I didnt go into the purchase blindly. I already knew that ToI was designed as a standalone expansion and that it had very little compatibility with RtL.

And considering we only play RtL and not any of the normal Descent quests, I did consider not getting it. However, since I'm a complete compulsive obsessive have-to-have everything, money went out of my pocket to the shopkeeper and now I have it at home.

And here is the problem...

1. Feats. According to the new FAQ, which quickly disappeared, Feats are just supposed to be included in RtL as written. So this is a big shift in the balance towards the heroes.

2. Extra OL cards. My overlord deck has now got even bigger, which means it now takes me longer to get through the deck. My heroes are now able to complete a 3 level dungeon before I empty my deck - before the extra cards it was very close but I usually managed to do it. This again, is a balance shift in favour of the heroes.

So - by me purchasing ToI, I have effectively made life more difficult for the poor Overlord (sympathy postcards appreciated), with nothing in there to balance it back.

It's like when Treachery was introduced in AoD / WoD. Now all of a sudden, the Overlord has treachery to spend which is a huge shift in balance towards them. Considering that the base quests were a little easy with 4 heroes, I figured this was a way of balancing it out, which I have accepted, but I dont seem to be able to accept that things introduced into ToI addresses the balance problems - it just creates more.

I really wish FFG would spend time creating expansions which offer new things as optional, and that each one is balanced both ways. So introduce things like feats, but make them cost something to get, or cost something to use. Just giving them away for free at the start, and then more for free as the game carries on, and letting them use them for free just seems wrong.

As for the fix?

1. I've already house ruled feats, since I had ToI and wanted to use them before the FAQ said to just use them as written - so I've kinda fixed that a bit. The heroes are still better off for having them, but they start with less, get them less often and have to pay a fatigue to use them.

2. I'm proposing that I insert some extra cards into my OL deck at rougly 1/3, 2/3 of the way through. When these cards come up, the OL gets 1 XP and the card is removed and replaced by a new one. i.e The OL still gets 3 for emptying the deck, but it is a gradual thing which stops the stupid metagame of counting cards and altering game pace to try and finish the dungeon before the OL runs out of cards. Whilst I dont like this anyway, the fact that it is now harder for the OL to run out of cards is the problem

Yep TOI definately switch the powerbalance in the favor of the heroes just like treachery and dark priests from previous expansions shifted the powerbalance in favor of the OL. Does it shift too much? Apparently you think so and so do I. We have also made houserules about feats. We haven't done anything about making the 3 xp for getting through the deck gradual. I like the idear it will definately consider it, but you also has to take into account that it changes the pace of the game since the "rush" game that gives 3 xp is now reduced to a race for 2 or 3. It takes away "the big prize" for delaying the heroes or alternative rush directly into the OL's trap.

or you can just profit and say we will be playing RTL with a 3 hero party from now on, 4-player party don't get feats. xD

I understood that the size of the OL deck is in itself a play balance mechanism, so the nastiness unleashed on the heroes in AoD and WoD is tempered a teensy bit by it being slower to gain the conquest from exhausting the deck. But that nastiness is also in part built into the scenarios of those expansions, and NOT into the design of the random dungeons in RtL, so the balance is already tipping back into the heroes favour.

ToI seems to be addressing perceived play balance issues in the normal game better than it does in the RtL campaign. I think your house rule of making the hero pay for a feat with fatigue is a good one - but just to be clear, does it cost 1 movement point, or specifically 1 fatigue? - Did you consider making them pay a wound token? I'm not being facetious - I was thinking it might be a better, more balancing payment.

I believe for every expansion Overlord card (treachery and spawn both included) that the OL adds to the deck, he is allowed to remove one regular OL card of his choice (aim, dodge, kobold swarm, gust of wind all come to mind..). So the rules themselves already address and eliminate the issue of the OL deck expanding. I'm at work right now, or I would look it up. (Takes too long with the new FFG web site to navigate between the online FAQs on a limited lunch period..) I don't think it's in the RTL rulebook, but is mentioned in each expansion rulebook, so the rule would still apply to RTL.

As for feat cards, I created a chart that we use whenever a glyph is activated. Simply using feat cards exactly as they are used in TOI itself is rather clearly just a brush-off from FFG. I take it to mean that those at FFG who would have power to alter the mechanic apparently are too crazy busy to devote any time to it. It's more comfortable to think of it in those terms than to think they simply don't care about the customer base. Perhaps they are struggling to survive financially, and there is no other option.

Schmiegel said:

I'm fairly confident this is incorrect. The rules seem to indicate that the non-treachery cards are just added to the deck, and that seems to be what most forum-goers have assumed in other threads.

Paul,

Try adding a second Focus card to the OL upgrades that you can buy.

Wow - Thanks for all the replies:

>I think your house rule of making the hero pay for a feat with fatigue is a good one - but just to be clear, does it cost 1 movement point, or specifically 1 fatigue? - Did you consider making them pay a wound token? I'm not being facetious - I was thinking it might be a better, more balancing payment.

Cost is 1 fatigue, since often they have to be played in the Overlords turn. Also, fatigue seems to be a more valuable resource in RtL than wounds. Am seriously also considering having Vitality potions restore only 4 fatigue and not all of it, increasing the healing potions to 4 wounds.
We have already changed the secret training tokens so that they give a fixed +2 wounds / +1 fatigue, since high fatigue at silver / gold just becomes a walk in the park for the heroes.

However, having seen feats now used in my RtL, I'm thinking 1 fatigue isnt enough, and am considering the idea of when they play them I get to draw a card. We also need to consider their use in encounters, encounters with Lt's. I've already ruled they disappear for the final battle, should we ever play a campaign which gets that far.

> believe for every expansion Overlord card (treachery and spawn both included) that the OL adds to the deck, he is allowed to remove one regular OL card of his choice (aim, dodge, kobold swarm, gust of wind all come to mind..).

That is not correct.

>Try adding a second Focus card to the OL upgrades that you can buy.

I like that. I was also thinking of modifying the card to say "Remove 4 cards from your deck, plus 1 more card for each expansion you have included in the game"

Paul Grogan said:

I've been trialling this 'cost'.
So far the OL is pretty unsatisfied with the value inequality. Even though you'd have to say a card draw is worth much more than a single fatigue. I'm thinking, if he is still unsatisfied after the next session then we could try 1 card draw and 1 top card disacard (for threat).

Part of the reason he is disatisfied is because I only play good feats when they would make a significant difference, so they always seem amazingly useful. I tend to discard about 1/3 of the feats unused at the end of each dungeon because they weren't worth it.

The trial continues....

I got a pretty good house rule for feats in RTL, Read it somewhere:

Okay its a bidding style lets here are the basics.

1. Hero declares feat card he will be using.
2. Overlord can think out the damage that will cause.
3. Overlord can now bid any amount of threat and/or conquest.
4. Heroes must decide on: a) accept the bid and pay the overlord the threat and/or conquest requested and play the card. b) Refuse to use the card, but in exchange the overlord has to pay the threat and/or conquest requested.

This makes for a interesting sistem and more strategy, because the OL has to think out an ammout to bid (or maybe just bluff them for extra threat) while also not over doing it and risking to still benifit the heroes. Basically the heroes will never be pissed they didn't get to use there feats for good things either way they still damage the OL other by defending heroes, seriously damaging OL troops or just by gaining conquest and reducing threat. And as for the OL he will get to strategically negate feat cards and also if they still use the feat card, no harm done you gain some threat and/or conquest that you bidded.

I think it keeps for some good balance (but am afraid it might also speed up the campaign overall ).

StarBurn said:

Yeah, except its flawed. While it gives a fair 'price' to each feat, the heroes still gain every time, so have something for nothing.
For example, if every bid is priced exactly perfectly, and the heroes simply always refuse the bid, then the OL is always paying. So the heroes always win.Thus, the average price will necessarily be about half the agreed 'real' price (if the heroes 50/50 call each way) and the heroes are still getting a better deal out of using feats than the OL.

The draw a card idea is an attempt to give something to both sides, not just a freebie to the heroes. Drawing a card has a random, and even better, unknown benefit (keeping some of the mystery element). I think it is a much better system than the bidding, but just needs to get the 'value' of a feat card right (which is still tricky, and appears to be more than 1 drawn card if only the 'good' feats are played).

Not really, lets say a mage runs In a room blasts the monsters and kills most of them, but still leaves some with 1-2 wounds...he uses and aura 4 feat card...ensuring his survival. OL now bids 3-5 threat they have a choice of leaving the mage to die 2-3 conquest or just giving you threat for thie issue. They say no, you pay 3-5 threat and then earn 2-3 conquest for that price. Sweet Deal. They say yes, chances are you will play a trap card when he moves away.

StarBurn said:

Right. So the heroes have earned -3 to -5 threat. Free gift that they wouldn't have without feats. Win for the heroes compared to the baseline of not having threats at all.

I'd prefer to keep the pre-feats balance as much as possible, not give the heroes free gifts.

Corbon said:

Dude in that example you just won 2-3 conquest for 3-5 threat...

StarBurn said:

No, because in the pre-feat RtL you would have gotten the 2-3 conquest without paying threat for it.

GhostOfMars said:

Well, yes. BUT, dude, you just paid 3-5 threat for something you should have got for free! Thats worse off any way you look at in in my book...

I have some air to sell you. Dirt cheap and you can breath as much of it as you like, whenever you like. $5.99 for a lifetime supply. Its a great deal...

Where did all these dudes come from?

Trying to change the subject and stop people arguing, there are 2 characters in ToI that dont seem suitable for RtL. One starts with 2 melee traits but only 2 skills, and the other 2 traits but 4 skills. How am I supposed to use these with ToI? Not at all I guess

Paul Grogan said:

They just get more or less starting skills to choose from...

And on the other issue...you wouldn't have gotten anything for free since aproaching the mage with aura 4 with all of your remaining suriving monsters would have instantly killed them...have it your own way...it works for my campaing and players.

StarBurn said:

Starburn is right. Just follow the RAW. They will simply get one more or less starting skill to choose from. The one with 4 skills does become crap in RtL, but there are plenty of existing crap heroes so one more is no biggie.

With regards to bidding for free things...

There's far better cards to play for that threat, such as Dark Servant, any spawn that's not Kobolds, and others. These are all situational, however, so it's nice to have the option to pay threat to negate the Feat card.

It's easy to get caught in the trap of having to bid in that mod. If there are better uses for your threat, refuse to bid: it will probably scare the players a little because they won't know what you have, so they'll start reacting to the worst things their can minds invent.

If Feats are added to RtL, they're going to hurt the OL's chances no matter what. However, if you give the OL the option to bid, it opens up a second level of strategy, one beyond using what you've drawn to respond to the new situation. I'd say a 2-foot fence around a fruit tree is a better analogy for Feat cards: here's something that was free but now requires extra effort. If there's a fee for access rights, it allows for some people to pay in order to avoid having to trespass...but it's not like trespassing is impossible. There's still options available.

Thundercles said:

Well, if you can give the OL something else free to balance them, then they won't hurt the OL's chances (or at least, not more than the boost you've given the OL's chances). Its finding that balance that's difficult. One card draw does not seem to be enough. I'm going to suggest to my gaming partner that we increase it to one card draw and one card discard (for threat). See if that is closer to a balance.

Problem is, the only kind of balance you will reach (with competent players at least; and I think you are), is that feats will get used more rarely. If the price for using a feat increases to 1 card drawn and 1 discarded, you will be even more picky with which feats you use. You will only do it when you expect to benefit.

As I see it:

At the moment you only use the good feats because the OL will gain 1 card otherwise.

If you increase the price for using a feat to 1 card drawn + 1 card discarded for threat only the really good feats will see use.

And a card like "we are not afraid" will become pointless.

I think you have to take a totally different route and say that 1 feat costs 1 xp (or 25 coins or some other hero resource like 1 half action) from that hero to use. This is a better balancing mechanism in my eyes since it is unrelated to the current mapboard situation. The problem with drawing cards/paying threat is that these solutions are directly tied to the current situtation. When compared to the feat, the feat will always (again, assuming a competent player) seem superior else it wouldn't be played and therefore the balance mechanism will always seem to be wrong.

Anytime you give a player additional options, that player will invariably be better off. At worst he can just choose not to use those options.

StarBurn said:

We're using that system presently. It's working pretty well, but it has a few problems:

1. Don't let them bid conquest without an upper limit. Otherwise, the OL will just bid 600 conquest and cause the game to go into the final battle at copper. If you do let them bid conquest, for the most part it will only benefit the OL no matter who gets the XP. If the OL bids 50 conquest on every feat card, the heroes *cannot* keep playing feat cards because the final battle will arrive far too soon. The OL doesn't care if the heroes have 400 conquest if the game is still in copper level.

2. If the heroes are about to leave the 3rd level of a dungeon then it's pointless. They don't care how much threat they give you, so they will simply always be able to play their feat cards that allow them to escape or kill the final boss.

falke said:

I agree with most of what you write. My playing partner and I are in experimentation on this, so learning as we go.

The problem is, Feats themselves are so variable in utility. So no matter what price you have for them, there will always be some that are 'underpriced' and some that are 'overpriced' and not worth playing.
It does not make a difference (in this respect) whether the 'cost' is in dungeon or on mapboard. In general, I prefer a dungeon solution to a dungeon problem and a mapboard solution to a mapboard problem, because then the balance is easier to gauge and substantially less time is needed to playtest it.

So perhaps the answer is to make drawing feats cards cost something. Then each Feat is treated equally and you just have to find a balanced 'average' cost.
And the cost is for having the option, not for using it, so is less dependent on situational modifiers.

I might suggest that to my partner this afternoon.
It also has the side effect that you can then have as many or as few Feats in play as you choose - eg 4/glyph (1 each) or 1/glyph, whatever you want.

I still like the drawing cards idea as it means the heroes also have an additional 'unknown' factor for the feats and can't just calculate what and what is not possible for the OL.

Corbon said:

I agree. The cost could be tied to having the option as opposed to using it, thereby letting the bad feat cards see use as well (now that I paid for it, I might as well use it). But again, invariably feats will be a boon to the heroes. Now you just gave them the option to "buy" an option