I don't have any experiences with Descent, with Doom however, I am quite familiar. This game looks pretty similar - could somebody give me a rundown of the differences, please?

Think of Doom as 1.0 and Descent JitD: 1.5 and Descent + Rtl 2.0 of the same system.

Main Differences:

1) No ammo--this is a good thing

2) Overlord has a TON more options and is far more fun to play. SInce he has a better deck and threat counters. Choices, choices, choices. This is a major one in my opinion...one of the reasons i can't go back to Doom. The OL is too fun to play now. This is expanded by 'treachery' in other expansions.

3) Treasure: Random draws makes a fun game instead of every pickup being static. There are some static pulls, like potions and money etc but the chests provide random treasure.

4) Skills and upgrade system for heroes. More ways to 'upgrade' your character especially the more expansions you get (RtL, TOI mainly) the heroes can upgrade in different ways.

Those are the main ones. I bet there are more as others will point out. Also, the campaign system in the vanilla JitD game really isn't all that great, IMO. Either get RtL if you have a dedicated group or just play 'one shots' which is what Descent is best at (minus RtL).

Thanks! I'll have to try it out.

All I can say is, descent lacks a Deathmatch or capture the flag mode! ...But I'm working on that.

StarBurn said:

Get them BOTH! They are two great and different experiences! I introduced my g/f to Doom and she fell in love with the dungeon crawl mechanic so this was the next logical step. They both play great and are different enough even with using alot of the same mechanics but they dont feel like your playing the same game in a different setting.

Only real drawback in my mind is, you need a pretty big table!

Atmospherically, they're quite different (which is good). Doom maintains the tense chill of the videogame. Descent is much more heroic.

Both are great games and I heartily recommend getting them both, although i am enjoying the amount of expansions that descent has...(hint hint)

StarBurn said:

sounds waaaaay fun

Descent for me is something like Diablo 1 (with multiplayer). You going to dungeon to kill monsters, get new items and again more killing, more items. Atmosphere is very similar to Diablo also (claustrophobic corridors and chambers with lot of monsters - that's cool).

Get both for they are similar but different enough to warrant the purchase. I do have to say the no ammo thing in Descent is great because thats the only frustrating part I find in Doom.

Yes, I want to know as wel.

I love the ammo in Doom, it creates a sense of urgency and suspense. I had a great game where my buddy was wielding a chainsaw. While I was using every other weapon and rolling an ammo on every roll it seemed like. I broke atleast 5 guns and by the very end was punching the enemies.

Hello

I have both games and like descent a bit more because of the fantasie setting and lot of expansions. Also having different hero's, fatique and many different items to buy makes my RPG heart beat a bit faster. I actually miss an editor containing all versions.

Doom however is more thrilling, i painted all mini's and they look more scary then those in descent which also painted. The amo make you think before shooting. Less reading is needed on the rules and abilities

Even with both having almost the same system they are different in playing.

how does it compare against warhammer quest?(i know,off topic. sorry! ) ive got the quest game,and always thought descent looked really cool!

Warhammer Quest and Descent are two completely different animals. Descent's combat is much more tactical than Warhammer's. This is for two reasons, mainly. First, heroes and monsters have way fewer options available to them then in Descent. In Warhammmer all you do is move (if you aren't next to a monster. Then you need to pass a pinning test first) and attack in a turn. Heroes in Descent have three different actions they can take each turn, and all have their specific trade-offs. They also have access to both fatigue and surges which further increases the number of choices available to them. The OL has cards that he can augment his monsters with, either by re-enforcing them, or by giving them specific abilities. Second, unless you have a GM who plays different than the rules, monsters appear right on top of heroes in a strict fashion. Then they die. The OL in Descent is an active competitor with the heroes, which is fairly unique for the Genre, while WHQ keeps the GM's roll as a story teller and entertainer. Warhammer's progression system, on the otherhand, is much more open and a fair bit deeper. Descent, by being a competitive game, is necessarily more controlled in it's progression system. Both of them are fine games, but they are very, very different in play. I prefer Descent's mechanics a great deal more than WHQ's, but I am about to start my first WHQ campaign in well over a decade, so obviously I still like that game. You might even say Descent has re-kindled my interest in this old game.

Others have covered parts of this already, but I'm just going to summarize my feelings about the two games for the OP's edification (and anyone else's, if they care )

Doom was released first. It had an engine that did a fantastic job of maintaining suspense and even scaring me from time to time. The randomness of range was a bit odd at first but I grew to appreciate it as it made ranged attacks (which are the majority) more uncertain and kept things tense. Overall I was very pleased with how the Doom Boardgame remained true to the spirit of the video game. It was often very difficult for the marines to win, but we liked it that way. If it were easier it wouldn't have been as suspenseful.

Then came Descent, which used essentially the same game engine, but moved it to a fantasy setting. There were some mechanical changes, most of which were for the better IMHO. Armor subtracts instead of divides, which not only made the math easier but also allowed for more granularity in the statistics, so that armor and damage both could change more freely without radically changing game balance. Overall things were easier for the heroes (not easy, mind you, just easier than Doom) which took off the edge of suspense and gave the game a more epic, heroic fantasy atmosphere. This again suited the new setting perfectly. It was still challenging and thus entertaining, but it wasn't the same degree of "oh crap we're all gonna die!" As expansions have come out and options grown I think the game has generally become easier for the heroes, though that may just be a result of the players in our group learning how to twink the system better. Regardless, still pleased with the game. It's a more relaxed feel than Doom but still awesome in its own way.

Road to Legend has changed Descent yet again. I've only been able to play a couple of campaigns with that expansion because it is truly epic in scale, but I'm still overall pleased. There are a few kinks that arise from the fact that the rules changes in RtL are trying to do different things while still complying with the existing components and cards from earlier material, but those problems are not insurmountable.

If you're looking for a reccomendation on which to buy, they are both fantastic games in their own ways, so it's really a question of what kind of atmosphere you want in your game. Doom only has one expansion and seems to be finished at that. Descent is currently going on it's 5th (?) expansion and doesn't seem to be showing signs of letting up. That might weigh in as a factor if you really enjoy watching a game grow bigger and bigger (or if you want to spare your wallet...) I own both and I love both. I don't consider it even slightly an "overlap" to own both, if you're concerned about having too many games that are essentially the same thing. That is not the case with these two.