So me and a friend started playing this, me as OL and him as 4 heroes (thanks for all the topics in here pointing out that 4 heroes is most balanced and 3 favours heroes etc).

We are houseruling alot since neither of us are competitive and more roleplayers and thus think its better that we both have fun than whom is the winner of the encounters. Of course we both try to win but cheesing has been outruled as much as possible. As the OL for example I wont bumrush his weaker heroes unless it makes sense (that hero is carrying objective token/got 1 hp/similar). So far we are seeing that this is not easy since cluster**** happen alot, at least in act 1, and blocking is essential to winning.

We have both read a bunch of the topics here and they have helped us alot, both in interpriting rules and pointing out rules which are easy to miss tho they are clearly stated, such as the "MtG tapping icon".

So cheers to all the input. You are making it easier for new players to get into the game with all the vague rules.

I got some general questions on our campaign so far.

We are houseruling xp and shopping. The heroes only get 2 xp, but they get to pool it together just like they do with gold. Shopping is not limited to the cards drawn, heroes are allowed to browse the shop. (this was due to me reading the rules twice and totally missing the draw shop cards part ...) On the one hand we are nerfing the heroes xp gain, on the other hand they aren't drawing worthless items. Will this likely balance out over the campaign or are we screwing the heroes/OL long term?

Are quest picked in any order or should they be picked from top to bottom? i.e Fat Goblin has to be first quest picked if picked at all.

The quest: Death on the Wings second encounter is almost pointless. Whomever won encounter 1 wins encounter 2? So far we have only played it once but from the discussions I have read here in other topics it seems that the OL has a hard time preventing the heroes killing the lieutenant on turn 1 if the heroes win encounter 1. When we played it I won (as the OL) encounter 1 thanks to the heroes splitting up in the canyon due to traps played, masterfully if I may say so , after 2 heroes had moved past some boulders and the third hero getting stuck in them even if he moved in the same squares! Ahhh those intelligent traps. Sorry getting derailed there. Ehum, so I as the OL won encounter 1. In encounter 2 I used Volucrix Reavers as my open monster group and unless I am misunderstanding how monsters are placed I can place them in ANY square as long as its in the correct tile? Unlike heroes who has to start on the entrance and the lieutenant who has to start in the marked square. So before the heroes had even one turn, I had 8 attacks on the guards done with the open group and my lieutenant could just move away from the heroes to make sure he doesnt die. Unless some seriously bad rolling, turn two would end the encounter with the heroes at tops killing both elementals. Is this just an encounter which is...how it is. Or are we missing something to give the side losing encounter 1 a chance in encounter 2?

tl:dr - is Death on the Wings badly designed/balanced?

cheers

Giving the heroes 2 xp across the party is going to DESTROY them in the interlude and the first quest of act 2. The experience gains in the game are solid but EACH of the heroes and the overlord all need at least 1XP per quest.

As far as browsing the entire shop deck: you actually get to do that after the interlude anyway. Also once your players figure out any amount of meta combos you will get very little use out of anything in the shop deck that isn't named "crossbow/mana weave/rune plate." The random shop cards adds variety to the campaign. I would say if you think the random shop cards is too restricting, draw double the amount, or 3 more cards. That's much harder to metagame compared to being able to browse the deck every quest.

As far as death on the wing goes you've got it dead on. Whoever wins encounter 1 wins encounter 2 and I've never seen otherwise. It's one of the most critical quests to win part 1 on. The benefit of it is who picks it. If the overlord sees a team that has no one with high strength, it's a solid pick because encounter 1 gets a lot easier.

Giving the heroes 2 xp across the party is going to DESTROY them in the interlude and the first quest of act 2. The experience gains in the game are solid but EACH of the heroes and the overlord all need at least 1XP per quest.

As far as browsing the entire shop deck: you actually get to do that after the interlude anyway. Also once your players figure out any amount of meta combos you will get very little use out of anything in the shop deck that isn't named "crossbow/mana weave/rune plate." The random shop cards adds variety to the campaign. I would say if you think the random shop cards is too restricting, draw double the amount, or 3 more cards. That's much harder to metagame compared to being able to browse the deck every quest.

As far as death on the wing goes you've got it dead on. Whoever wins encounter 1 wins encounter 2 and I've never seen otherwise. It's one of the most critical quests to win part 1 on. The benefit of it is who picks it. If the overlord sees a team that has no one with high strength, it's a solid pick because encounter 1 gets a lot easier.

Death on the Wing depends on group makeup and overlord cards I think. I've won encounter 2 as the overlord after losing encounter 1 (actually as the overlord I've never won encounter 1 of Death on the Wing). Web Trap, Imploding Rift, Grease Trap, etc. are all vital to surviving the first round of the second encounter.

I used Volucrix Reavers as my open monster group and unless I am misunderstanding how monsters are placed I can place them in ANY square as long as its in the correct tile? Unlike heroes who has to start on the entrance and the lieutenant who has to start in the marked square. So before the heroes had even one turn, I had 8 attacks on the guards done with the open group and my lieutenant could just move away from the heroes to make sure he doesnt die. Unless some seriously bad rolling, turn two would end the encounter with the heroes at tops killing both elementals. Is this just an encounter which is...how it is. Or are we missing something to give the side losing encounter 1 a chance in encounter 2?

Shouldn't a group of volucrix reavers only get 5 attacks max? The master has ravage, but the minions don't. Your assessment is still correct. Hero win there is a long shot.

I highly recommend playing the game with the rules as written before house ruling/butchering the game to pieces.

Not giving each hero 1 XP per quest is a very bad idea imo.

Apart from all the balance-mess ups you are probably causing by that, I found building and using your skill combos being the most fun of all the mechanics for the hero players, especially in regard to the RPG aspects, because your skills give your chars. the most character traits and personality via the potential actions they can do on the gaming board. Getting your skills much slower and getting only half of the skills in total, totally gimps this fun aspect.

If I were you, I would just take away all bought items and repeat the shopping steps with the gold they had at that time (if you are just 1 or 2 shopping phases in, they probably haven't gotten that much out of it yet and only lost a few XPs). I advise you to change this as fast as possible, as it just gets more problematic in act II, when having access to all items and less skills makes the game much less interesting, because I think in the long run it will make the game much easier for the heroes as they don't need to (and can't really) combo their skills to get high damage/conditions/good defense, hence reducing a lot of the critical decisions for the heroes without reducing their power.

I highly recommend playing the game with the rules as written before house ruling/butchering the game to pieces.

Second this, playthrough a campaign RAW before you start houseruling stuff. The game is well-designed and has been thoroughly playtested.

Cheers for the feedback. I'll take to the "heroes" and see if they want to get an off screen xp boost. The reason we decided not to play it RAW is partly cause of us not metagaming it and more roleplaying it. As such I as OL dont single out a hero unless the victory condition means it makes sense. My monsters are more likely to spread out the dmg than trying to bring down the pain on just the weakest.

We have more fun this way instead of just looking at it as a competetive game. On the other hand saying that the game is well-designed made me giggle...With my own critical thinking and all the posts on this forum and otherwise I'd say its not well-designed. That doesn't equal it to be badly designed.

In the rules it says that "each player" recieves 1xp, not each hero. Unless that has been changed in some errata faq I have missed that means in a 2 player game where I player is the OL and the other controls 4 heroes there is a total of 1xp for 4 heroes.

I used Volucrix Reavers as my open monster group and unless I am misunderstanding how monsters are placed I can place them in ANY square as long as its in the correct tile? Unlike heroes who has to start on the entrance and the lieutenant who has to start in the marked square. So before the heroes had even one turn, I had 8 attacks on the guards done with the open group and my lieutenant could just move away from the heroes to make sure he doesnt die. Unless some seriously bad rolling, turn two would end the encounter with the heroes at tops killing both elementals. Is this just an encounter which is...how it is. Or are we missing something to give the side losing encounter 1 a chance in encounter 2?

Shouldn't a group of volucrix reavers only get 5 attacks max? The master has ravage, but the minions don't. Your assessment is still correct. Hero win there is a long shot.

That would be correct, I messed up on that one...I took skirmish to equal ravage+move. Seems I butchered those guards a bit too fast. Was picking between beastmen and the reavers for this scenario so the ravage on the beastmen must have made me think the reavers had them as well. Better keep this info away from the heroes.... Thanks I'll triple check the monsters I pick from now on.

In the rules it says that "each player" recieves 1xp, not each hero. Unless that has been changed in some errata faq I have missed that means in a 2 player game where I player is the OL and the other controls 4 heroes there is a total of 1xp for 4 heroes.

Yes that is in the rules, but the idea is that each hero is a player, as is the OL. Having one person control 2+ heroes is simpl a way to make the game playable with only 2 people. Would you argue that in a group of 6, with two people cooperating as OL, that the OL should get 2 XP each quest?

Cheers for the feedback. I'll take to the "heroes" and see if they want to get an off screen xp boost. The reason we decided not to play it RAW is partly cause of us not metagaming it and more roleplaying it. As such I as OL dont single out a hero unless the victory condition means it makes sense. My monsters are more likely to spread out the dmg than trying to bring down the pain on just the weakest.

We have more fun this way instead of just looking at it as a competetive game. On the other hand saying that the game is well-designed made me giggle...With my own critical thinking and all the posts on this forum and otherwise I'd say its not well-designed. That doesn't equal it to be badly designed.

In the rules it says that "each player" recieves 1xp, not each hero. Unless that has been changed in some errata faq I have missed that means in a 2 player game where I player is the OL and the other controls 4 heroes there is a total of 1xp for 4 heroes.

Like I said. I think if you don't play for the win alone and want a more RPG expirience, limiting the skills will destroy most of the fun and characteristics of the heroes. If you break it down its imo like this: Items boost the raw stats (damage and defense) of your heroes. Skills boosts the ability of your heroes to adapt to the current situation in a (for its class) characteristic way. This means skills don't necessarly automatically boost your heroes like items do, but have to be used properly.

On the design-quality of the game:

I for my part think the core mechanics and balance of the game are very well designed, as long as you like what the game is trying to be. Term-consistency, is bad like in most FFG games and there are a few cases, where the special rules are badly described so you don't easily get the intended massage of them. Some single encounters however are badly designed and it's really a pity that those bad encounters spoil that many quests.

In the rules it says that "each player" recieves 1xp, not each hero. Unless that has been changed in some errata faq I have missed that means in a 2 player game where I player is the OL and the other controls 4 heroes there is a total of 1xp for 4 heroes.

Yes that is in the rules, but the idea is that each hero is a player, as is the OL. Having one person control 2+ heroes is simpl a way to make the game playable with only 2 people. Would you argue that in a group of 6, with two people cooperating as OL, that the OL should get 2 XP each quest?

Thats actually pretty funny... RAW writtien a 2 payer game owuld be screwed haha.. still think dice roll rolled at the same time? jk

Zaltyre: Yes and no. In the rules there is a suggestion for a two player way to play the campaign. Working from that suggestion 2 heroes would do ok on 1 xp, so 4 heroes would do ok on 2 xp. Not saying we are right! Just that was how our thoughts were at the time. We did discuss 4 xp since 4 players with one hero each would get that, but we pooled the xp instead to see how that would work out. Butchering the game? Yes. Still enjoying it? Yes.

There is no suggestion that I can remember, not at home with the rules atm, for 2 people playing the overlord. But I would so argue for 2 xp if I was 1 of those 2 players. But only cause I would benefit from that, and yes imo wrongful way, way of reading the rules.

DAMaz: Sweet, thanks for that breakdown on how the heroes benefit from items vs xp. That makes sense.

Carbini: We have decided to do it in the way of the Blood Bowl computer game. We will roll the dice before the game 500 times, noting the results and in which order. Then follow those results 1 by 1 as the game goes by.

Again, cheers for all the feedback and critique. Imm pretty sure we would only have done 1 or 2 quests before quitting due to the rules being somewhat fuzzy in certain areas if it wasnt for places like this and guys like you who are willing to give answers and feedback. /endbrownnosing