Well it does indeed get worse with Mok in the equation, but the point still remains, that the longer the quest drags, the harder it is to keep OL cards flowing to your hand, so that you lose steam to compete once you get close to the end of the quest.

I don't know, that's my experience of OL cards. I tend to play my best cards relatively conservatively, so they hit their maximal effect, but that's only if there is no discard on the table - otherwise I tend to play them before they get removed from my hand. Other than that I tend not to hold my plays too much, because the smallest interaction I can have with the heroes can give me more options. Basically, not playing anything only leaves you with your monsters and that's not getting you very far in general. plot cards are also very situational for the most parts and I´m guessing saving OL cards in your hand goes in pair with not wasting threat/fortune before it's "time".

Psychologically speaking you need OL cards just so your hero players hold their plays in case you drop something on them. It has the disadvantage of making them be more careful, but they might still lose precious actions/turns just playing safe while you´re just buying time to do whatever you had in mind.

A change of encounter is not necessarily better for the heroes or OL. They get to refresh fatigue, and he gets fresh monster groups- that is unless, of course, you've got someone like Mok with a killer heroic feat.

I would agree, however, that as the rounds keep going (independent of how many encounters there are,) the OL advantage decreases (I haven't read the finale in question yet, but I'm assuming that for the first 2 encounters there are no stand up/ revive restrictions.)

As an OL, unless I have a good reason to draw out an encounter, I try to end it in as few rounds as possible, for exactly this reason. Reinforcements almost never keep up with the initial monster count, so the time to go for the (figurative) kill is usually immediately. Even in this behemoth of a finale, I'd aim to keep things moving and keep the number of rounds to a minimum.

I would actually like to know if the 2-Player change is intended to be added to the Co-Op Adventures as well. I mean heck, if its an easy logical leap from "Heirs" -> "Base Game" then it should follow into "Co-Op" with minimal justification.

I would actually like to know if the 2-Player change is intended to be added to the Co-Op Adventures as well. I mean heck, if its an easy logical leap from "Heirs" -> "Base Game" then it should follow into "Co-Op" with minimal justification.

If you just give 1 extra action to each hero in the current co-op adventures, would be easier with 2 heroes than with 3. Maybe the next coop expansion has a reworked rule for just 2 players.

Just got it today (so I can also add it to my tracker).

Do we report typo's somewhere? Page 14: "Additionally, relavent history of .."

In the finale, I know that one part of the encounters mentions that the overlord can only bring X amount of cards to the next scenario. It kind of fights off the effect of the OL banking his entire hand for the long run.

Well, you guys convinced me...it's on its way

i read the fluff that comes with the HoB campaign again and there is something that i must at some point dont understand.

In Arrizon letter it is stated that Eliza prowles the land for prey since more than 200 years right ?
So if the Lady is more than 200 years old how could she actually be the gentle Auntie of a 12 years old youngster ?
Yes i know ...who cares...but still

One thing that I found strange while reading the book, was the description on how strong Eliza seems to be physically. This is described at length in the scene, where she assaults the mansion of her sister and kills a great number of guards by herself. This is strangely at odds with the strength value of 1 on her lieutenant card.

Maybe she was just using her Vilainous Feat.