Is there anything that would prevent users from intentionally forcing the end game overlord battle by hiding in the dungeon and intentionally killing eachother to give the overlord conquest?

I'm seeing a situation in which the game is nearly over via Tamalir siege // comets from Ascention, and the heroes get in a dungeon, uniquip their armor, and slaughter eachother. I bet they could easily give the overlord 200 conquest before the overlord can cycle their deck twice, and immediately jump from start of gold campaign to final battle.

That sounds painful, but remember that the overlord can only gain 1 upgrade / turn, so giving him / her 200 conquest on the final turn isn't as bad as it could be. Sure the heroes are in for a rough final dungeon, but its certainly better than straight up losing.

Have any overlords out there dealt with this type of game acceleration by the heroes?

There's been a thread like this before, and I won't get all worked up about fair play and how there's an implicit rule in all games that you should play to win and whatnot again

The question in your thread title: It easily gets razed if the OL focuses on trying to raze it from the very start of the campaign, trying to amass as many lieutenants as possible and sending them all to Talamir. There isn't much that the heroes can do in this case, and it's generally seen as douchebaggery on the OL's part. Later in the campaign, razing it is still possible of course, but the lieutenants aren't as comparatively overpowered anymore as they are in the first game weeks.

The question in your post: What I'd suggest you do (if your heroes are this desparate to win at the expense of their dignity as players) is implement the Divine Favour rule from SoB, to make this at least less profitable for the heroes. Other than that, nope, there isn't much you can do. Except talk it through with the game group and comunally decide that doing that would be silly (considering the players are meant to play heroic characters standing up to the evil that threatens the land, not suicidal maniacs), and if that doesn't work, maybe find other people to play with.

Thanks for the reply, I just wanted to make sure that there weren't some rules to cover this situation, such

* On the final turn, the overlord may buy more than 1 upgrade.

* If a player kills another player, the overlord may elect to not receive conquest from the death.

* If players intentionally force the end game to avoid a Tamalir siege, then the overlord may set their house on fire in real life.

Or, alternatively, this was viewed as acceptable strategy as a way to avoid an otherwise no-choice loss at the end of a 100 hour game.

Sounds like the answer is, its legal, but the players shouldn't do it if they are playing in the spirit of the game.

The rule where heroes get ejected after a certain number of deck cycles was added to prevent the heroes from forcing the end of the game by sitting in a dungeon while the overlord got arbitrary amounts of threat from cycling his deck. So it's probably safe to assume that the designers consider that against the spirit of the game, even if they're not actually good enough at writing rules to make the game work they way they want.

Yes. I wonder what the simplest rule that dealt with all such tactics would be. You could force the ejection of the heroes from a dungeon after they had lost a certain (highish) number of CT, I suppose. This would allow you to remove the deck-cycles rule, as it would cover that too. I wonder what the right number would be. 75 mabye?