So here is what bothers me a little:

You buy an expansion like the trollfens for instance. it includes the very nice condition "weaken" (i really like that one). and it includes one new monster type "the plague worm", which inflicts that condition. THAT'S IT!

future expansions will NEVER utilize the sooo nice condition "weaken". i find that very sad. so we will only have one single monster type that actually inflicts that condition. so many future "fire"-monsters will never apply the "burn"-condition, which is strange. the same problem occurs with board tiles and the green power dice. i wonder whether they will include one of those dice with every future expansion to come?!

in some years, when there are dozens of expansion, we will have dozens of conditions, but only very few monsters that actually inflict these conditions. the table will be full of almost useless cards. i don't think that goes with the spirit of streamlining descent 2nd edt.

one obvious solution would be to build expansions upon expansions. i am aware that they will probably not do that, since some customers may want to buy only specific expansions, which they couldn't do, if they needed every previously released expansion.

However, maybe there is a middle way. it is possible to build upon big-box-expansions only. say, every small-box expansion requires the previous big-box-expansion. the next big-box-expansion can then again be completely independent from previous expansions. at least the small-box-expansions could expand expansions so to say

so, just to give an example. "the lair of the wyrm" requires the base-set obviously and expands it. "the labyrinth of ruin" is the first big-box-expansion and also only requires the base-set. however, the trollfens, could have expanded "the labyrinth of ruin"-expansion, therefore requiring the base-set and the "labyrinth of ruin"-expansion (BUT NOT the "lair of the wyrm"-expansion, though).

what do you think?

With Arham Horror there is an expansion expansion it is called Miskatonic University (Dodgy spelling) which adds a lot of content for the base game as well as ideas that exist only in the specific expansions and is seen as the last thing you buy for the game.

I think your idea isn't a bad one but hope that like they currently do with Classes for Heroes you can apply the new classes to the old characters and with monsters obviously you can swap out different monsters if they are the right type for the game as well as the new Lieutenants. I get your point though and totally agree with the principle and how at some point we will be able to add those conditions to certain monsters like some of the lieutenants can do with some monster abilities etc etc.

Something we do as well to 'streamline' your game, if there is no way for a condition to be played like in your example above don't take it out of the box!!

Lilikin

There is Zachareth that has "subdue" that lets you pick a condition to place on a hero when it does damage. I am hoping they implicate more monsters with "subdue" so weaken can be used more. Plage worms are a good monster group but I don't often find myself using them because of their speed. Granted, they can get there, but they aren't the best monster group when it comes to mobilization, therefore I forget about them in light of other monsters I can use.

I would like to see, in the future, expansions that will utilize all of the tiles ever printed and maybe add a monster with the compendium of affects already created. I just think we need to give this young game a little more time to grow in order for that to happen.

another, maybe better example is the "burning" condition, which seems to be strongly linked to monsters with the "fire" trait. however, there will certainly be future monsters that have the "fire" trait, which won't inflict that condition. I think, it would be nice, if those (or some of those) inflicted the "burning" condition. But since that condition is not in the base-set, but in an expansion, those monsters will probably not inflict that condition. I just think that is pity.

I guess, what I am trying to say is that I would like for all those nice components to be more universally applicable and considered by future expansions.

I think they reason they make them that way is so that you can make your sessions modular and aren't forced into buying a previous expansion if you don't want it.

They could also just give us more monsters with those conditions in new expansions, then just provide extra tokens / condition cards with those expansions. I wonder if people would feel cheated by this? Effectively having to repurchase cards/tokens they will not use as they already own the cards ?

Also when there are "dozens" of expansions, do we really want "dozens" of types of conditions littering our gaming table waiting to be used ?

Personally i am currently undecided on this, but i think this thread is interesting and brings up a number of questions worthy of discussion and public feedback

Yeah, the business model for expansions is that you only need the base game to enjoy fully their contents. I believe it would hurt sales for them otherwise.

The obvious answer is fan content! The Quest Vault or making your own helps a lot, though writing an entire campaign and coming up with maps could prove difficult. But making up some monsters who use conditions shouldn't be too hard.

But do notice that in the entire creature pool (CK excluded), for each condition there's no more than a couple monster groups inflicting it. So it's a pity that only Plague Worms inflict Weaken and only Imps inflict Burning, but it's not really any different than the situation with Poison or Disease.

I think they reason they make them that way is so that you can make your sessions modular and aren't forced into buying a previous expansion if you don't want it.

yes, that's true. i am aware of that. that's why i included it in my post:

"one obvious solution would be to build expansions upon expansions. i am aware that they will probably not do that, since some customers may want to buy only specific expansions, which they couldn't do, if they needed every previously released expansion."

that is also why i made a suggestion for a compromise:

"However, maybe there is a middle way. it is possible to build upon big-box-expansions only. say, every small-box expansion requires the previous big-box-expansion. the next big-box-expansion can then again be completely independent from previous expansions. at least the small-box-expansions could expand expansions so to say"

Sorry I must have missed that part, hadn't had my coffee yet.

I do find it upsetting that there are only a handful of monsters that can inflict specific conditions, but who knows, maybe they will release more monsters in later expansions with the same conditions (as Bento stated above).

I think about this pretty often, too. I understand the desire to have expansions only require the base game, but I think there's plenty to be done with more crossover between expansions. Two solutions to this:

The earlier idea of releasing big-boxes that only need the base game, and some (not all) small-boxes that are tied to specific expansions. Anyone who plays FFG living card games know this is a model they already use, wherein a cycle of booster packs can only be used when a deluxe expansion is also present (at least that's how it is for Lord of the Rings).

The other solution was already mentioned, with having more general abilities that can inflict any condition, such as the previously said Subdue. This would be a great thing to explore in future OL cards, or even Plot decks. Something magic-themed that can realistically cause Poison or Stun or Burn or Weaken (or anything else that may happen in the future). Note, I don't meant that those are the specific options the card would have (choose one of those four conditions); I mean more there should be a good reason why any condition can be handed out, something that could thematically cause a bunch of nasty stuff to happen to a hero.

Yeah, this was a problem in 1E as well, only it was much more exaggerated in 1E since, for example, monsters were printed on the maps. Aside from the odd spawn card, you'd never see monsters outside the expansion they came in. They tried to clean this up and make things more modular in 2E, and they did do a really good job in some areas. Monster traits and open groups are a godsend, but obviously it's still an issue for some things, like conditions.

Writing out monster abilities on the back of the card also gives them more freedom to expand available abilities - since they're defined on the card itself, they can make new ones whenever and re-introduce ones they used before in a different expansion without having to do anything special.

The best solution is to think about what sorts of things you WANT to expand when you're designing the base game, and make sure all the stuff that doesn't carry over is set up from the get-go. For example, they could have included 12 conditions in the core box and maybe been a bit lighter on something else (4 heroes instead of 8? Cards not used for class skills could have been other conditions.)

I know some people felt 8 heroes was small number as it was, but my point is that the game is well set up to expand heroes and classes, but not well set up to expand conditions. We already have 20-odd 2E heroes, not counting the CK, and that number is only going to grow. Restrict the things you can add to easily, and go heavy on the things you can't really add more of later.

Of course, to do that with Descent would now require 3E... =P

so you all get my point. that's nice.

another option would be to say that conditions have specific traits, too, just like monsters.

And that monster's with a specific trait can inflict any condition of the same trait. that would be very universal.

this way they could expand conditions anyway they want, and even older monsters would be able to inflict them.

so for instance, the burning condition has the fire trait. any monster with the fire trait, that can inflict a condition,

when rolling a surge may choose to inflict the burning condition OR any other,

which might have the fire trait as well.

so the monster card simply says the following:

Surge: Fire Condition (Inflict one condition with the fire trait of your choosing).

Maybe there could be some sort of randomization instead of being able to choose, but you get the gist.

of course it is too late for that now. but, maybe there is a way to do something similar???

or at least maybe it is an idea to keep in mind, if they ever want to make a 3E ^^

I dont think monsters having traits would work, how do we distinguish what traits the existing monsters have easily ? without having to refer to some document that is which would make the game a bit annoying, ie everything thats needed to know about the monster should be written on the card.

How do we know what existing conditions have what traits ? There is nothing indicating on the all cards released up to date have which trait.

Its an interesting idea, don't get me wrong but i feel its only a plan that could have worked if they were implemented from the beginning of the base game.

With that said there are a lot of ideas floating around saying what could have been done in hindsight but that really doesn't help moving forward with the existing version of the game (which is still very new in the grand scheme of things).

The closest anyone is going to get to having these dreams of theirs realised would for FFG to create a Descent 2.1 update pack which replaces the existing cards from the existing game + expansions with new updates ones. Also all expansions moving forward would require the 2.1 descent update pack - that seems like a pretty hard sell to me.

The ideas that have been brought up though are indeed good game design ideas that should have been thought about when creating the original base game.

I think is is pretty clear here everyone would prefer to have a better implemented conditions system versus just having more conditions, thats something i can totally agree with. The new conditions are really interesting and it would be a shame to see them go unused as much as they currently are.

so you all get my point. that's nice.

another option would be to say that conditions have specific traits, too, just like monsters.

And that monster's with a specific trait can inflict any condition of the same trait. that would be very universal.

this way they could expand conditions anyway they want, and even older monsters would be able to inflict them.

so for instance, the burning condition has the fire trait. any monster with the fire trait, that can inflict a condition,

when rolling a surge may choose to inflict the burning condition OR any other,

which might have the fire trait as well.

so the monster card simply says the following:

Surge: Fire Condition (Inflict one condition with the fire trait of your choosing).

Maybe there could be some sort of randomization instead of being able to choose, but you get the gist.

of course it is too late for that now. but, maybe there is a way to do something similar???

or at least maybe it is an idea to keep in mind, if they ever want to make a 3E ^^

Nice idea! It is probably too late though.

I wouldn't mind if they re-used conditions in future expansions and in some ways I would prefer it to increase the total number of monsters that can use them across other expansions as aniedrig mentioned.

to your first point: monsters already belong to a trait! there are symbols on the back of the card so, i am not sure, if you missed that or if you mean something else. they are easily distinguished, and you actually have to distinguish them, when choosing an open monster group.

to your second part: yes, there is probably no way to implement my ideas in the game now. it is too late for that. it was just an idea, what would have been nice and what would be nice to think about in the future. that is actually literally what i was saying in my post: "of course it is too late for that now. but, maybe there is a way to do something similar??? or at least maybe it is an idea to keep in mind, if they ever want to make a 3E"

Maybe there is another, but similar way, to implement these ideas into the game now. if not, they might want to think about it in 10 years, when they make a 3E

Applying these to different conditions could be possible if future condition cards had these symbols on them thats right, i did think about that. This still isn't backwards compatible with current condition cards sadly so while its a good idea its not exactly an elegant solution to the problem.

to your second part: yes, there is probably no way to implement my ideas in the game now. it is too late for that. it was just an idea, what would have been nice and what would be nice to think about in the future. that is actually literally what i was saying in my post: "of course it is too late for that now. but, maybe there is a way to do something similar??? or at least maybe it is an idea to keep in mind, if they ever want to make a 3E"

I realise you said it would not work unless they were doing something like v3, sorry if you thought i was dissing your idea it certainly is a decent one I was answering your above query in my previous post - no offence intended, just answering your question.

There may however be some form of more elegant solution by giving the overlord additional powers to allow a monster group to apply certain a condition of his choice. The overlord would need to spend threat tokens at the start of the encounter to allow a monster group of his choice the chance to apply conditions when they roll a surge on an attack. The overlord gets stronger and the players get something to help equal out the overlord ability buff, helping not to break the game balance. With a bit of polish an idea like this might just work

i guess we all agree that backwards compatibility is difficult, if not impossible.

[...]

There may however be some form of more elegant solution by giving the overlord additional powers to allow a monster group to apply certain a condition of his choice. The overlord would need to spend threat tokens at the start of the encounter to allow a monster group of his choice the chance to apply conditions when they roll a surge on an attack. The overlord gets stronger and the players get something to help equal out the overlord ability buff, helping not to break the game balance. With a bit of polish an idea like this might just work

that would indeed be a compromise solution for the 2E. i like it. they could easily implement this in a future expansion by some OL Cards or Plot Decks.

as you can see, by brainstorming, we are approaching some sort of solution. that is all i wanted

if FFG-designers actually read their forums, they might think about this problem,

and just maybe we will then get some improved mechanics for this problem in future expansions.

thank you all so far!

Another option would be to say that conditions have specific traits, too, just like monsters.

And that monster's with a specific trait can inflict any condition of the same trait. that would be very universal. This way they could expand conditions anyway they want, and even older monsters would be able to inflict them.

I like that idea. It should also be easy enough to implement as a house rule if you want to play around with it (I may even do this myself.) Just write down a mapping of monster traits to conditions for reference.

Some conditions may be harder to map than others, though. I mean, "Fire" to "Burning" is a no-brainer, but what about Immobilize? Perhaps we could leave the core set's conditions unmapped, since they're available to all expansions anyway. That would leave Burning, Cursed and Weakened as the current conditions requiring a monster trait, I believe.

Another question would be how wide-spread would the condition be just based on a monster trait association? Would all attacks by a monster with a matching trait automatically inflict the condition? That could mean a significant boost in power to certain monsters who may or may not need the help.

Only "special ability" attacks? Maybe the OL has the option of adding a mapped condition to the monster's attack, at some cost? (Potential costs: discard a card from hand, use a second action, spend a threat - if one doesn't mind requiring an LT pack for this house rule to work.)

As to the idea of FFG implementing it officially (if they wanted to), I think it would be as simple as reprinting the past condition cards with monster traits on them. Or they could even just make one reference card to map past conditions to monster traits and include it in the next expansion out the door. That's the sort of thing they've done before (I'm looking at you, D1E treachery costs for core quests.)

[...]

Some conditions may be harder to map than others, though. I mean, "Fire" to "Burning" is a no-brainer, but what about Immobilize? Perhaps we could leave the core set's conditions unmapped, since they're available to all expansions anyway. That would leave Burning, Cursed and Weakened as the current conditions requiring a monster trait, I believe.

[...]

i thought about that, too. there could be some "basic" conditions like stun, immobilize, weaken, which various monsters (and items, for that matter) can apply.

[...]

Another question would be how wide-spread would the condition be just based on a monster trait association? Would all attacks by a monster with a matching trait automatically inflict the condition? That could mean a significant boost in power to certain monsters who may or may not need the help.

[...]

well, maybe i don't quite understand what you mean. but i think my answer is no, not all attacks should apply that condition by default. the monster card normally says something like: surge: +2 damage or surge: "Burn"

instead of "burn" it could say: surge: "any one condition with the fire trait"

so that would still be a monster ability. AND YES, i am aware that this is not possible to do now, without reprinting every monster card.

basically the solution could have been (PAST form!) using another, more universally applicable card text.

instead of specifically stating, which condition to inflict, when rolling a surge, the text on the monster card should read:

if you roll a surge and if your attack deals at least one damage:

- apply one condition with the "fire" trait of your choosing. (for instance "burn")

or

if you roll a surge and if your attack deals at least one damage:

- apply one condition with the "basic" trait of your choosing. (for instance "stun", "immobilize", "weaken")

"curse" trait - "cursed" (obviously)

"wilderness" trait - maybe "poison"

etc.

and again. I know that this is not possible anymore for 2E.

however, i raised the topic, because i hope FFG would "expand" expansions,

so there will at least be some more monsters applying newly introduced conditions than only one.

Plot decks can fix this. Actually, plot decks can fix a lot of issues. The lieutenant packs are already expansions to an expansion, and they are already using the plot decks to buff certain monster of a specific trait. This is great - it gives the overlord a reason to pick monsters of that trait instead of only the strongest ones any chance they get.

They could use the plot deck of a lieutenant from a specific expansion to allow monsters of a specific trait to inflect a condition from that expansion. Its just a question of whether or not they will do that.

I think if they want to make more monsters inflict burn or weaken in the future, they will just include a few cards and tokens in that expansion. I don't think it ups the cost that much. I hope so anyway, I don't want 12 conditions.

Plot decks can fix this. Actually, plot decks can fix a lot of issues. The lieutenant packs are already expansions to an expansion, and they are already using the plot decks to buff certain monster of a specific trait. This is great - it gives the overlord a reason to pick monsters of that trait instead of only the strongest ones any chance they get.

They could use the plot deck of a lieutenant from a specific expansion to allow monsters of a specific trait to inflect a condition from that expansion. Its just a question of whether or not they will do that.

I think if they want to make more monsters inflict burn or weaken in the future, they will just include a few cards and tokens in that expansion. I don't think it ups the cost that much. I hope so anyway, I don't want 12 conditions.

I totally agree. I think that might be the best and easiest solution to make expansions cross-compatible, which was the whole reason for starting this thread, anyway.

so to sum it all up, please FFG make expansions more cross-compatible, so we don't end up with conditions only being used by one single monster group or board tiles only being used in one single quest, etc.

They could use the plot deck of a lieutenant from a specific expansion to allow monsters of a specific trait to inflect a condition from that expansion. Its just a question of whether or not they will do that.

The problem with this is that the LT packs are also meant to be independent of the boxed expansions: they're really *not* expanding expansions. They provide the oft-sought LT miniature, but the Plot decks are meant to be compatible with as little as just the base game, i.e. you don't need Lair of the Wyrm to use Valyndra and her Plot deck. Thus, she'd never cause Burn, nor would her deck cause Burn. Like I said in my other post, I think to fix this, you need general abilities like Subdue that can apply any condition. This allows for base game conditions to be used, as well as any combination of expansion conditions.

[...]

i.e. you don't need Lair of the Wyrm to use Valyndra and her Plot deck. Thus, she'd never cause Burn, nor would her deck cause Burn.

[...]

is that really the case? it might be, i agree. we will see, when she arrives.

However, i think at least the lieutenant packs, should presuppose the corresponding expansions,

in which those lieutenants were introduced, don't you? if they did, plot decks could easily solve this problem.

i mean that's the whole point of this thread, i.e. expressing the wish for expansions (and lieutenant packs) to expand or build on other expansions. basically, i never meant to discuss "if"s and "when"s, but to express my wish for what i just said, hoping that someone from FFG might read and think about this

is that really the case? it might be, i agree. we will see, when she arrives.

However, i think at least the lieutenant packs, should presuppose the corresponding expansions,

in which those lieutenants were introduced, don't you? if they did, plot decks could easily solve this problem.

Actually, no. The entire purpose of the Plot Deck and the idea of summoning an LT into a quest he didn't originally appear in was to make them independent of the expansion they came from, so they can be used anywhere.

FFG even said at one point (IIRC) that the original plan was to just release the miniatures, but then they realized that would make the LT Pack only useable with the expansion it came from, and that wasn't good enough.

Valyndra's LT card in LoW has Burn, her "agent" card in the Valyndra LT pack does not. So we can already see that they're doing exactly the opposite - removing conditions (and other expansion-dependent material) if the LT previously used them.

Perhaps they could include condition cards and a small sheet of tokens with the LT Pack if they wanted to run with this idea, that way even people without the original expansion could use the condition. All the general rules for conditions (beyond the specific effects of a condition, which are all on the card) are in the base game, so they wouldn't need to reprint any rules, just the components. They don't appear to be doing this with the current run of LTs, though.

I don't see any issue with turning this into a discussion. It'd be a pretty boring thread if it was just "Hey I want FFG to expand on expansions" and every response was "Me too." I also think it's important to share information, and dispell speculation that has been proven one way or the other, such as Steve-O and I explaining agents will probably have little connection between their Plot decks and their LTs in expansions, so it's unrealistic to expect agents to inflict expansion conditions.