I can only go by my own experience, now that I have played the game a fair bit; (the full Base Ed campaign 5 times, the LotW Exp campaign 3 times); That's about 72 individual sessions.

And I have yet to experience a close game... it is always 1 side dominating the other.

Again, I don't know why - but that's what's happened for me...

It always ends with at least one, if not more, of us leaving the table in a bad mood.... and that's not what gaming should be about.

I'm starting to tire of it, as much as I would love to LOVE this game.... there's something not quite right about it.

In your experience (which is larger than mine), does one given side always dominate the other in a specific quest?

No, not always.

I've kept play logs (well, you kind of have to if you're playing a campaign);

And I guess over the course of all of the campaigns, it does average out to about 50/50 win ratio. Take the Fat Goblin Quest... I think I've played it 6 times - 3 wins for Overlord, 3 wins for Heroes. I've been on both sides.

So - Over-all, it does balance itself out... but while playing the individual encounter - one side will always dominate the other.

I reckon this is to do with the dice rolls... randomness is clumpy - it is not evenly spread... so rarely (or never in my case) do the dice rolls balance themselves out in the individual encounter (which represent a few dozen dice rolls) to make things even.....

But when taking the campaign wide view (which represents hundreds of dice rolls overall), things look a lot more even.

It still leaves the problem that "in the moment" it always feels hopeless for one of the sides.

I have experimented less "hopeless" games, where one side won by about the last dice roll.

As much as I'm fond of Descent 2 (it alone is responsible for me returning to the boardgame hobby after a 20 year absence) ;

I have found that the individual sessions are never really balanced.

Every single encounter is massively skewed in favour of either the PCs or the OL.

Either the PCs will get into a death spiral of "Stand-up Action: that's all I can do > Overlord Turn: I've knocked out your Characters again MWAHAHAHAHA > repeat ad nausiem"

OR

The overlord gets into a death spiral "OL: Ok - I get one reinforcement this turn > PC: It's dead, and we can continue on our mission with impunity"

I've yet to have a 'Balanced' game, where it felt like the tide could turn either way. Each time, from the off, it's been clear who has the advantage, and "surprise, surprise", the one with advantage wins.

Sure, maybe over the course of a campaign, it's balanced overall, when all sessions are taken together... but each individual session feels incredibly unbalanced.

My regular game group is getting pretty tired of it as well.

I don't know.... is it just me and my mates? or has anyone else found this?

Yes and No on average I probably win most quests. On campaign The Shadow Rune we noticed there's a game within a game (like baseball)going on. One being the money game the other being just getting through a quest and winning. In our exsperiance money for heros is more powerful then exp. for OL. But the money game is fun it adds more then just beat a quest and get reward. I prefer heroes play this way because I feel like that's the way game was meant to be played. For example if all a scout did was fight then he is almost a waisted hero choice. For are games this guy is usually MVP because if he gets atleast 1/2 or more coins each encounter then the heros will benifit on final,and should be benefiting by act2. (Dont forget secret passage,and chest card. Search deck isn't very big).

The end game for me seems to be like what you mentioned. Do heroes have enough bang for there buck. If they do I generally loose.

Then again this campaign is an introduction and it maybe ment to be as it is. I own but haven't played new campaign yet and from what I've read I think it's going to be an improvement.

I don't like how much more tactical the OL must be than the Heroes.

For the OL to be competitive, they must always go with the most diabolical monster choices available to them. I would like to be able to play the OL more like the heroes, where you can just jog through laughing.

As an OL that can take on any of my playing heroes in a RTS or TBS, this is not a case of my lack of ability.

I don't like how much more tactical the OL must be than the Heroes.

For the OL to be competitive, they must always go with the most diabolical monster choices available to them. I would like to be able to play the OL more like the heroes, where you can just jog through laughing.

As an OL that can take on any of my playing heroes in a RTS or TBS, this is not a case of my lack of ability.

This is something we have also noticed. The OL has to be tactical and the heroes run most of the things with more the luck of the draw. Where as I love tactical and underhanded work (seems more evil to me, so I play my role) the heroes wished they had more tactical means of playing. Our first quest in LoR was nail biting where I began to depend on the panicked villagers (a 50/50 chance of me controlling them at all) seemed a wee bit frustrating for me since I wasn't guaranteed their use. But I also think that chance is what made that quest fair. The heroes where left with the hope of taking down a goblin every time they shot off their attacks. Where as I only have to plan the prefect escape route. Once I got going with the captive, the heroes where surprised on how far I got her.

BTW, they ended up winning that by one turn. I don't think I did anything wrong, nor do I think they did. Because of the villagers, I feel that quest would feel different every time we play it.

Im not a huge fan of how the OL is rewarded for quests either. I was thinking they should have

given the OL a choice of which lieutenant to play as through a campaign and depending on

which one he chooses there would be classes for him to pick from. than he could spend his XP

the same way heroes do and progress through his class customizing it to combat the heroes. So

basically the OL had a hero to play and advance the same way complete with fatigue and all the

Same combat mechanics the heroes have. Maybe with some commanding type abilities to help

boost his troops. I think this approach would have addressed the lack of progression and

customization the OL feels during the campaign.

But then the OL would choose the same one every time. It also diminishes the ability to use many LT in the final, which is kind of the idea. After all Zacherith is much better then anyone else, but each of them have their pros. Alric and his Overpower. Balthir and his cry havoc AND flying. Just to name a few.

I don't know. I like it. It would be nice if some of the prize for the quests where a little juicy. But I can't imagine the OL getting too much more powerful then he is now. It would become OP. As much as I would like that.

Im not a huge fan of how the OL is rewarded for quests either. I was thinking they should have

given the OL a choice of which lieutenant to play as through a campaign and depending on

which one he chooses there would be classes for him to pick from. than he could spend his XP

the same way heroes do and progress through his class customizing it to combat the heroes. So

basically the OL had a hero to play and advance the same way complete with fatigue and all the

Same combat mechanics the heroes have. Maybe with some commanding type abilities to help

boost his troops. I think this approach would have addressed the lack of progression and

customization the OL feels during the campaign.

I like the idea of being able to progress a model like a hero. That would be interesting. But that would probably be a whole new game at this point. Dare I say D3 lol.

It really seems that the combination of Hero XP and the items they get really put a hurting on the Overlord. Not to mention how crazy powerful their synergy can get. I can get a good stack of cards if I get time, but lately they have been pasting my monsters and just running through the quests super fast. They tend to kill all of my monsters in the first couple turns, then leisurely collect all the treasure and then the last quest objective. The Necromancer especially gives me fits, the double move combined with the extra activation talent means he can move 9 squares and attack each turn, and also hits for a Blue, Red, and Yellow, which pretty much one shots all but my toughest monsters. It is all I can do to stall them for a turn or two before its over.

I don't know what I am doing wrong, but I feel almost helpless now. I used to win a lot, but then they started using the Necromancer, and I just can't stop it. Do I need to just let them stomp me and hope I can eventually figure out a counter? It is so lopsided sometimes that I lose my desire to play, which sucks sense I just bought both of the expansions and some extra dice.

@Bobus x

The Necro is the only class I haven't played against yet. I'm sure someone on here has some advice for you. I hate Tomble,Jain,Avic,and Berserker class at same time! Looks like the Necro can be nasty aswell.

Don't give up there's away! I'd turn this into a thread you'll probably get a lot of advice that way.

I almost won with a necromancer. Hang in there!! My necromancer traded in another hard hitter for rocks. Allot of them. People that play these characters love micro managing everything. And they tend to be REALLY good at it. Try to find pattens they follow and then try not to leep into those patterns. Force the hero to work around you. That is what I ended up having to do. I still lost, but I enjoyed it much better since I leard that hero on a chase, making him expend his time to have to deal with that. It got me another quest win in ^.~!

If nothing else, learn from this campaign so you know how to thrash them in the next! >D!

@Kunzitr Well the LT could remain a forced pick and the XP could just roll over from quest to quest. And as far as making the OL more powerful that was the whole idea. I feel the OL plays with his back against the wall the entire campaign with zero forgiveness for any tactical errors he may happen to commit and some pretty ho hum rewards when he actually manages to defeat the meddlesome heroes.

@silverhelm i agree with you that this couldn't be implemented without alot of work and changes. So here's hoping 3rd times the charm

Descent 3rd edition NOW !

Descent 3rd edition NOW !

Only if they remold the original minis.

Lol, despite how badly I am getting stomped, I don't want to blame the game yet. I have my suspicions, but hopefully with more practice I can learn some better counters. I thought I had the hang of it, then this group just stomps me all day now. I need to get a video camera and record it so people can tell me how I am screwing up. I will admit a big problem is how the group interprets rules on the fly. The players tend to vote my opinions down, and 9/10 when I go online and look it up later, my interpretation was correct. They don't trust me since on the first playthrough I thought the monsters could double attack and was just slaughtering them...

So as of yet, I don't think there is a need for a new edition or major rules overhaul, I am just frustrated at how bad it is going, and it is really hard to not let my frustration show. I am not a sore loser in any other game we play, including RPGs I GM, even if the players one shot my carefully crafted villains, or ignore my plot, but this game makes me want to spit nails, especially when it is really obvious to me when I have lost a quest, but I have to play it through to the end. I just have to space the quests out enough in RL that I don't rage quit and ebay the game...

Lol, despite how badly I am getting stomped, I don't want to blame the game yet. I have my suspicions, but hopefully with more practice I can learn some better counters. I thought I had the hang of it, then this group just stomps me all day now. I need to get a video camera and record it so people can tell me how I am screwing up. I will admit a big problem is how the group interprets rules on the fly. The players tend to vote my opinions down, and 9/10 when I go online and look it up later, my interpretation was correct. They don't trust me since on the first playthrough I thought the monsters could double attack and was just slaughtering them...

So as of yet, I don't think there is a need for a new edition or major rules overhaul, I am just frustrated at how bad it is going, and it is really hard to not let my frustration show. I am not a sore loser in any other game we play, including RPGs I GM, even if the players one shot my carefully crafted villains, or ignore my plot, but this game makes me want to spit nails, especially when it is really obvious to me when I have lost a quest, but I have to play it through to the end. I just have to space the quests out enough in RL that I don't rage quit and ebay the game...

The players tend to vote my opinions down, and 9/10 when I go online and look it up later, my interpretation was correct. They don't trust me since on the first playthrough I thought the monsters could double attack and was just slaughtering them...

How dare they contest the power of the OL. Go show them who's boss!! >O

Kidding aside, people, go play LoR. I have lost both the opening quest. Tonight I lost Sarena's quest, but at a HUGE cost for the heroes. In a nutshell: they let 4 search tokens go in fear of me getting three EXP (Sun Stone retrieval which can give me an EXP, the natural one from the quest and winning the quest gives me another). I ended up only getting two, when I decide to cash in on the Sun Stone. I was two turns away from winning. If the heroes became greedy (which I told them from the start, it will come down to them being greedy) they would have lose.

In the end, I feel like I had a half win. LoR looks like it's going to be a nail biter for heroes and OL that ware good matches mentally. Go play that. SR is a hard customer. But I will warn you guys: FF took off the kitty gloves for this one and pulled out the claws. I can't see any easy wins for the OL yet as SR had a few. Everyone is going to bust butt to get what they want out of this.

@Kunzite I own it just haven't played it yet. Can't wait hopefully this week.

I recently bought the game. We have played through almost all of the campaign and i have as the overlord won most encounters so far. You need to be smart about when to fight and when not to. The heroes are in general more powerful then your monsters. Choose your targets wise and choose the location of your fights carefully. If you aim for killing the heroes all the time then you will surely fail. Thats the best advice from me so far.

@Kunzite I own it just haven't played it yet. Can't wait hopefully this week.

It's worth it. First Blood in SR was very hard for the OL to win. I know I did. In LoR the very first quest was not an easy win for anyone, but the heroes did win, but only by one or two turns. I hard them hurting, with only goblins, mind you!,and biting their nails. I wasn't disappointed at all. The feared me having the SunStone (that extra EXP) right off the bat.

I feel FF really listened to heroes and OL. I am kind of sad they are shoe horning Warlord and Sabitor class cards. I really don't feel there is much room for Punisher and Magus in these quests. But at the same time, I think it's ok. I can deal with Warlord even though I like less direct ways of killing my heroes. After all, I took down Nanok second quest even with his black die. It was a frightening moment for them when they saw me take down three of their heroes (one of them twice) whom all have 10+ health. Haha don't see that happening again since they busted all their money on armor in the shop. Less act II stuff they can buy, I say.

I encourage anyone to buy and use the conversion kit. the Sorcery ability on ANY beast is a VERY good ability. I have used Chaos beasts, which was awesome, and Sorcerers. One is squishy, but there is speed. The other can be massive beats. *thumbs up*I KNOW your heroes get better choices, but I am really feeling the OL reaps more from this then they do. Yes, I proxy my figures. I am a horrible child. when I can rip 800 bucks on figures, I will get them. Till then, I am happy with my hand made tokens.

I've been listening to all the dissension
I've been listening to all the pain
And I feel that no matter what I do for you
It's going to come back again

But I think that I can heal it
But I think that I can heal it
I'm a fool but I think
I can heal it with this song

Minute Prologue

Leonard Cohen

I've been playing a lot of Descent 2nd Edition. Never played the 1s Edition, but I have the conversion kit and all the 2nd edition expansion.

I play with 3 distint groups:

I'm a player in the first group: 3 players and 1 mean OL. Never felt that the game was unballanced and we get kicked pretty much by the OL, who is a mastermind using all the weapons at his disposal.

I'm the OL in the second group (where I can take vengeance in one particular player - who is the OL in the first group). They are 2 players each playing with 2 heroes. Once again, they play very well and I find that "lady luck" sometimes swings the battle to one side as it could easily go to the other. But that's the order of things. Being the OL is a lonely thing with much less shiny things to collect and it's perfect for some people, but not the plate of others. I, myself, am a RPG game master in several systems and I like to be the OL because I don't have to take any protective action concerning the heroes as I have to do being a Game Master.

The third group is in truth where we have the most fun. We are four and none wanted to be the OL. So we play cooperative solo, with some solo rules we've got and tweaked. We are very zealous concerning the OL choices. We always take the better action for the OL and we have lots of fun.

So, for those that feel that the OL is not a good option, or for those who just want to have fun playing with heroes, you can always try this variation.

I've played with 2, 3 and 4 players, in both oneshot and campaign modes through many games.

My experience is the game is quite balanced.

Some thoughts :

1) In an Act I game, players are slighty stronger than OL. In an Act II game, OL benefits from tougher monsters and has packed some nasty cards (especially in campaign mode)

2) Some scenarios are advantaging more OL or Players, or are balanced. It depends and give interest to winning the previous game to be able to choice your scenario in campaign mode although only the final game makes you win all.

3) I might say the number of players are a bit of a balance factor :

- 2 players game is harder for the players because they lack of time and action.

- 3 players game is harder for the overlord because the monster increase in strengh (red instead of white) not in number.

- 4 players game should is balance because overlord has more monsters and players benefits from many powers they can combine, moreover if their team is well built.

Conclusion : yes, that tactical miniature games requires more reflexion than many others and has nothing to do with hack'n'slash. You need to use your brain, and play gentle and fast.

Conclusion : yes, that tactical miniature games requires more reflexion than many others and has nothing to do with hack'n'slash. You need to use your brain, and play gentle and fast.

I like the wording in this. "Play gentle and fast." I find it rather hard to get a good balance of gentle and fast, but since our lest campaign, I feel I am learning it. As the OL, I feel that is key. There is a strange grace. You are playing chess with a splash of poker (chance) mixed in. Sometimes that feels like you are dancing both the waltz and the samba at the same time.

At least you aren't the heroes whom almost always depend of lady luck. YOU set the pace. Once you let go, and they set the pace, you will be running ruff for the remainder of the quest.

Gentle and fast... I might steel that, Willmanx, if you don't mind.