Hello again friends !

Is it possible for you to have a party of heroes composed only of warriors class ( in the base game of the dwarf berzerker and the elf knight ? )

Can be a normal, easy or difficult victory for the heroes ?

What do you think ?

Its certainly possible, however it could lead to some weaknesses that the overlord could exploit.

For example I would imagine that immobilize would be very powerful for the overlord seeing as there is a good change that most of the heroes will be melee heroes.

The group would also likely have low scores in attributes other then strength, which also could be exploited

that would depends on the map and objectives.

Sometimes hard, sometimes easy. But with a full warrior party, the first time all 2-3 heroes fall, the map is lost.

But it could be fun to have a full healer party

Its certainly possible, however it could lead to some weaknesses that the overlord could exploit.

For example I would imagine that immobilize would be very powerful for the overlord seeing as there is a good change that most of the heroes will be melee heroes.

The group would also likely have low scores in attributes other then strength, which also could be exploited

I agree. Diversity in the party is an advantage to the heroes, as it allows them to adjust their strategy based on the OL and objectives. Otherwise, the OL can always play to the collective weakness of the heroes for an advantage. For example, if the heroes were all mages, I would use hybrid sentinels at every opportunity (+1 damage when might is < 2,) and I would avoid cards/ quests that require knowledge tests like the plague.

That's not saying that a party of one archetype can't do a number of the OL's monsters, I just see if making for a difficult campaign win overall.

As an OL, it's the same reason I don't pick all melee monsters for a quest- too easy to counter with hero placement.

Sometimes hard, sometimes easy. But with a full warrior party, the first time all 2-3 heroes fall, the map is lost.

I don't think all warriors would be that bad. They'd be tough to take down, and many would have a relatively high defense, so while you might be set back slightly needing everyone to stand up, the OL isn't going to have an automatic knock down again compared to many other classes.

But it could be fun to have a full healer party

I actually think this would be the most difficult single-archetype party to use. Too many healers means that most of the time, you aren't going to be able to use healing abilities (since everyone is pretty much always going to be at full health) which effectively nerfs every hero on the board.

Personally I think the all-Scout or all-Mage parties would be the more effective because they have the most flexibility. Warrior classes often rely on Melee weapons for their skills, so ranged attacks are a bit less effective, and as mentioned above, healer classes rely on people not being at full health to make full use of their abilities. With the other two, I can't think of too many other restrictions (though they would tend to be a bit squishy, so they'd have to rely on rushing tactics).

Hello again friends !

Is it possible for you to have a party of heroes composed only of warriors class ( in the base game of the dwarf berzerker and the elf knight ? )

Can be a normal, easy or difficult victory for the heroes ?

What do you think ?

In a two vs 1 player game your not going to have enough actions to produce enough victories per quests so I don't believe it will matter if you choose warriors only. If you can get geared up heavily/appropriately enough you can still win in final. 3 vs 1 game there are less monsters to deal with but you will certainly have master minions all the time. You will have enough actions to win a lot of quests. 4 vs 1 is where OL could exploit you but like the 1 vs 2 game (any) the final is what matters not how many quests you can win (But it does help).

The game isn't that strategically complicated as a lot of people will have you believe. But you will find some writing on cards, books, ect. more complicated. You'll be spending more time looking up FAQ and errata then you will on THE strategy. But you'll see as you play,and play, and play again.

Hello again friends !

Is it possible for you to have a party of heroes composed only of warriors class ( in the base game of the dwarf berzerker and the elf knight ? )

Can be a normal, easy or difficult victory for the heroes ?

What do you think ?

In a two vs 1 player game your not going to have enough actions to produce enough victories per quests so I don't believe it will matter if you choose warriors only. If you can get geared up heavily/appropriately enough you can still win in final. 3 vs 1 game there are less monsters to deal with but you will certainly have master minions all the time. You will have enough actions to win a lot of quests. 4 vs 1 is where OL could exploit you but like the 1 vs 2 game (any) the final is what matters not how many quests you can win (But it does help).

The game isn't that strategically complicated as a lot of people will have you believe. But you will find some writing on cards, books, ect. more complicated. You'll be spending more time looking up FAQ and errata then you will on THE strategy. But you'll see as you play,and play, and play again.

That's funny because i was just doing that before I got on this forum for answers.

I'm going to disagree with Griton here on an all healer party group being the weakest single archetype. While their skills will find less use than the other archetypes, they'll have more actions to spend attacking overall because they will simply never die. Several of the healer classes gain skills that are useful for attacking (concoction for the apothecary in particular is quite potent), and the fatigue regeneration the group has, if played correctly, will allow for more ability usage than almost any other party. The all healer group will also be in substantially less competition with each other for shop cards, because they can all equip anything for the most part: healer classes are the least restricted gear wise. Their abilities don't force melee weapons or ranged weapons, and they can wear pretty much any armor as well as the warriors, so on and so forth. If a rune weapon drops, they can use it. If a crossbow drops, they can use it. If the bearded axe drops, they can use it. The support that the spiritspeaker and prophet provide combined with the raw healing of the apothecary and disciple would actually make a pretty scary party.

Their primary weaknesses would be an inability to do the huge amounts of damage of the warriors, the mobility skills of the scouts, and the lack of situational versatility of the mages, but they're not that far behind in all of these regards.

Healers, when they don't have to spend all their actions to heal, can be played much like slightly weaker warriors.

I would recommend playing two scouts in a two vs 1, they( a lot)are very versatile for lack of actions( Or just really speedy heroes) Reason I say scouts is because since you lack actions you'll need a class that can perform on the coin aspect of the game. Me and wife played a 2 vs 1 over the weekend playing SoN she picked bard (Rendiel) and rune master(Ravaella) Ravaella is proving to be awesome hero but that Bard.. Lol just don't I let her replace him with Orkell the swift and he is pretty awesome so far. This guy gets KO'd getting back up saying "so" literally.

We aren't playing any side quests or plots just getting the feel for SoN right now. Rats are awesome btw. My wife already hates them.

Healers are good too in their own way but the Bard he is a light healer and light tank. In a 2 vs 1 you'll want the hero actually good at something from the start. When picking heroes you need to pick good ones like any other hero. Any hero can get stronger as the game precedes but like I said 2 vs 1 you'll need the best of the best.

Ok thanks to all ! Im going to play in 15 minutes and i'll tell you if everything goes well !

I've never played 2vs1 but a friend of mine said heroes always seem behind. Is this true? If it is then I can see why you want something good at the start.

I've never played 2vs1 but a friend of mine said heroes always seem behind. Is this true? If it is then I can see why you want something good at the start.

Yes, the heroes are pretty screwed in 2v1 if the overlord plays correctly. You simply have insufficient actions to accomplish your goals.

Seems like the only way to play this game is the 4vs1 player campaign only. Why would anybody play just a one off quest? I don't seem the fun in that at all with this particular game.

Seems like the only way to play this game is the 4vs1 player campaign only.

Exactly the way my group plays.

I've never played 2vs1 but a friend of mine said heroes always seem behind. Is this true? If it is then I can see why you want something good at the start.

Yes, the heroes are pretty screwed in 2v1 if the overlord plays correctly. You simply have insufficient actions to accomplish your goals.

Not just this but when playing a 2v1 skirmish i found it incredibly easy to knock both the heroes out which chews up all their actions, its also a very hard hole for the heroes to pull their self out of when this happens compared to 3 or 4 hero game.

Indeed 4v1 is the only way to really play this game, it adds so much more depth and strategy to the game things get a hell of alot more fun.

I've never played 2vs1 but a friend of mine said heroes always seem behind. Is this true? If it is then I can see why you want something good at the start.

Yes, the heroes are pretty screwed in 2v1 if the overlord plays correctly. You simply have insufficient actions to accomplish your goals.

Not just this but when playing a 2v1 skirmish i found it incredibly easy to knock both the heroes out which chews up all their actions, its also a very hard hole for the heroes to pull their self out of when this happens compared to 3 or 4 hero game.

Indeed 4v1 is the only way to really play this game, it adds so much more depth and strategy to the game things get a hell of alot more fun.

I have played 2vs1 before and it absolutely favours the OL. I only won Castle Dearion, but did come close on occasion with other quests due to the fact that I had Wildlander Jain and could really move around the board.

Seems like the only way to play this game is the 4vs1 player campaign only. Why would anybody play just a one off quest? I don't seem the fun in that at all with this particular game.

The game is definitely designed to be played that way (4 heroes, campaign mode.)

One-off questing was kept in the game, I suspect, because one of the biggest complaints out of D1E was the playing time. Its not the focus, though, it's just there as an option for people who want to play a 2 hour game.

I don't always have time for a full length campaign, so it's nice that we can pull it out for a quickie when an old friend blows through town for one night. But I agree, one shots pale in comparison to the full campaign.

A full length campaign certainly means a certain time investment, in terms of keeping every gaming session dedicated to just Descent for the next X weeks/months. It requires dedication, and also that players attend on a regular basis.

I've found that one-offs are not even close to be as enjoyable as campaign play. Feels like a total waste of time because there is so little focus. Good to test some of the heroes/classes though if you run Epic Play on top of it, otherwise quite pointless. I was recently asked to run a custom quest totally on-the-fly after we were done with two campaign encounters (after 3.5 hours play mind you, and we had 30mins left), since I only had the material required for said encounters and could not start another campaign encounter. Some players said I could just build my own map and throw whatever monsters I had available, and their heroes (from campaign) would go delve in there and take whatever treasure there is. I said no way.

To me there is no "quickie" with this game, even First Blood takes more than a hour with my playgroups.

To me there is no "quickie" with this game, even First Blood takes more than a hour with my playgroups.

Trust me, for FFG games, that's quick.

The very fact that you can say "more than an hour" instead of "more than four hours" proves that FFG has improved the game in this regard, compared to first edition.

To me there is no "quickie" with this game, even First Blood takes more than a hour with my playgroups.

Trust me, for FFG games, that quick.

The very fact that you can say "more than an hour" instead of "more than four hours" proves that FFG has improved the game in this regard, compared to first edition.

Haha, my group doesn't actually have this problem at all. First blood is 20 mins max.

Perhaps one way to give a 2v1 hero game more favor to the heroes may be to give them 3 actions per turn. Upon doing a stand up action they get to take 1 turn. That might go a long way to helping the balance, it would also play testing of course but it is something to think about.

To me there is no "quickie" with this game, even First Blood takes more than a hour with my playgroups.

Trust me, for FFG games, that quick.

The very fact that you can say "more than an hour" instead of "more than four hours" proves that FFG has improved the game in this regard, compared to first edition.

I have never played D1E but I heard about how lengthy this game is. That's also what's pulling me out of the hype around Myth. That just suits a very specific type of playgroup. I own a few other FFG games and you are correct that Descent must be one of the shortest ones Talisman, Arkham Horror, BBTM, BSG etc. These are all very long games. Although one could argue that Descent could be the longest in fact if you consider campaign play, but we can probably agree that it is not the same thing. For me personally (and speaking for my own playgroups), this format that is Descent is awesome. It allows us to play RPG-like adventure games without the huge time investment. These small play sequences fit very well in our session window. Many of us have D&D backgrounds, and now have families and jobs and so on but this game allows us to immerse ourselves again in this type of game without the need for booking a whole sunday staying in the dark playing one single RPG quest.

To me there is no "quickie" with this game, even First Blood takes more than a hour with my playgroups.

Trust me, for FFG games, that quick.

The very fact that you can say "more than an hour" instead of "more than four hours" proves that FFG has improved the game in this regard, compared to first edition.

Haha, my group doesn't actually have this problem at all. First blood is 20 mins max.

Yeah the playgroup I was talking about is reaaaaly slow at making decisions. I sometimes ask them to wake me up litterally once they've come to an agreement as for in which order the heroes would be playing this turn. What's annoying me too is that they move the minis around as part of their planning, which forces me to remember all initial positions.

I tried a couple of times to explain that decisions are always mitigated by luck on the dice roll, but they still need to plan for every action before they start executing their plan. Something bad things happen on the dice roll, let's go plan again from scratch. Who said the OL was the evil man, lol.

Yeah the playgroup I was talking about is reaaaaly slow at making decisions. I sometimes ask them to wake me up litterally once they've come to an agreement as for in which order the heroes would be playing this turn. What's annoying me too is that they move the minis around as part of their planning, which forces me to remember all initial positions.

I tried a couple of times to explain that decisions are always mitigated by luck on the dice roll, but they still need to plan for every action before they start executing their plan. Something bad things happen on the dice roll, let's go plan again from scratch. Who said the OL was the evil man, lol.

Haha, I feel you! My group is the same and to be honest I do the same thing as well when playing as the heroes.

Im almost thinking about trying to house rule some kind of time limit to keep the game sessions shorter

Yeah the playgroup I was talking about is reaaaaly slow at making decisions. I sometimes ask them to wake me up litterally once they've come to an agreement as for in which order the heroes would be playing this turn. What's annoying me too is that they move the minis around as part of their planning, which forces me to remember all initial positions.

I tried a couple of times to explain that decisions are always mitigated by luck on the dice roll, but they still need to plan for every action before they start executing their plan. Something bad things happen on the dice roll, let's go plan again from scratch. Who said the OL was the evil man, lol.

Haha, I feel you! My group is the same and to be honest I do the same thing as well when playing as the heroes.

Im almost thinking about trying to house rule some kind of time limit to keep the game sessions shorter