I'm surprised to see nothing about it here (maybe BGG ?)

I think the reinforcement rule has a problem. Always reinforcing a monster is just not balanced. Imagine a map with Ettin and goblin. You may reinforce only one. It is obviously better to choose the Ettin. And it's the same for all monster. So, when choosing open groups, you will rather prefer big monster to small ones.

So, I think it's because of the rule. The "one monster" is the trouble. Monster cards should have a reinforce number, saying how much you will spawn for "one renfiorcement point". For exemple, only one Ettin, but 3 goblins. Because if not, using the kobolds are just useless. A runemaster blast attack, and everyone goes to the graveyard. Yepee, you may spawn back one by one, fanstastic !

If wonder if a house rule may be used. Here is my idea.
"the rule for reinforcement is revised. Each time it says "you may reinforce a monster", unless the monster is specified, you have instead a "reinforcement point". When using this point, you can reinforce half ot the groupe limit, rounded down (for a minimum of one")

What do you think of it ?

I've had no problem with the core reinforcement rule. Have you played the game much, yet? It sounds like you've mainly dealt with the introduction scenario. Wait until act 2 and see how the OL is doing with reinforcements.

Yeah, if you're only picking large monsters, there are certain quests you're going to do worse than picking a lot of monsters. Masquerage Ball for one. With Goblin Archers moving 5, I was able to unmask all the guests and open both doors on my first turn, even getting one guest out of the Exit thanks to their numbers and speed. Had I had only 1 large monster (3-hero game, mostly seem to get 1 master monster from big monsters), no way I'm getting anywhere near that amount of success. Add to that that there are no reinforcements, if I had picked two open groups of 1 monster each, heroes would've been all over me.

3 times I do the entire campaign,

lots of small skirmish maps

always the same troubles

i agree with what most everyone else has said, reinforce rules are good as is. Believe it or not, but 4 attacks from weak monsters is usually more deadly than 1 attack from a powerful one. Blast is easy enough to avoid by not leaving monsters next to each other (heroes cannot target empty squares like they did in 1e). A bad roll on defense due can have a tough monster dead in one or two hits, whereas 4 monsters require at least 4 attacks to defeat. All themonsyrrs have ros and cons to each and j think alternating the reinforce rules will break the balance between them all.

I'm not sure to have been well understand.

Imagine you're the overlord and all your small monsters have been smashed away.

Reinforcing small ones isn't so usefull. Almost unusefull to reinforce Kobolod one by one

In the same position, reinforcing a dragon is really more usefull.

Is that more clear ?

rugal said:

There have been discussions of this on BGG; check the Variants forum.

rugal said:

I think it was understood, by me at least. I think people were offering reasons why it might not be a good idea.

1) There are tactical reasons to choose large vs. small monsters for open groups, depending on the quest. Your rule changes that balance .

2) Although large monsters often hit harder, getting two or more shots with weaker monsters can be more dangerous. Aside from more offense, it can also provide the OL with more defense . A single lucky (or enhanced) hit can take out a large monster, but would only kill a single small monster -- extra damage is wasted. There are tactics to deal with Blast, Whirlwind, and other AoE attacks.

3) Encounter reinforcement rules may already take into account the differences (at least pre-CK). Getting multiple Goblin Archers in First Blood makes it much easier for the OL to win. In later quests, getting multiple figures every round can also provide advantages that change the balance of victory.

I agree with rugal and I think people are confused about what the point was. It isn't that small monsters are a worse choice than big ones, there are plenty of maps where small monsters are a better choice. That is unrelated.

The problem is that the reinforcement rules are a flat one monster regardless of the type of monster. A single reinforcement is much more potent when that reinforcement is an ettin than when it is a goblin. That means with a full monster group it takes 5 whole turns to fully reinforce a goblin group, but only 2 turns to fully reinforce an ettin group.

Rugal personally I use a house rule where large monsters are only reinforced half as quickly to balance this out. So the first turn I get "one reinforcement" I place a dead Ettin beside the reinforcement point laying on it's side to indicate that it is halfway reinforced, then the second time I get a reinforcement I get the Ettin into play.