Does this rule apply to the first encounter of the quest or just the 2nd encounter? I do know it says during the quest, which would indicate it is both encounters. But I just want to be 100% sure.

It only applies to the second encounter. You can still heal and "pick up" your allies as normal in the first encounter.

First, please note that I am not objecting to the answer given. I have not even played the campaign/quest as of yet.

But, if this answer is accurate, this is another example of what frustrates me with FFG's writers ... the often indiscriminate use of key words as if they are interchangeable, when they are not, and the difference is significant.

i.e. Quest vs Encounter

There are many others. This can be very frustrating, and often leads to lengthy "discussions" before actually playing.

First, please note that I am not objecting to the answer given. I have not even played the campaign/quest as of yet.

But, if this answer is accurate, this is another example of what frustrates me with FFG's writers ... the often indiscriminate use of key words as if they are interchangeable, when they are not, and the difference is significant.

i.e. Quest vs Encounter

There are many others. This can be very frustrating, and often leads to length "discussions" before actually playing.

I've wondered before if FFG actually has a copy editor on staff. Someone who doesn't develop the games in question but will go over everything with a fine-toothed comb to ensure everything makes sense. Every single FFG game I've played has confused my players and I at some point or another with vague wording (and I've played several).

I can't imagine they do, Weasels. FFG makes fun games, with high *physical* production values, but the have no ability to write coherent rules, zero attention to detail, no ability to control power creep... I've been playing this game regularly for a year and a half now, and I still regularly come across rules problems that have no answers in the rules or FAQ.

It's for that reason that I won't be buying Manor of Ravens, or anything else coming up - Shadows was so disappointing and so poorly put together that even though I really like the game, I just can't imagine shelling out the amount of money Descent requires. I bought Forgotten Souls so I could play with my son, but until FFG starts committing to quality of product rather than quantity of product, I can't imagine spending any more money on the game.

Your opinions are your own, amoshias, but I've been going through a campaign of Nerekhall and so far it's my favorite expansion- by a long shot. The quests are significantly more varied in objective and scope than previous expansions, the new monsters are interesting, and the hero classes are just plan fun to use. We're up to the interlude and haven't encountered any session-stopping rules questions, and most of the significant issues that have popped up were answered here or in the FAQ, or pretty quickly addressed via the link below.

Power creep is a thing. I was comparing the "Steel Greatsword" to the new two handed act 2 sword/staff (I forget the name.) It rolls the same dice, has better surge abilities, reach, and is 25 gold cheaper.

I can't imagine they do, Weasels. FFG makes fun games, with high *physical* production values, but the have no ability to write coherent rules, zero attention to detail, no ability to control power creep... I've been playing this game regularly for a year and a half now, and I still regularly come across rules problems that have no answers in the rules or FAQ.

I don't disagree with your basic point, although I think it's worth noting that power creep is basically unavoidable in products that constantly expand. It's a by-product of the business model. It's also one of the reasons that I find myself searching more and more for games that don't expand (much.)

Is power creep really that bad if the power creeps evenly and gently on both sides?.. that said some of the power creep in decent has been a bit jagged, like the rune plate.

Is power creep really that bad if the power creeps evenly and gently on both sides?.. that said some of the power creep in decent has been a bit jagged, like the rune plate.

I don't really agree with it being in favor of the heroes. I've found that the more products you add to the game, the stronger the overlord becomes relative to the heroes. Consider: most of the stuff in the game for the heroes is decided before the campaign starts (new classes, new heroes, etc.) The only additional hero stuff in the game is items, which while an improvement sometimes, still add to a draw of a deck which is watered down and they might not even have cash to spare for it, etc.

The overlord gains new monster options, new overlord card options, new plot decks. The monsters are the key one: different monsters are optimal on different maps, and gaining access to new ones allows you to make quests harder than the original playtests intended. I've won more quests with harpies than I can care to count, and changelings are nuts on the right quests.

I don't think the power creep necessarily favors the heroes- but both sides becoming more powerful is still a problem (though not terrible) because it makes the base game monsters/classes/heroes much less attractive. Perfect example, the discussion we've been having about Grisban- he's not a bad hero, but why in the world would you choose him when you can have Trenloe?

That being said, hybrid sentinels are also beautiful monsters, harpies are ridiculously fast, and some of the lieutenant packs give great effects.

I find I actually still choose the base monsters reasonably often, at least, some of them. Even in the base game I never chose zombies, and I doubt I ever will as an open group. I still find reasons to choose goblin archers, flesh moulders, barghests, ettins, merriods, elementals and shadow dragons.

Also, as long as quest design includes these creatures in the quest, they'll never be obsolete and out of use. The nice thing about the design is that old parts never become unused because quest flavor often demands that you use them.

I find I actually still choose the base monsters reasonably often, at least, some of them. Even in the base game I never chose zombies, and I doubt I ever will as an open group. I still find reasons to choose goblin archers, flesh moulders, barghests, ettins, merriods, elementals and shadow dragons.

Also, as long as quest design includes these creatures in the quest, they'll never be obsolete and out of use. The nice thing about the design is that old parts never become unused because quest flavor often demands that you use them.

That's true for monsters, but not for heroes.

I find I actually still choose the base monsters reasonably often, at least, some of them. Even in the base game I never chose zombies, and I doubt I ever will as an open group. I still find reasons to choose goblin archers, flesh moulders, barghests, ettins, merriods, elementals and shadow dragons.

Also, as long as quest design includes these creatures in the quest, they'll never be obsolete and out of use. The nice thing about the design is that old parts never become unused because quest flavor often demands that you use them.

That's true for monsters, but not for heroes.

But the players only choose their hero at the start of the game and that's it. It's perfectly okay for some heroes to be a little underpowered: it just means those heroes are less likely to be used, it doesn't limit the overall power of the heroes at all.

And even in the base game I thought Syndrael was a lot better than Grisban.