Well, I just got my Shadows of Nerekhall today, and it looks like I was totally wrong about armor power level being rebalanced, the armor in SoN is just as weak as in D2E.

Okay, you guys are 100% right, Rune Plate is nuts and unbalanced. I should know better than to put any faith in FFG :-) That company really needs to hire more developers and fewer designers.

Armor is supposed to be weak overall, else the overlord would be incapable of killing you. Being virtually immune to damage would be a serious problem for game balance.

Rune plate is strong, no doubt, but it isn't nearly as powerful as you are giving it credit. Even in act one, I've found I'm still able to drop the mage like a rock with the right monsters. In act 2, it just doesn't matter.

Yeah... no.

That's not an argument. I'm just not seeing it.

Restrictions on cards weaken the card. Obviously you would agree that runeplate would be better if it wasn't required that you have a knowledge above 4 and a rune weapon to reap all the benefits of it. Those restrictions pretty much limit it to a mage. Having one grey and one black defense die is not that powerful. Yes, it's good. Yes, it's way better than not having it, and it's better for the mage than any other armor. But it's not even remotely close to making the mage unkillable or invincible, and it in no way shape or form improves the mage's resistance to skills that neutralize them (like using throw to put them in a sh*tty position, or hitting them with conditions to prevent them from doing anything useful), it doesn't help them against most overlord cards, and it in no way shape or form makes the mage better at killing your things in fewer actions. It might make it more willing to take a few risks, but that's okay. And 175 gold in act 1 is a lot of money to spend armoring one of the characters who gets hit the least if played correctly, because it should never really be in melee range.

As for act 2 armors, it's not even close to the strongest. First, Aurium Mail (a relic) which is obtainable in act 1 is superior due to fewer restrictions. It doesn't give the +2 health, but it gives an extra brown die on one attack and can go on anyone. Obsidian Scalemail is better than runeplate, especially on a warrior who doesn't really use that kind of action more than once per turn anyway. Immunity to curse and bonus fatigue regen? Yes please. Stone armor is quite restrictive but in terms of raw power to survive, nothing beats it. With proper use of equipping and unequipping on a ranged character, this armor becomes frustrating to the extreme. It also doesn't limit movement through skills at all, like Oath of Honor, or wildlander abilities etc., making the limitations more than possible to deal with without too much difficulty. Runeplate is better than platemail (for a mage), but for a healer like say, Auger Grissom, which cannot make use of runeplate properly but can use platemail with no negative at all, platemail is clearly superior. It beats demonhide leather and scalemail, but again, only a mage can use runeplate where these armors have the advantage of being able to go on whoever needs it. Cloak of deception is just plain hilarious as well. Runeplate beats inscribed robes, but only if you're being attacked frequently.

So no, Runeplate isn't in the high end of act 2 armors: it is for the mage, but the mage can't use anything else for armor really. It's in the middle at best. For a warrior, scout or healer, it might as well not even exist.

When looking at a piece of equipment or a skill or other ability, you need to ask yourself: in what way does this card actually help? If there was a card in the deck that read "All of your attacks deal +50 damage" yet required you to have 3 hands to equip it, would that be useful? No, of course not, nobody could use it, despite the ability being outrageously broken. Does a mage having +2 hp and an extra black defense die really seem game breaking? Because I don't see it. Hell, proper use of creatures with piercing will have that mage dead no problem. Or an act 1 ettin who happens to roll 5 damage + a surge, which hits for 8 damage. Throw in a dark might and a critical blow and watch the mage lose half his health in one blow. Volicrux Reavers will tear a mage with runeplate to shreds. Many other monsters can invalidate the mage with skill usage.

Rune plate is a good card. It is strong. It is not game breaking or overpowered.

It beats demonhide leather and scalemail, but again, only a mage can use runeplate where these armors have the advantage of being able to go on whoever needs it.

I beg a difference - usually only the mage can make full use of runeplate , but nowhere there is a restriction that only mages can equip it. But you know what? Non-mages can get a no-penalty black defense die from it quite easily. How? Why, by using Mana Weave, it is a rune after all. Nowhere does it state that it has to be a rune weapon, just that you need to have a rune equipped. But even without that, rune plate is much better choice then demonhide leather and scalemail even for less-then-4-knowledge-&-no-rune-equipped fellows. You could argue about scalemail and technically, it can give you better defense in that case, but considering restrictions and cost, I would say Rune Plate is better. But it's a moot point unless you play without full 4 set of heroes and it's not really the scenario we want to talk about (since it's far from balanced anyway).

As for the 'look at all these armors that are better then Rune Plate' - I fully agree with the point you made. And that is: every class, hell, every specific hero has one specific armor that would be the best one for him. There is no doubt of that. The thing is, for most mages Rune Plate is this choice, and for others it's usually an act II armor - which is a bit silly if you ask me. I have no problem with Aurium Mail being in act I (it's a relic god **** it, it IS supposed to be powerful).

But maybe I should clarify something, looking back I do think I haven't been clear in this thread, especially in the opening poster. The point I'm trying to make is that I am afraid of this trend where we will be getting more and more powerful and unbalanced items with each expansion. That with the expansion after Manor of Ravens half of the optimal, best-in-slot equipment for heroes will come from act I which would be simply plain wrong. I have no problems with some utility items from act I being used throught whole campaign. I do have a problem with non-relic act I weapons/armors having more raw power then act II equivalents. Extremly powerful items are great, but make sure they have proper gold balance for what they do and for what other similar items do. And that's all really.

good point about the mana weave and the rune plate

for sure this item IS broken, no doubt about it

The item isn't broken though, you guys are all misusing the word. Broken means that it makes the game unplayable. Runeplate is good, it might even be a little too strong, but it does not break the game.

as already said, should be an act 2 item; at least

Perhaps it should. If you desire to do so, you can get cases for all of your cards, and then just mix it in with the act 2 shop item deck, as long as your group agrees.

However, I personally feel it's okay to keep it in the act 1 deck. I also almost always play overlord, just so you have my perspective.

I've never heard anyone use the word broken to mean "makes the game unplayable." The word is commonly used - and definitely used here - to describe something which is out of line with the rest of the game.

There's a distinction between over and underpowered and broken. The fact that many people get it wrong does not change that. Broken means, well, broken. Unplayable. Not usable in its current state. Game destroying. Something can be overpowered or underpowered yet not break anything.

It should be hard to get not automatically acquired at the end of act 1. Either they need to take the rule go through act 1 items and pick and buy (after interlude)out. Or they need to make items like that act 2 only.

What they mean by game breaker is you can acquire Runeplate after any act 1 campaign which is to powerful at that stage of the game. If heroes relied more on randomness of the deck then it would be ok. Edit: With that rule your just gaining a jump on the OL and it can only get worse with the amount of stuff they keep making for the game.

4 player game not a real big deal there is 3 others OL can deal with.

3 player, (which I've played) it's a problem and a game breaker.

2 player I see a problem there..

3 player games are already player favored, so I can see why you'd say that.

2 player games are heavily overlord favored for the most part, so I don't see it being an issue there. The heroes just don't have enough actions.

There's a distinction between over and underpowered and broken. The fact that many people get it wrong does not change that. Broken means, well, broken. Unplayable. Not usable in its current state. Game destroying. Something can be overpowered or underpowered yet not break anything.

Whitey, you and I seem to agree on a lot of things, and I respect you for that. However, here I have to stand opposed. The common use of a word, whether technically correct or not, still counts for something.

If 90% of the people understand the word "download" to mean "copying a file from a remote server to my local computer," and "upload" to be the opposite, then the fact that the original definitions of these words were the reverse is of little consequence. This is what people mean, and trying to use the words "correctly" is only going to generate confusion among the masses. Bully for you if you know the truth, but it's not going to change how people talk.

Likewise, easily over 90% of gamers here and abroad the internet use the term "broken" to mean "overpowered" (and perhaps occasionally "underpowered," but usually the former.) In fact, they often use the term to refer to a perceived imbalance when there may in fact not even be an actual imbalance in practice.

I'm sure they would use "broken" in a case where the game became literally unplayable, but that is not a prerequisite in common parlance. The way the majority of people use the word "broken" in the context of gaming is highly subjective, to the point where I don't really think any one definition can be universally applied. You know what they mean, let's just leave it at that.

If you're a hero at our table, you'd see how 'valuable' rolling Grey/Black can be when the black die comes up blank -- an occurrence that has left our mage-playing friend in a fit of frustration -- especially when we only seem to roll a 3 or 4 shield result when rolling for attribute tests.

To all the OLs that whinge and whine that a hero can roll Grey/Black early in act one, remember to think in the long-term . What is powerful now will be brought in line by the time the quest reaches its ultimate conclusion. Grey/Black doesn't stand up well against Frenzied Blue/Red/Red rolls, a well-timed Blood Rage or both . It is far, FAR from the 'game breaking, unstoppable BS' that's been going around this thread.

Let's not forget that your Lieutenants and High-Falutin' Villain characters often roll Gray/Gray/Black and have twice-to-three-times the health of most heroes, and show up when it's most necessary -- in the finale. You can lose every single quest up until the finale and you can still win the overall campaign , so get over the fact that heroes have a decent Act 1 armor. There's still a whole act left to play, and your playing field is level.

There's a distinction between over and underpowered and broken. The fact that many people get it wrong does not change that. Broken means, well, broken. Unplayable. Not usable in its current state. Game destroying. Something can be overpowered or underpowered yet not break anything.

Whitey, you and I seem to agree on a lot of things, and I respect you for that. However, here I have to stand opposed. The common use of a word, whether technically correct or not, still counts for something.

If 90% of the people understand the word "download" to mean "copying a file from a remote server to my local computer," and "upload" to be the opposite, then the fact that the original definitions of these words were the reverse is of little consequence. This is what people mean, and trying to use the words "correctly" is only going to generate confusion among the masses. Bully for you if you know the truth, but it's not going to change how people talk.

Likewise, easily over 90% of gamers here and abroad the internet use the term "broken" to mean "overpowered" (and perhaps occasionally "underpowered," but usually the former.) In fact, they often use the term to refer to a perceived imbalance when there may in fact not even be an actual imbalance in practice.

I'm sure they would use "broken" in a case where the game became literally unplayable, but that is not a prerequisite in common parlance. The way the majority of people use the word "broken" in the context of gaming is highly subjective, to the point where I don't really think any one definition can be universally applied. You know what they mean, let's just leave it at that.

I was purposefully pointing out the distinction to make my stance more clear. I needed to express gradations to ensure that while I will give that the card may be slightly on the overpowered side for an act 1 item, even given its restrictions, I do not find the card game breaking. I did it because if I use the word broken the same way others commonly do, then I no longer have a term to describe something that breaks the game, so I was making the distinction in order to better express myself, not particularly to insist that they are wrong to use it the way they were. I may have not been as clear as I wanted to, so for that I apologize.

Once again I would like to draw attention from the Rune Plate discusson (since everyone already has their opinion on that, and they won't change) and more on to the intention of this thread (badly presented in the opening poster, but still) - stopping the power creep.

My intention with this topic is to rely the message to FFG that in a game like Descent power creep of cards ( ALL cards now that I think about it) is not needed like in LCG. All expansions will sell nicely not because they have oh-my-god-super-powerful item/relic/monster/OL-card or whatever, but because they'll give new options, new scenarios and campaigns to play, in short variety . Whenever we get a game element that is significantly superior, an element we can always choose to pick, variety of choices will suffer. In the long run, the fun & enjoyment from the game for all players will suffer.

To stress again: the Rune Plate is not such a card. When I said 'broken' I did indeed mean an item that is not balanced when you compare it to it's alternatives, not 'game-breaking-winner-deciding'. It is however a precedence - the best armor for certain heroes in act I which means it's not a chance - it's a choice if you pick it up or not - and it's a 'do we buy rune plate' not 'do we buy any act I armor before act II' because rune plate is so good that you would be stupid to buy any other armor over it. Contrary to what some here say, Rune Plate doesn NOT have ANY restrictions - it works better in certain situations but there are NO penalties for using it (unlike 90% of the armor avaible in the game). What's next, an act I melee weapon that rolls red/red, red/yellow, or red/green? I don't want to see more of such items, of best-in-slot weapons/armors for other heroes/trinkets that are act I shop item cards.

It works two ways however. I also don't want to see act I monsters with act II stats. I don't want to see monsters so ridicullously powerful that they are always picked whenever they can be choosen as an open group, no matter the map/vicotry conditions. I don't want to see lvl 1 and 2 overlord cards that do what some lvl 3 OL cards do, but better. I don't want to see lieutenants/agents that decimate entire hero parties on their own in one-two turns.

TL;DR - no power creep, more focus on variety and new mechanics FFG. Descent products will sell like crazy without power creep, at least that's what interests me here and I belive I'm not alone on this among Descent players.

I was purposefully pointing out the distinction to make my stance more clear. I needed to express gradations to ensure that while I will give that the card may be slightly on the overpowered side for an act 1 item, even given its restrictions, I do not find the card game breaking. I did it because if I use the word broken the same way others commonly do, then I no longer have a term to describe something that breaks the game, so I was making the distinction in order to better express myself, not particularly to insist that they are wrong to use it the way they were. I may have not been as clear as I wanted to, so for that I apologize.

It's better to make up a term for the unusual situation, rather than repurposing a common term in a way which will make what you're saying harder to understand.

Once again I would like to draw attention from the Rune Plate discusson (since everyone already has their opinion on that, and they won't change) and more on to the intention of this thread (badly presented in the opening poster, but still) - stopping the power creep.

My intention with this topic is to rely the message to FFG that in a game like Descent power creep of cards ( ALL cards now that I think about it) is not needed like in LCG. All expansions will sell nicely not because they have oh-my-god-super-powerful item/relic/monster/OL-card or whatever, but because they'll give new options, new scenarios and campaigns to play, in short variety . Whenever we get a game element that is significantly superior, an element we can always choose to pick, variety of choices will suffer. In the long run, the fun & enjoyment from the game for all players will suffer.

To stress again: the Rune Plate is not such a card. When I said 'broken' I did indeed mean an item that is not balanced when you compare it to it's alternatives, not 'game-breaking-winner-deciding'. It is however a precedence - the best armor for certain heroes in act I which means it's not a chance - it's a choice if you pick it up or not - and it's a 'do we buy rune plate' not 'do we buy any act I armor before act II' because rune plate is so good that you would be stupid to buy any other armor over it. Contrary to what some here say, Rune Plate doesn NOT have ANY restrictions - it works better in certain situations but there are NO penalties for using it (unlike 90% of the armor avaible in the game). What's next, an act I melee weapon that rolls red/red, red/yellow, or red/green? I don't want to see more of such items, of best-in-slot weapons/armors for other heroes/trinkets that are act I shop item cards.

It works two ways however. I also don't want to see act I monsters with act II stats. I don't want to see monsters so ridicullously powerful that they are always picked whenever they can be choosen as an open group, no matter the map/vicotry conditions. I don't want to see lvl 1 and 2 overlord cards that do what some lvl 3 OL cards do, but better. I don't want to see lieutenants/agents that decimate entire hero parties on their own in one-two turns.

TL;DR - no power creep, more focus on variety and new mechanics FFG. Descent products will sell like crazy without power creep, at least that's what interests me here and I belive I'm not alone on this among Descent players.

Do you know what an opportunity cost is? Every item in the game has a cost associated with using it.

I'm just not seeing the power creep. Some of the best items in the game came with the basic game box.

Likewise, easily over 90% of gamers here and abroad the internet use the term "broken" to mean "overpowered" (and perhaps occasionally "underpowered," but usually the former.) In fact, they often use the term to refer to a perceived imbalance when there may in fact not even be an actual imbalance in practice.

I'm sure they would use "broken" in a case where the game became literally unplayable, but that is not a prerequisite in common parlance. The way the majority of people use the word "broken" in the context of gaming is highly subjective, to the point where I don't really think any one definition can be universally applied. You know what they mean, let's just leave it at that.

It's better to make up a term for the unusual situation, rather than repurposing a common term in a way which will make what you're saying harder to understand.

I disagree. Just because most of these players speak in hyperbole doesn't mean that it should be encouraged. If you follow actual game design professionals (particularly for big-league games), they'll say the same thing Whitewing says.

You can lose every single quest up until the finale and you can still win the overall campaign[/u], so get over the fact that heroes have a decent Act 1 armor. There's still a whole act left to play, and your playing field is level.

@plainwhitebread

Don't even get me started on the "why" I don't like this game much. But I do like this part of your post. That part of your post describes the over all feel of the game well. Diablo race game where the end game is all that matters. In my opinion instead of a shop system they could of done something more interesting before the end game. Maybe explore to find gear instead. What's lurking around the corner is missing from about 90% of the game. 90% of the game should be exciting until the very end. Instead it's a diablo clone and a poor one. They should of stayed true to D1 but made it better,faster whatever their goal was in making D2.

"But the game is not designed like that" well 90% or so of the game is a total drag and could of been designed better. All I see with this game is they took exploration out and replaced it with some horrible "tactical" (questionable) machanic.

My friends don't even know I get on here and nit pick things but they know I don't like it much as long as they produce beer and chips I can tolerate it and get some laughs.

Power creep is just a small problem that can get worse.

Likewise, easily over 90% of gamers here and abroad the internet use the term "broken" to mean "overpowered" (and perhaps occasionally "underpowered," but usually the former.) In fact, they often use the term to refer to a perceived imbalance when there may in fact not even be an actual imbalance in practice.

I'm sure they would use "broken" in a case where the game became literally unplayable, but that is not a prerequisite in common parlance. The way the majority of people use the word "broken" in the context of gaming is highly subjective, to the point where I don't really think any one definition can be universally applied. You know what they mean, let's just leave it at that.

It's better to make up a term for the unusual situation, rather than repurposing a common term in a way which will make what you're saying harder to understand.

I disagree. Just because most of these players speak in hyperbole doesn't mean that it should be encouraged. If you follow actual game design professionals (particularly for big-league games), they'll say the same thing Whitewing says.

Likewise, easily over 90% of gamers here and abroad the internet use the term "broken" to mean "overpowered" (and perhaps occasionally "underpowered," but usually the former.) In fact, they often use the term to refer to a perceived imbalance when there may in fact not even be an actual imbalance in practice.

I'm sure they would use "broken" in a case where the game became literally unplayable, but that is not a prerequisite in common parlance. The way the majority of people use the word "broken" in the context of gaming is highly subjective, to the point where I don't really think any one definition can be universally applied. You know what they mean, let's just leave it at that.

It's better to make up a term for the unusual situation, rather than repurposing a common term in a way which will make what you're saying harder to understand.

I disagree. Just because most of these players speak in hyperbole doesn't mean that it should be encouraged. If you follow actual game design professionals (particularly for big-league games), they'll say the same thing Whitewing says.

Don't forget this is a forum. And not nearly as bad as some I've seen(Community wise). Most people here including me aren't typing or talking to the best of are abilities or even spell check. This is a game forum and nothing here is even all that important. If this was a resume' then people would CARE more.

If you don't even care enough about the things you love or do as a hobby, then why should anyone take anything you ever do seriously?

I try to make my posts legible and clear, and while I will readily state that my opinions are opinions and aren't always right, I do my best to argue my position in a way that others can know what I'm trying to actually say. Hyperbole runs counter to that notion, and is primarily a tool of rhetoric, which is counter productive.

Obviously you care enough to come on here and spend a portion of your day reading others posts and commenting yourself. If you care enough to do that, why not care enough to make the discussion the best it can be with a small amount of additional effort?

Likewise, easily over 90% of gamers here and abroad the internet use the term "broken" to mean "overpowered" (and perhaps occasionally "underpowered," but usually the former.) In fact, they often use the term to refer to a perceived imbalance when there may in fact not even be an actual imbalance in practice.

I'm sure they would use "broken" in a case where the game became literally unplayable, but that is not a prerequisite in common parlance. The way the majority of people use the word "broken" in the context of gaming is highly subjective, to the point where I don't really think any one definition can be universally applied. You know what they mean, let's just leave it at that.

It's better to make up a term for the unusual situation, rather than repurposing a common term in a way which will make what you're saying harder to understand.

I disagree. Just because most of these players speak in hyperbole doesn't mean that it should be encouraged. If you follow actual game design professionals (particularly for big-league games), they'll say the same thing Whitewing says.

Don't forget this is a forum. And not nearly as bad as some I've seen(Community wise). Most people here including me aren't typing or talking to the best of are abilities or even spell check. This is a game forum and nothing here is even all that important. If this was a resume' then people would CARE more.

If you don't even care enough about the things you love or do as a hobby, then why should anyone take anything you ever do seriously?

I try to make my posts legible and clear, and while I will readily state that my opinions are opinions and aren't always right, I do my best to argue my position in a way that others can know what I'm trying to actually say. Hyperbole runs counter to that notion, and is primarily a tool of rhetoric, which is counter productive.

Obviously you care enough to come on here and spend a portion of your day reading others posts and commenting yourself. If you care enough to do that, why not care enough to make the discussion the best it can be with a small amount of additional effort?

Likewise, easily over 90% of gamers here and abroad the internet use the term "broken" to mean "overpowered" (and perhaps occasionally "underpowered," but usually the former.) In fact, they often use the term to refer to a perceived imbalance when there may in fact not even be an actual imbalance in practice.

I'm sure they would use "broken" in a case where the game became literally unplayable, but that is not a prerequisite in common parlance. The way the majority of people use the word "broken" in the context of gaming is highly subjective, to the point where I don't really think any one definition can be universally applied. You know what they mean, let's just leave it at that.

It's better to make up a term for the unusual situation, rather than repurposing a common term in a way which will make what you're saying harder to understand.

I disagree. Just because most of these players speak in hyperbole doesn't mean that it should be encouraged. If you follow actual game design professionals (particularly for big-league games), they'll say the same thing Whitewing says.

Don't forget this is a forum. And not nearly as bad as some I've seen(Community wise). Most people here including me aren't typing or talking to the best of are abilities or even spell check. This is a game forum and nothing here is even all that important. If this was a resume' then people would CARE more.

If you don't even care enough about the things you love or do as a hobby, then why should anyone take anything you ever do seriously?

I try to make my posts legible and clear, and while I will readily state that my opinions are opinions and aren't always right, I do my best to argue my position in a way that others can know what I'm trying to actually say. Hyperbole runs counter to that notion, and is primarily a tool of rhetoric, which is counter productive.

Obviously you care enough to come on here and spend a portion of your day reading others posts and commenting yourself. If you care enough to do that, why not care enough to make the discussion the best it can be with a small amount of additional effort?

I wouldn't call it a hobby personally for me. After all I did give it away for free.