I have played one campaign to the silver level (as an OL). I also have played a few sessions as a hero. On the basis of this relatively modest RtL experience it seems to me that blitzing is a must for most hero teams. Yet, I dislike blitzing (even as a hero) - the game was not meant to be played this way

So I came up with an idea for a rule that is supposed to discourage blitzing:

First level: heroes get 200 gold from treasure piles and roll three dice for chest contents. Second level: heroes get 400 gold from treasure piles and roll four dice for chest contents. Third level: heroes get 600 gold from treasure piles and roll five dice for chest contents.

What do you think? Would it work? What would be appropriate counter for advantage that this rule gives to OL? I was thinking of scaling the threat "income" so that OL receives 3 threat per turn in copper, 4 in silver and 5 in gold. (The income would be the same for all levels of a dungeon. It seems to me that any rule that gives OL less threat on the first level and progressively more on next levels would encourage blitzing)

Udutont said:

What do I think?
After 4 complete campaigns (2 ending in SIlver), 1 aborted campaign and 1 solo campaign, I think it is utterly wrong. I think the game is supposed to be played this way. It's a tight tactical boardgame and the heroes quite clearly have the ability to control the CT count and the ability to flee. To overblitz will screw the heroes, to underblitz will thoroughly screw the heroes.
To discourage those abilities is to unnecessarily take something away from the game.

You asked...

Corbon said:

Thanks for the feedback! What do you mean by "discouraging those abilities" - which abilities? Blitzing, fleeing and control of CT count? I do not think that my brilliant rule would have much (if any) impact on heroes' ability to control CT count or the ability of fleeing. As regards blitzing then it seems to me that my rule will not take away from the game but will change the experience. (I personally dislike the blitzing. ) Maybe I am wrong - I have much less experience with RtL. Nonetheless, I do not buy the argument that RtL (or the regular Descent for that matter) is finely balanced game: it clearly isn't as it is obvious, e.g. from the cost-effectiveness of OL cards and from some FAQ rulings.

Udutont said:

Where does it say that the game was not meant to be played this way? Even in vanilla dungeons (especially if you play WoD or AoD) you do have to play a sort of "blitzing" strategy, always moving fast and grabbing as much stuff as possible while not becoming distracted or greedy. From my experience, blitzing is the only way for the heroes to avoid a Tamalir raze by beginning to middle of silver due to Lt. with gold minions and a hand full of treachery cards.

I don't think that the game is balanced, but that could be because the rules are not as well thought out as they could be, I suppect that this is mainly due to the expansions, not being properly thought out as to how they would affect RTL. I do think that FFG could and should revisit the rules, and if not ammend them certainly be better at wording them so that there is no problem understanding exactly how they work, and how various items/abilies interact with each other. Most of the questions on the board appear to be "what does this rule mean?" or "do the rules let me do this?" questions.

I don't mind the unbalance provided it does not spoil the game fun, in our group we will all be taking turns being OL and Hero in various campains.

I think my biggest complaint playing the OL, is that a lot of the time certainly in the early campain the OL has nothing to do in the dungeons, given the limited spawning places and the cost of a second or third spawn in threat, and not much fun in encounters.

Once you can get some treachery, and 1 rank of silver creatures, the game gets a lot more fun for the OL.

Argur said:

Right there - in my first post. Maybe I've got the terms wrong. IMO, blitzing is not "moving fast". You have to move fast in in Descent. By blitzing I mean a strategy where the heroes gather the treasure on the first level (rarely also on the second) and leave the dungeon before OL's threat and cards build up. (You can't do it in the basic Descent) It seems dubious to me that extensive use of blitz in early campaign was intended. Much more likely FFG underestimated the difficulties heroes face in early campaign, failed to balance the game accordingly and consequently forced blitzing strategy on heroes. However, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prove it either way (ie. blitzing was/was not intended). So, let's say that it is just my personal preference that blitzing should be discouraged.

I am not saying that heroes should be denied blitzing in the game as it is - some sort of counter to diminish OL power is necessary, otherwise the game would become to one-sided. Also, I did not really ask whether blitzing should be discouraged. I rather asked whether the rule would, in your opinion. sufficiently diminish the incentive to blitz. (However, in hindsight the question really cannot be answered without considering the game as a whole because the effectiveness of the rule depends on how desperately the heroes need to blitz. )

Finally, I understand that there are many good reasons to play the game without any house rules despite any problems that the original rules may have. I am definitely not asking everybody to use my "brilliant" rule.

You are right when you claim that "moving fast" is not the same as "blitzing". However, the result is the same when not doing this. In a normal dungeon, the moment you stop moving fast is almost always the moment when in retrospective you started to loose. The same is true for RtL. The moment you start to face too high dangers but still are heroic is the moment you loose in the end, as you give the OL too much conquest.

Your rule will give the heroes less money in the first level of a dungeon, with two different possible outcomes at the beginning of a campaign: Either, the heroes have to take higher risks to gain the money so desperately needed, thus giving more conquest to the OL and therefore finally loosing in the middle of silver due to a Tamalir raze. Or they will start to blitz even longer, as the heroes need a longer time to get the money for a first decent equipment, a second skill, group upgrades and the secret training. Your rule is IMHO only strengthening the OL.

Argur said:

Good point. The rule may lead to more intensive blitzing if the incentive to blitz is very strong. Which leads to the question what would be the most appropriate reduction of OL's power? What do you think of the following? 1) When a dungeon level card is drawn and heroes have less than 20 xp, ignore dungeon cards where the boss (or one of them) has armor 6+ (dungeons: : 2, 12, 13, 19, 25, 27, 18, 31, 38) and dungeons which have the master dragon (dungeons 3, 26, 40) [bosses with armor 6+ can be very difficult for heroes to kill with shop itmes unless they have got very good chracters and skills, master dragon is too much for budding heroes] 2) OL gets 3 threat per turn in Copper (4 in Silver, 5 in Gold) 3) Only one siege token is added in Tamalir's siege regardless of the number of Lieutenants present 4) If Tamalir has at least one siege token and heroes are encountering a lieutenant there then hereoes get +2 fatigue, randomly pick three locations and choose one where the encounter takes place.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your definition of "blitzing" but in my opinion this rule does nothing to change the amount of treasure heroes end up with and will in fact encourage blitzing through the first two dungeon levels. Because the dice for treasure chests are independent rolls, all this rule does is move a die and 200g per treasure pile/chest from level 1 to level 3. Most dungeon levels have 2 treasure piles and 1 or 2 chests. Specific games might be changed by this rule, but statistically the heroes are still earning 2400g from treasure piles and getting between 12 and 24 chest rolls per three level dungeon. It doesn't change the balance of hero wealth, it only puts more weight on the third level, which will encourage the heroes to hurry up and get there.

Again, maybe I'm misunderstanding what you mean by "blitzing" but assuming I'm not, I don't see how this rule will help. I also don't see how it would hurt that much overall, however, so if it makes you and your group have more fun then I say go nuts. It shouldn't break the game, although the behaviour it encourages might lead to more OL victories.

Exactly, the amount of treasure in the dungeon remains roughly the same but most of it is located on the third level. "Blitzing" (in my book of terms) consists in running through the level, grabbing as much treasure as possible and activating as many glyphs as possible and then fleeing. Monsters are tackled only in so far as it is necessary for grabbing the treasure and activating the glyphs provided that it does not take long. The next level is attempted only if the boss is weak or opening the portal does not depend on killing the boss (and the conditions are easy). Heroes' tactic is to flee before the OL cards and threat build up.The extreme example of blitzing is that the whole level is finished in one turn: tanks leave for town and two cheap runners grab the unguarded treasure and glyphs.

What about using the Sea of Blood rule where CT values for heroes fluctuate based on the difference between the OL and Heroes' xp totals? I don't remember the specifics, but it definitely sounded like it would make it impossible for either side to get too far ahead.

Udutont said:

To me, the heros only gain from "blitzing" when the OL's CT count is about to enable a monster upgrade. Was it intended to be used as often as apparently you experience? Sure thing. It's a strategy... some hero players use it and find it effective, some hero players don't. Some OL's are creative enough to come up with ways to counter the blitz and use it to the heroes' detriment, some OL's find it exacerbating

For me, Descent RTL is about options and choices on both sides of the coin. The when, how, to what extent, where to go next, what upgrades to buy in what order... it's all about what YOU want to do. The decisions that you make as heroes or as the OL may be good or bad and if bad, they may or may not be recoverable over the course of the campaign. I feel that the game is designed to incorperate a plethora of playing styles and strategy. The might be inbalanced in some areas but I'm a "RAW" player and don't really believe in house rules.

I don't think your idea would significantly change much in the game, other than making it even harder for the heroes in early copper (which depends on so many variables to begin with- party makeup, hero players, skill draws, and the OL player)

It's so difficult to get a sense of how the game actually plays these days with everyone coming up with house rules left and right fixing this and that and the other after only a few campaigns. I really REALLY hope Kevin spends some more thought on his Delve idea that he talked about shortly after RTL came out.

Also, there are only 4 dungeons within 1 week of Tamalir. Buying the Staff of the Wild adds 3 more. There are only so many times they can do this without giving your lieutenants more freedom to roam, and you more turns of free XP and stacked upgrades.

James McMurray said:

Incorporating this rule would certainly be one option, thanks for pointing it out! I am a bit afraid, though, that it will lead to odd (gamey) situations . (As an example of what I mean by an odd situation: heroes kill each other in order to have full health before the avatar battle)

James McMurray said:

Good point. Blitzing may not be that common in mid-silver and onwards. (However, upgrades should not stack much when heroes blitz because OL does not have that many CTs. )

Oboewan said:

Interesting points. I very much agree with you that the campaign should offer meaningful choices. The problem is that IMHO the "official" game offers much less choice than it should: for instance, most hero teams need to blitz a lot in the beginning or they are screwed; as another example: some skills are so much better that you always want them (no real choice then).

I do not really believe in the RAW. There are good reasons to play by the RAW (who wants to playtest a 60 hours game with crappy looking home-made components? ) but the quality of official rules and "balance" it creates leaves much to be desired (so much, in fact, that the game looses much of its appeal.)