We have run multiple complete campaigns now, and the results have been interesting.

First, note that we have been making use of the conversion kit figures (monsters and heros) in all campaigns. Further, in each campaign that we have run, we have always used different heroes (none have been duplicates), we have mixed up archtypes and classes as much as possible (covering all combinations), and have utilized different open group monsters for each individual encounter. In addition, we have switched up roles in terms of who played OL and who played heroes.

All 2 hero campaigns (except for 1) have been landslide victories for the heroes. In all but 1 case, the heroes won every single ACT I and ACT II quest (though at times the OL won the first part of a 2 part encounter). The 1 exception involved the heroes winning every ACT I and ACT II quest, but losing the finale by a single roll of the die.

All 4 hero compaigns have been landslide victories for the OL. In fact, except for First Blood, the heroes lost every ACT I and ACT II quest (although 1 group did win the Interlude).

We just began a 3 hero campaign to see what differences this will bring. Given past performances, we suspect that the addition of a hero (and their skills) will out-weigh the OL's monster group limits mostly going from 1,0 to 0,1 (minion to master). We suspect the heroes are going to do well.

If you have finished campaigns, I would be interested to hear your experiences as to the number of heroes won, and who prevailed.

any2cards said:

I have two campaigns nearing completion, and it's interesting to note that they are almost the exact opposite to your own.

In the two hero campaign I am playing with my wife (Syndriel with Berzerker, and Leoric with Necromancer- I am beginning to think this is not as effective a team as I had imagined), I have had to fight tooth and nail for the two Act I victories I had after First Blood. Hmm, come to think of it, we only just finished the Interlude (which I lost), so I guess it's not that close to finished.

In the four hero campaign I am playing in (Wildspeaker Ashrian, Necromancer Tarha, Disciple Avric, and Thief Jain), the heroes have been walking all over me. I won two Act I quests, and that's it (we've just finished the second Act II quest)

Now, I realize that in both of the cases, we are only using the core box heroes/monsters, and I seem to be the one losing in both cases… which has made me wonder about my talent/skill with this game, but in many cases neither I nor my friends has been able to find things that I could have done better.

any2cards said:

I've only played once at a preview event, but I noticed two main scaling formulas: groups that went from 1/0 (at 2 heroes) to 1/1 (at 4 heroes), and groups that went from 2/1 to 4/1.

It seemed pretty obvious to me that the former groups would work better against 4 heroes than against 2, and the latter groups would work better against 2 heroes than against 4. It's not obvious how many minions a master is worth, but it's clearly "more than one", so going from 1/0 to 1/1 is a >100% increase in monster force, while going from 2/1 to 4/1 is a <67% increase. That's a pretty big difference even if masters are the same as minions, and it only gets bigger the more you value masters. (The gap also probably becomes even bigger when you take reinforcements into account.)

I don't know how the two styles are balanced relative to each other; it may still be that the small, powerful groups are just all-around better in all games. But if you're primarily using the small, powerful groups, and you're finding that 2 heroes have a much easier time than 4 heroes, I would at least try throwing some of the larger, weaker groups against the 2-hero party.

Antistone said:

I can personally attest to the effectiveness of this. In the Interlude, yeah Syndriel and Leoric were killing their way through monsters left, right, and center… but when we got caught in the bend in the path before the waterfall, bogged down by Goblins, Barhest, an Ettin, and Zachareth, it was all over but the crying.

Next two hero game I engage in will **** well have a Healer, probably a Disciple.

I am on my third campaign with a 2 hero, 1 overlord group. I don't know how you experienced "landslide" victories for the heroes, since I have had "landslide" victories as overlord.

My players have been complaining about how hard the game is for 2 players. We did not even finish the first 2 campaigns, as the players became frustrated and wanted to start over. The heroes were able to easily win the intro quest, but outside of that, I have been dominant as overlord. I believe for Act 1 & Act 2 and Interlude quests, I am around 13-2. The 2 victories they did have, were extremely lucky.

I aggree with Lord_Nikon. The 2 Herous game, it was though for every one.

But on the 4 herous game? It was simply impossible for me (OL) to win. Their habilities synergy can hardly be compensated by a handfull of extra goblins on the starting map and a couple of starting cards for the overlord.

I have only played 2 and 3 hero games; but I have yet to finish a campaign.

My group started a campaign with 2 heroes and became disheartened before even reaching the interlude. We restarted and had the same results. Overwhelming victories for the OL in every quest except for First Blood.

I elected to control 2 heroes so we could try a 3 hero game. We lost the first 2 Act 1 quests but have since won everything since then. Yet to finish but at least the campaign is now past the inerlude. The 3 heroes struggles at first (this maybe due to me missing things and/or suboptimal strategies) but now we can power through any monsters and put up a good fight each quest.

We have Avric as a Disciple, Syndreal as a Berserker and Jain as a Wildlander. The group takes a bit of a beating but can really dish out some damage now.