM or just use the app. But a lot of people have a competitive streak and adding skirmish would be right up their alley. I’d actually never play it, but I want the hero and ally cards it would produce.

I hope they continue app support, although the play I enjoy the most is 1 vs many.

I have not played Embers of Dread, and am working through Seeds of Corruption. I’m unsure exactly why I feel this, but playing an app quest (even one that has a thrilling premise, like SoC’s introduction) feels like a chore after the first time. This isn’t helped by the mostly linear quest trees.

That said, playing Kindred Fire for the first time with a family member was a lot of fun, even though we favored the heroes quite a bit in die rolls and monster actions.

I think my main hope in future app content is better replayability. Diverse monster objectives would be great, although I don’t think RTL can really handle that.

I'd love to see the app updated to include a human OL option. That is, the app with this option would work more like a campaign manager (and would replace the need for campaign books), but the OL would still be a human player, would still have an OL deck, a plot deck and would control the monsters. The app could also be reworked to replace the now defunct quest vault.

An app that includes:

• A quest/campaign editor
• Access to user generated quests/campaigns
• Campaign management for 1 vs many game play (including reveal as you go style quests)
• Co-op with automated OL

This would be awesome!

9 minutes ago, Nachtmusique said:

I'd love to see the app updated to include a human OL option. That is, the app with this option would work more like a campaign manager (and would replace the need for campaign books), but the OL would still be a human player, would still have an OL deck, a plot deck and would control the monsters. The app could also be reworked to replace the now defunct quest vault.

An app that includes:

• A quest/campaign editor
• Access to user generated quests/campaigns
• Campaign management for 1 vs many game play (including reveal as you go style quests)
• Co-op with automated OL

This would be awesome!

Before I knew what the Descent app was and everyone was expecting one for IA, that's kind of what I figured it was, too.

As is it's still pretty neat, but a campaign manager would be a beautiful tool to have.

If I had to pick only one thing that 3e would have, it'd be hobby quality miniatures. The wacky scale of Descent models drives me nuts. I do love how beautifully crafted and detailed they are, but I just want them to be proper 25mm scale. They don't even have to be RuneWars sized (which would be AMAZING), but at least as large as WizKids D&D minis.

I'm sure one of the reasons for them being so small in 2e (besides probably being that size in 1e) was that the scale of big monsters was manageable for a box game. I'd LOVE it if they increased monster sizes and made huge monsters premium expansions. I'd rather have villains like the Farrows packed in the core and oversized monsters as expansions. (Also, just call the Overlord the GM and not pretend like they're a pseudo-character, which then downplays the real villains, the Lieutenants, as subordinates to no one in particular). If the core box included a cardboard token to represent a huge dragon, fine. I'll buy the $50 dragon model separately.

I might be alone in wanting bigger minis, but if all they did was scale them properly to 25mm/1inx1in square appropriate figures, I'd be happy. I heard they started to get bigger towards the later expansions, but that even just makes it worse when there's no consistency.

6 hours ago, subtrendy2 said:

I think it's a fair point that many heroes will never actually hit the table. I mean, I've had the game for over a year now and am only halfway through a single campaign (though, to be fair, I've been painting for the majority of that time).

I think that the reason I wanted all the heroes was just for player options. Maybe no one will ever pick Karnon, but at the same time, isn't it cool that players have the option to play as a freakin' Yeti thing?

Then, of course, are the monster groups. I don't think they can really be understated when talking about these packs. The heroes are awesome, but if you think you're gonna get use out of your monsters, then I don't see why you wouldn't want these monster groups. Even at 30ish dollars, split between three monster groups, that's only about ten bucks a group.

Maybe that sounds like a lot, but consider:

1. The Lieutenant packs run about that much, if not more. They include the plot deck stuff too (if you even use that) but it's also a single figure vs an entire group of plastic.

2. Obviously you're still getting the other 4 heroes and the missions, anyway.

For the sheer amount of components, it's really not a bad deal. Sure, you're not getting classes or new tiles (which we really don't need anyway) but it's a ton of new plastic for a relatively cheap price. Almost a big box's worth, for roughly half the price.

Honestly, as someone who mains Imperial Assault, I'd love to see that game get 9 releases of its Heroes and Monsters equivalent. That would be incredible.

The lieutenant packs are another area that also desperately need fixing. Once you have one you don’t need the tokens that come with EVERY pack. Make those part of the new core box. And include side missions for them like IA instead.

In fact IA doesn’t really have lieutenants like Descent. They separate villains and allies into standard and elite versions, with separate cards for each. This makes it a LOT easier to balance the imperial player/ overlord relative to the hero’s.

IA getting hero and monster style expansions would indeed be amazing, as they’d be more useful in that system, and that’s what I want for Descent.

39 minutes ago, EPGelion said:

If I had to pick only one thing that 3e would have, it'd be hobby quality miniatures. The wacky scale of Descent models drives me nuts. I do love how beautifully crafted and detailed they are, but I just want them to be proper 25mm scale. They don't even have to be RuneWars sized (which would be AMAZING), but at least as large as WizKids D&D minis.

I'm sure one of the reasons for them being so small in 2e (besides probably being that size in 1e) was that the scale of big monsters was manageable for a box game. I'd LOVE it if they increased monster sizes and made huge monsters premium expansions. I'd rather have villains like the Farrows packed in the core and oversized monsters as expansions. (Also, just call the Overlord the GM and not pretend like they're a pseudo-character, which then downplays the real villains, the Lieutenants, as subordinates to no one in particular). If the core box included a cardboard token to represent a huge dragon, fine. I'll buy the $50 dragon model separately.

I might be alone in wanting bigger minis, but if all they did was scale them properly to 25mm/1inx1in square appropriate figures, I'd be happy. I heard they started to get bigger towards the later expansions, but that even just makes it worse when there's no consistency.

I’d pay good money for an updated set of the early lieutenants. “Cough”Eliza”cough”. I’d even be interested if they gave us a way to get new sculpts for a lot of the early heroes as well. Most of them are fine, but I’m spoiled by the more recent minis.

7 minutes ago, Radioactivepanda said:

The lieutenant packs are another area that also desperately need fixing. Once you have one you don’t need the tokens that come with EVERY pack. Make those part of the new core box. And include side missions for them like IA instead.

In fact IA doesn’t really have lieutenants like Descent. They separate villains and allies into standard and elite versions, with separate cards for each. This makes it a LOT easier to balance the imperial player/ overlord relative to the hero’s.

Agreed about those tokens. Good lord, I feel bad for all the components I've wasted. Putting them in the core box would've made a lot more sense, even if not everyone would've used them. Basically, as long as at least one in twenty people buy a single lieutenant expansion, you're wasting less at that point.

IA's reinforcement packs aren't the same as Descent's, true. But they're not all standard and elite- that only applies to the generics and non-large stuff, like Rebel troopers or ISB agents. Units like Vader or the AT-ST only really have one deployment card (with the exception of the few that have separate cards for campaign and skirmish). So there isn't like an Act 1 or Act 2 card. However, those packs generally make up for it somehow- they usually include a mission with rewards, an Agenda deck, and sometimes even the equivalent of shop items.

Also, I like how the Agenda deck works simply as an add on to a feature in the game already, sort of like the Overlord deck, and not like the clunky addition of a plot deck. But that's another story.

2 hours ago, EPGelion said:

If I had to pick only one thing that 3e would have, it'd be hobby quality miniatures. The wacky scale of Descent models drives me nuts. I do love how beautifully crafted and detailed they are, but I just want them to be proper 25mm scale. They don't even have to be RuneWars sized (which would be AMAZING), but at least as large as WizKids D&D minis.

I'm sure one of the reasons for them being so small in 2e (besides probably being that size in 1e) was that the scale of big monsters was manageable for a box game. I'd LOVE it if they increased monster sizes and made huge monsters premium expansions. I'd rather have villains like the Farrows packed in the core and oversized monsters as expansions. (Also, just call the Overlord the GM and not pretend like they're a pseudo-character, which then downplays the real villains, the Lieutenants, as subordinates to no one in particular). If the core box included a cardboard token to represent a huge dragon, fine. I'll buy the $50 dragon model separately.

I might be alone in wanting bigger minis, but if all they did was scale them properly to 25mm/1inx1in square appropriate figures, I'd be happy. I heard they started to get bigger towards the later expansions, but that even just makes it worse when there's no consistency.

Same here, I’d like to see larger hero Miniatures especially after playing “Massive Darkness” and “Sword and Sorcery”.

A Skirmish mode similar to Imperial Assault or Warhammer Underworld would be great. I have 40-50 hereoes and have yet to use them all.

Even though all these other games exist we still come back to Descent.

On 2/11/2019 at 10:40 PM, any2cards said:

The biggest issue that D2e has had in my opinion (and that of many others), is FFG's long term insistence that all you ever need to play the game is the original box. Rarely (albeit they did some later on) have they incorporated expansions into campaigns.

That's very common in board games because every expansion that you require locks exponentially more people out of the game.

Quote

What this game really needs is a campaign that utilizes boards, characters, monsters, LTs, etc. from ALL expansions. Yes, that means it may only be viable for the subset of people that have purchased everything.

Honestly having played the delve that was kind of a train wreck. There's a lot of game here, having to hunt through all of it doesn't make for short setup times.

Quote

Never the less, I think it would be a big seller. This is true from a physical standpoint as well as a digital standpoint.

FFG really needs to get past the mindset of not mixing and matching expansions.

Honestly this is a common rule adhered to by game designers far and wide.

Quote

If they truly do come out with a D3e, I will not buy it if they don't plan from the outset to develop and support the game in this manner.

To reiterate there's really nothing wrong with the way most game designers operate. I think it's just an abnormally large and obvious problem for Descent because they made some mistakes regarding too few health and stamina tokens, a lack of obviously common basic tile shapes and some weird monster choices in the core that have haunted them ever sense.

4 hours ago, Bucho said:

Honestly having played the delve that was kind of a train wreck. There's a lot of game here, having to hunt through all of it doesn't make for short setup times.

I agree with the delve. The main reason I rarely play it is I don’t want to spend all that time between stages putting away stuff and getting it out.

Standard play with a quest mixing expansions would not increase setup time significantly (or at all) depending on your personal storage method.

> What this game really needs is a campaign that utilizes boards, characters, monsters, LTs, etc. from ALL expansions. Yes, that means it may only be viable for the subset of people that have purchased everything.

The RtL campaigns do this, they have may variants that use tiles from all exansions if you have them.

40 minutes ago, BruceLGL said:

> What this game really needs is a campaign that utilizes boards, characters, monsters, LTs, etc. from ALL expansions. Yes, that means it may only be viable for the subset of people that have purchased everything.

The RtL campaigns do this, they have may variants that use tiles from all exansions if you have them.

Not in the manner I want to see ... create complete campaigns that utilize everything across all expansions. In addition, I do not want it to be just digital ... I want the challenge of competitive play ... an Overlord v the heroes.