I wanted to get the view of people on the board. if someone with a bearded axe hits a golem and it rolls 0 shields does the hero get +2 hearts?

I could argue either one so thought I would see what others though. Discuss.

According to RAW, yes, the Bearded Axe would get +2 damage.

Even though the Golems are immune to Pierce, I would argue the step of "resolving pierce" still occurs. If the golems had rolled 0 shields, then the condition for the axe is met.

As an aside, I've nerfed the bearded axe in my games to read "before resolving pierce" rather than "after resolving pierce" for the bonus damage. I think it makes the weapon much more balanced, but still capable of devastating blows vs. bad defense

I don't think the bearded axe needs nerfing. It is, IMO, tied for the best weapon in act 1, but it falls off pretty hard the moment you hit act 2 (the bigger defense dice, lack of a 3rd die compared to act 2 weapons, etc.).

Thanks for feed back.

On a different note, if you are doing the nerf like that, I think you should lower the cost to about 100 or 125. Its not a worth 175 that way.

It is very brutal if used on an alchemist with the 1point skill that give free ~ and +pierce 1. So you can get pierce 4 guaranteed. Shadow dragons/golem/iron protectors are about all it does not devastate. Also Nanok can use it very efficiently.

The problem is, cost of weapons isn't realy a balancing factor.

There are so many ways to acquire items in the game without having to pay the cost (e.g. Travel cards, Quest rewards (minicampaign), Treasure Chest, Secret Passage, Magic Lamp, etc.). And yes, you can always buy it for sure in the interlude, but that is not a great idea. As Whitewing said, by the time Act II rolls around these weapons aren't the bee's knees anymore.

I'd argue its still a great weapon at 175gp. It will do more damage than the Iron Battleaxe without surges when going against poor defense rolls. Against good defense rolls it will do comparable damage.

The problem with the weapon is that in the hands of someone like Nanok or mana weave, it essentially completely ignores a gray die and then adds a damage kicker. That lonely gray die is often the only thing an Act I monster has to defend with, and turns large monsters with good defense and low health pools (e.g. Merriods) into fodder.

According to RAW, yes, the Bearded Axe would get +2 damage.

Even though the Golems are immune to Pierce, I would argue the step of "resolving pierce" still occurs. If the golems had rolled 0 shields, then the condition for the axe is met.

Yup. The only difference between this and normal is that "Pierce" doesn't allow the attacker to ignore any shields, so the actual roll must be a zero in order for the effect to trigger.

The problem is, cost of weapons isn't realy a balancing factor.

There are so many ways to acquire items in the game without having to pay the cost (e.g. Travel cards, Quest rewards (minicampaign), Treasure Chest, Secret Passage, Magic Lamp, etc.). And yes, you can always buy it for sure in the interlude, but that is not a great idea. As Whitewing said, by the time Act II rolls around these weapons aren't the bee's knees anymore.

I'd argue its still a great weapon at 175gp. It will do more damage than the Iron Battleaxe without surges when going against poor defense rolls. Against good defense rolls it will do comparable damage.

The problem with the weapon is that in the hands of someone like Nanok or mana weave, it essentially completely ignores a gray die and then adds a damage kicker. That lonely gray die is often the only thing an Act I monster has to defend with, and turns large monsters with good defense and low health pools (e.g. Merriods) into fodder.

Yeah, but that's only on one hero, and running large groups of weaker monsters with high damage outputs (I'm looking at you Bandits) can still absolutely shred the hero before he has a chance to put it to work. With the nerf, the weapon becomes insufficiently good for it's cost. And despite the fact that it can be occasionally gained for free, the odds are good that most of the time, the party buys it. Cost is definitely still a balancing factor.

Since the weapon falls off so hard going into act 2, I see no reason to give it a nerf of any kind. And yeah, Nanok does well with it, but Nanok also falls off really hard going into act 2, so I'm pretty okay with that. If the warrior has the mana weave, that means the mage doesn't have it. The warrior also has to be the berserker to get a guaranteed surge from class, and the berserker is the weakest warrior class there is by far.

The bearded axe is good, but not QUITE as good as the crossbow. I'm not inclined to nerf the crossbow, so I see no reason to weaken the bearded axe.

Well lets consider how many expansions you are playing with, those shop decks are HUGE even after only a couple expansions. What is the likelihood that the Bearded Axe gets pulled enough to consider a nerf or making a house rule about it?

Personnaly, although the Bearded axe is very strong, I would never choose unless I'm playing a calss that restricts me to melee.

Given that a hero using ranged weapons doesn't really get penalized for shooting at point blank ranged, using a two handed ranged weapon makes more sense to me than a higher damage weapon that forces be to get closer to the monsters. There are plenty of bows with great damage output so to me, melee weapons are never a first option.

Cost is definitely still a balancing factor.

Since the weapon falls off so hard going into act 2, I see no reason to give it a nerf of any kind. And yeah, Nanok does well with it, but Nanok also falls off really hard going into act 2, so I'm pretty okay with that. If the warrior has the mana weave, that means the mage doesn't have it. The warrior also has to be the berserker to get a guaranteed surge from class, and the berserker is the weakest warrior class there is by far.

The bearded axe is good, but not QUITE as good as the crossbow. I'm not inclined to nerf the crossbow, so I see no reason to weaken the bearded axe.

Whenever I'm facing groups with high pierce - in particular groups with the Bearded Axe, or TreasureHunter/Crossbow, etc. I'm always picking groups of small monsters. It just makes sense.

And when I'm up against savvy players, they almost always gravitate towards these clearly dominant piercing weapons. If I give anyone a chance to look through the Act I deck they usually find the Crossbow and Bearded Axe right away and go, "Woah, these are crazy good."

This means the heroes are seeing goblin archers, bandits, sorcerers, kobolds, etc. constantly once these things are acquired.

This leaves my large monsters collecting dust, unused, except when a quest mandates that I use them. For instance, I haven't picked Merriods, Arachyura or Elementals as an open group even once in my entire time as Overlord. Even Shadow Dragons are becoming a less popular pick for me too.

Bel'thir's plot deck is becoming my favoirte, and Hazard Pay makes even limited reinforcement rules for small monsters less of a bother, such that I'm often reinforcing 2 small monsters per turn.

I'd like to shift this slightly if possible by giving large monsters at least a small chance to survive so that they can actually have a place at the table. They are supposed to have decent defenses to make up for their fewer numbers. This works pretty well in Act 1 vs. most weapons, but weapons like Bearded Axe just wrecks them.

These weapons also destroy lieutenants so quickly it makes me never want to play Basic II, because I become completely dependent on Dash to win race encounters. I simply cannot afford the chance that Blinding Speed will fail on me, as even one turn in front of these weapons could have my poor lieutenant pushing up daisies. This is a shame, because I do like to play Basic II once in awhile.

After hearing the arguments in the thread though, perhaps the Bearded Axe nerf is a bit too harsh. I might tweak it to just be +1 damage instead of +2. As for the crossbow, I'm tossing around the idea of making the second surge of "+1 and move the target" to just "move the target".

Personnaly, although the Bearded axe is very strong, I would never choose unless I'm playing a calss that restricts me to melee.

Given that a hero using ranged weapons doesn't really get penalized for shooting at point blank ranged, using a two handed ranged weapon makes more sense to me than a higher damage weapon that forces be to get closer to the monsters. There are plenty of bows with great damage output so to me, melee weapons are never a first option.

Alot of quests in the game take place in cramped quarters. Also, as I absolutely hate missing, I find that I often attack from range 2 with most of my ranged attacks anyway, especially in Act I. Given this, I generally think melee is not that big a restrictions and would pounce on the axe in Act I with just about any class sans a Mage or ranged-Scout.

You haven't picked large monsters because, on the whole, large monsters are bad in this game. Small monsters are almost always better. Nerfing one particular weapon into uselessness isn't going to change that.

You haven't picked large monsters because, on the whole, large monsters are bad in this game. Small monsters are almost always better. Nerfing one particular weapon into uselessness isn't going to change that.

I get it. You don't agree with my balance changes. That's fine. But calling tiny tweaks to the best weapons in Act I "nerfing into uselessness" is just disingenuous.

And no, it won't change the issue large monsters have, but it will ameliorate it, even just a bit. That doesn't magically make them the best tactical choice, but it at least makes them slightly less bad. Enough so, that I will still pick the large monster when reinforcement rules are favorable and I don't have something like Hazard Pay available. I still use Ynfernael Hulks early in Act I, for example. They are remarkable for a large monster.

You're missing my point, Charmy. No, this doesn't nerf Bearded Axe into uselessness, that wasn't what I was saying. But you COULD do that - nerf it into uselessness, take it out of the game entirely, and large monsters would STILL be bad. The existence of one Act 1 weapon is - no doubt - a miniscule contributing factor to large monster suckitude. Removing it will make them suck .1% less... but 99.9% suck is still a lot of suck.

As an aside, your nerf doesn't make it useless, but it does make it an overpriced, uninteresting weapon. Far from a minor shift, you've turned it into a weapon which really, really REALLY kills little monsters, doesn't do much against big monsters, and is more expensive than any other Act 1 weapon. No, it's not bad, per se - but why would anyone want to play it? You don't get any bonus points for dealing 6 damage rather than 2 to a Kobold. Sure, once in a blue moon you'll get a lucky hit on a tough monster that rolls badly on its defense roll and one-shot it, but why would you spend 175 for that? There are tons of better weapons in the 100-125 range.

So far, I have not encountered a weapon/item that really needed adjustment for balance. Even a stellar Act 1 item (yes, even Rune Plate) becomes just a fair-to-good item during Act 2, and no Act 2 item is even guaranteed to show up- in fact, with the increasing number of expansions, it's getting less an less probable that any given item will show up at all during Act 2. I shared in another thread that it was not until the shopping step before the finale that my hero party saw a single melee weapon in Act 2. As a result, there was a knight who was using the "Iron Battleaxe" for all 3 Act 2 quests (and the skirmisher was stuck with the bone blade/iron spear) - let me tell you- he didn't feel overpowered at all, even though he was Trenloe.