Can't stop beg for an expasion with desert theme. Giant scorpions, mummies, genies and stuff
Indoor pyramid catacombs....outdoor deserts, oasis and encampments..... could be suck lovelly tiles
Anubis type creatures, scarabs, carion.. ohhh could be so great
Does this exist in the Runebound world though?
My hope is for a Y'llan update. They live in the wastes and that's a little desert like. And it would tie the game even more into the rest of the world, which is important at the moment I feel!
Agreed. We have several "human" expansions, we have a couple that explore the undead, one featuring the Uthuk would seem to be a great next step.
Agreed. We have several "human" expansions, we have a couple that explore the undead, one featuring the Uthuk would seem to be a great next step.
Well with the Latari coming to RuneWars soon, and the Battlelore elves in limbo, maybe we see some elf expansions?
Maybe- the only reason I think we'd see an Uthuk expansion sooner than a Latari one is that the elves usually aren't enemies- I'm not really sure what monsters would go along with that expansion. For the Uthuk you've got warlocks, berserkers, chaos beasts, obscenes, blood sisters, flesh rippers...
...and the desert terrain type. For the Latari, it would just be more woods.
Some people solved that problem by various methods of random hero draws. It adds quite a bit to the challenge and strategic aspects when you can't min max the system.
Are 60ish heroes enough?
Knowing that maybe 10% of all cards are clearly better than the other 90%, you need high numbers to build more variation into the game (if you don't deliberately make sub-optimal choices).
It's like releasing two new Overlord class decks with cards vastly inferior to -say- Web Trap, no matter what is being released and how many of them, cards would still be sitting the box if there´s no incentive for selecting them compared to the old ones
What we've done in the past is put a blue (healer), red (warrior), yellow (mage), and green (scout) die in a box. The players blindly pick a die, and have to choose a hero of that archetype. The last time we did this, through sheer luck, everyone ended up playing a hero that was totally against type.
We decided to run CtR as a mini campaign, and I forced them to use all four of the hybrid classes.
What we've done in the past is put a blue (healer), red (warrior), yellow (mage), and green (scout) die in a box. The players blindly pick a die, and have to chozose a hero of that archetype.
This is awesome idea
Edited by JTSleepMaybe- the only reason I think we'd see an Uthuk expansion sooner than a Latari one is that the elves usually aren't enemies- I'm not really sure what monsters would go along with that expansion. For the Uthuk you've got warlocks, berserkers, chaos beasts, obscenes, blood sisters, flesh rippers...
...and the desert terrain type. For the Latari, it would just be more woods.
There's also plenty of Elves in the game as heroes. Latari are the only remaining elves (other than the Deep Elves) in the Runebound setting and there's no need to have them as antagonists. The same applies to the Orcs.
The "problem" (I suppose?) is that min-maxing the game is one of the best feature of it to many players. It's a lot about maximizing your synergies and make sure you can adapt to most situations, or rely on a complementary team mate to rescue you in case **** hits the fan.
So while it definitely sounds fun to draw hero sheets randomly for each archetype, or doing the same for hero classes, it does sound like a different type of game to start off with a randomly chosen team. Potentially a team of clowns too, if it comes to the worst. Okay I´ll concede, not completely as I described, because you could still receive whatever you are dealt and try to make the best out of that, which could be interesting and challenging, but that's also asking to be playing Descent in hardcore mode against an experienced overlord begging the hero players to select speed 3 characters, crappy attributes and pointless feats - which you are effectively doing on average by choosing a method like this.
I´m out before somebody starts saying they pick overlord cards and monsters randomly too to balance this out 
I´m out before somebody starts saying they pick overlord cards and monsters randomly too to balance this out
I would never. I HAVE, however, said to myself at the outset of a campaign: I wonder if I can build a good deck around universal cards?
The answer was almost yes, because the focus became drawing lots of cards quickly. I ended up supplementing with Enchanter cards.
The "problem" (I suppose?) is that min-maxing the game is one of the best feature of it to many players. It's a lot about maximizing your synergies and make sure you can adapt to most situations, or rely on a complementary team mate to rescue you in case **** hits the fan.
So while it definitely sounds fun to draw hero sheets randomly for each archetype, or doing the same for hero classes, it does sound like a different type of game to start off with a randomly chosen team. Potentially a team of clowns too, if it comes to the worst. Okay I´ll concede, not completely as I described, because you could still receive whatever you are dealt and try to make the best out of that, which could be interesting and challenging, but that's also asking to be playing Descent in hardcore mode against an experienced overlord begging the hero players to select speed 3 characters, crappy attributes and pointless feats - which you are effectively doing on average by choosing a method like this.
I´m out before somebody starts saying they pick overlord cards and monsters randomly too to balance this out
Honestly I'd never give the heroes a completely random team, that's just a recipe for failure. My method was separate the heroes by archetype, then allow a player 3 draws from the stack for the kind of hero they want. The party members can compare what they have before picking one, then discarding the other 2. After that they can pick whatever class deck they want. They still get a choice of role this way and it helps avoid an impossible party. There's still an element of strategy and teamwork as players looks for good synergies, but they don't get complete freedom to min max the party.
Min-maxing in Descent is like playing D&D where the player just chooses what stats his hero has. Sometimes the fun is in overcoming your limitations.
What we've done in the past is put a blue (healer), red (warrior), yellow (mage), and green (scout) die in a box. The players blindly pick a die, and have to chozose a hero of that archetype.
This is awesome idea
IT worked out pretty well. And on the next campaign we ran, one of the guys who usually plays a warrior achetype decided to stick with being a mage.
What we've done in the past is put a blue (healer), red (warrior), yellow (mage), and green (scout) die in a box. The players blindly pick a die, and have to chozose a hero of that archetype.
This is awesome idea
IT worked out pretty well. And on the next campaign we ran, one of the guys who usually plays a warrior achetype decided to stick with being a mage.
I too like to stick with what I already know how to play and this seems like nice fluent transmission to something else. For example: When I can pick a hero (not just in Descent) I mostly choose Mage. With this, even if I pick any other archetype, I can still choose class that I think will most likely fit my playstyle instead of completely random draw.
