Is this a new concept from FFG?

The rate of expansions being launched for Descent is very high, does it really have to be this way? Also, can someone tell me why they decided not to have "initiative" in the game, where the overlord and the players would go back and forth between their heroes/monsters without the "Overlord Phase" and "Heroes Phase" ?

The way the game is structured in terms of turn phases is very unbalanced. An overlord has only so many actions he can do (and one attack per monster), while the players in total can have a total of 8 actions + fatigue tokens, which basically leaves them with a very likely total of 8 attacks in one single round, including some special actions that can numb the monsters and have them skip turns for attack purposes.

I've noticed this even after a couple games in depth in the story, and I have read by other players that later the Overlord gets more powerful, but still it's pretty unsatisfying for the overlord and given the fact he is playing all alone, he really feels much more "ganged up on" than the heroes themselves, which is the exact opposite of the way this game is supposed to make players feel.

This is a big complaint, because they could have avoided this with simple "initiative rule". I understand players are encouraged to act as a "team", but this is not a team, this is ganging up on the overlord. It doesn't make any sense.

When you say "numb" I assume you mean the "stun" condition. Just be aware it only gets rid of 1 action not a monsters entire turn. Perhaps you already know this.

Is this a new concept from FFG? The rate of expansions being launched for Descent is very high, does it really have to be this way?

I agree that the rate new expansions are coming out is very fast, even for FFG. I wouldn't mind if they slowed it down a bit.

Also, can someone tell me why they decided not to have "initiative" in the game, where the overlord and the players would go back and forth between their heroes/monsters without the "Overlord Phase" and "Heroes Phase" ?

No, I cannot tell you why they made any particular design decision. I don't think anyone who's likely to respond on this forum can. I'm not convinced that alternating hero and monster groups like this would make a huge difference, but go ahead and try it out as a house rule. Let us know how it works out I always enjoy hearing about new house rules, especially if they're backed up with data from a few play tests.

I've noticed this even after a couple games in depth in the story, and I have read by other players that later the Overlord gets more powerful, but still it's pretty unsatisfying for the overlord and given the fact he is playing all alone, he really feels much more "ganged up on" than the heroes themselves, which is the exact opposite of the way this game is supposed to make players feel.

This is a big complaint, because they could have avoided this with simple "initiative rule". I understand players are encouraged to act as a "team", but this is not a team, this is ganging up on the overlord. It doesn't make any sense.

The heroes are encouraged to act as a team, yes. The Overlord is not on that team, he is in direct opposition to that team. Therefore, he often feels singled out. I understand what you mean by feeling ganged up on as the OL, but I'm reasonably certain this is exactly the way the game is supposed to be. First edition was the same way, and they clearly didn't see fit to change that atmosphere for Second.

The Overlord is supposed to be a ruthless, evil jerkface. It can get pretty intense sometimes, especially for players who came into this game expecting "D&D lite." If you want to win as OL, you can't pull your punches. If you want to let the heroes win for the sake of the story, you're going to end up feeling walked all over, because that's exactly what the heroes just did to you.

I read the thread name and I thought this was going to be something about the game becoming a living, evolving entity, much like Magic: The Gathering or Warhammor has become. Not sure, but I like that idea. But the thread is another balance argument.

The place of the OL figure is a very delicate art. And just like any artist, you have to be the right one for the job. Not everyone is cut out for the part.

1. The OL has to be willing to play on their own.

2. They have to have a hard skin, meaning they need to take losses BETTER then their heroes. You will loss allot. You also have the ability of getting powerful faster. Think of it this way. The only person you need to buff is you, not you and three other people.

3. This also means they CANNOT take it personally. You have to single out heroes to bring them to their knees. They have to kill your guys and stomp out all your stuff to bring you to your knees.

4. Finally, you have to know your stuff and your heroes better then the heroes know your stuff and themselves.

Be evil at the table, but smile to them regardless of the outcome. If you can't, then this isn't your roll. Be the hero and let someone else be evil.

As for the idea of D2 becoming eternal really plugs a smile on my face. I would really like to see it becoming a living and changing game. Let history become apart of it. I would LOVE to be apart of a book writing (or art!) the adventures of the changing story. That would be super awesome. Maybe the fans could have a say in how each campaign plays out so that they know how to make the story flow. <3

Also, can someone tell me why they decided not to have "initiative" in the game, where the overlord and the players would go back and forth between their heroes/monsters without the "Overlord Phase" and "Heroes Phase" ?

The way the game is structured in terms of turn phases is very unbalanced. An overlord has only so many actions he can do (and one attack per monster), while the players in total can have a total of 8 actions + fatigue tokens, which basically leaves them with a very likely total of 8 attacks in one single round, including some special actions that can numb the monsters and have them skip turns for attack purposes.

Most likely for a couple of reasons:

1) It was done that way in D1, and wasn't ever really an issue.

2) Simplicity. Trying to keep track of alternating who's gone when, the duration of a round, etc., adds a level of complexity to the game and 2nd Edition tried to streamline the ruleset.

I'll be honest, I don't think an alternating of 1 hero / 1 overlord monster group would really improve things that significantly. There are lots of "balance complaints" floating around, but they go both ways (some say Heroes are overpowered and just as many say the Overlord is) and almost always come down to either hero party composition with ridiculous combinations (often from the conversion kit), exploited loopholes like the OL not having a hand limit, and just as frequently, quest design. If you feel like the Overlord is having troubles, search for some tips on this forum. Some quick ones though:

* Familiarize yourself with the rules and the FAQ. Almost every "This mechanic is always extremely unbalanced" complaint often comes from misinterpreting the way that mechanic works. Stun is a common one: it only takes away a single action, not an entire turn.

* Don't focus on killing the heroes. Focus on completing your objectives and preventing them from completing theirs. In many quests, it's unlikely to be able to kill a hero before the quest is over unless you totally skip your own objective, so "preventing them" may come down to using utility (throw, fatigue drains, stuns, immobilizes, etc.) over raw damage output. Pay attention to both the Hero and Overlord objectives and the reinforcement rules when choosing monsters. Most of the Shadow Rune quests are a race, so the best units are often either fast or roadblocks (large or numerous).

* Pay attention to your hero team. They're stuck with those choices for the entire campaign while you can adapt. Figure out where their weaknesses lie and exploit them.

Is this a new concept from FFG? The rate of expansions being launched for Descent is very high, does it really have to be this way?

I agree that the rate new expansions are coming out is very fast, even for FFG. I wouldn't mind if they slowed it down a bit.

The only problem I see is waiting. When an expansion is announced, and the moment I can buy it, there"s month ! And I never used to be patient.

So, If FFG could make announce of expansion the month it comes out, I wouldn't mind, so I wouldn't have to become crazy all the day along.

Although, in the base game, the heroes start out far more powerful than the Overlord, my hope is that this balances out with expansions. With every expansion, the Overlord gets more options during the game, while the number of options afforded to the heroes remains relatively constant. Therefore, the likelihood of the overlord being able to counter hero strategies increases.

Personally, I like having lots of content right from the start. It tells me they are really supporting the product. What I don't like is when the products become Ebay searches for insane amounts of money. Lots of support at the beginning then a cut off can do this.

As far as balance, from what I've read and what I've experienced are opposite. I read a lot of heroes being over-powered. I'm only halfway through The Shadow Rune (just got the game) and, as an inexperienced player with an inexperienced Overlord, the Overlord is kicking our tails and our only wins are when our Overlord decided to make it a challenge and not opt for the easy win.

Now, I'll admit, we probably don't have the right hero group (there are only three of us: Overlord, Wildlander and Knight). We jumped in and started playing the hero that appealed to us. Now knowing it is more of an objective based game, next time around we'll probably be more mindful of the synergies available, and a healer may not be a bad idea.

In other words, we could have chose different heroes and might not have as difficult a time, but with our current hero choice, we're getting demolished. We're learning the game as well so rules are sort of in flux until we nail them down. For instance, the stun as written says to us that the turn ends after discarding, that was our only saving grace a couple games and now I find out that it only takes up one of the Overlord's actions? We're going to be in severe trouble, lol!

I will say our Overlord has been grabbing the Shadow Dragon for every open monster group that allows the terrain for it since we started. In one of the quests, I noticed it says after that quest a Shadow Dragon can be used from then on for open monster groups as the Overlord's choice... in essence, saying that the Shadow Dragon wasn't supposed to be used previous to that quest? There is no where I could find that it says the Shadow Dragon could not be used before hand and that **** dragon eating up the surges has cost us many a quest... if we even roll a surge just to hit it in the first place.

I tried being Overlord our first game and found I'm too soft and get walked on. Then to turn it over to another player who took the role and became ruthless really made The Shadow Rune pretty one-sided thus far. So I can see both sides and it completely depends on all the players playing. As we continue to learn to play, we'll have a better opinion.

That said, the game is still quite fun.

- Saf

Now, I'll admit, we probably don't have the right hero group (there are only three of us: Overlord, Wildlander and Knight). We jumped in and started playing the hero that appealed to us. Now knowing it is more of an objective based game, next time around we'll probably be more mindful of the synergies available, and a healer may not be a bad idea.

While you're probably already aware of a number of them, here's a post I made about tips for 2-hero games, which are probably the most sensitive to hero choice:

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/90040-just-cant-find-a-balance-to-this-game/page-4#entry879848

I will say our Overlord has been grabbing the Shadow Dragon for every open monster group that allows the terrain for it since we started. In one of the quests, I noticed it says after that quest a Shadow Dragon can be used from then on for open monster groups as the Overlord's choice... in essence, saying that the Shadow Dragon wasn't supposed to be used previous to that quest? There is no where I could find that it says the Shadow Dragon could not be used before hand and that **** dragon eating up the surges has cost us many a quest... if we even roll a surge just to hit it in the first place.

You were actually playing it right.

I think the quest you're referring to is The Desecrated Tomb. What it says is:

...for the remainder of the campaign, the overlord may choose shadow dragons as one of his open groups, regardless of the quest's listed monster traits.

Shadow Dragons have the Dark and Cave traits, so can normally only be played in encounters that feature them. If the Overlord wins The Desecrated Tomb, he can then play Shadow Dragons as an Open Group regardless of what traits the encounter lists.

Example: If the overlord didn't win The Desecrated Tomb (either it hasn't been played, can't be played, or he lost), and you're currently playing The Wyrm Turns, he could use Shadow Dragons in Encounter 1 (which lists Dark as an available trait), but not in Encounter 2 (which only lists Mountain, Fire, and Forest as available traits). If, however, the overlord DID win The Desecrated Tomb, he could use Shadow Dragons in both encounters, because it doesn't matter which traits the encounter has.

Is this a new concept from FFG?

The rate of expansions being launched for Descent is very high, does it really have to be this way?

I personally do find the rate very high - and Descent is not the only game I play.

"Happily", things are made slightly slower for me, as the French translations give some additional delay to the production - I play with the French version, as some of my gaming partners don't read English well.

Another partly related concern is the addition of new mechanics in the system.

Adding heroes, monsters, tiles and new quests is fine.

But accumulating new conditions, special features (e.g. secret rooms, rumors, lieutenants and threat tokens), etc. could turn a rather simple game into a heavyweight monster, crumbling under the weight of its body and difficult to introduce new players to.

I would also be concerned that the interactions of all those new rules could generate unexpected and complex problems.

But I can just consider that those are just fears that won't develop into real problems.

The only present problem is to manage my boardgame budget in contrast with my desire to "have it all".

I hope I will keep up with the pace.

But accumulating new conditions, special features (e.g. secret rooms, rumors, lieutenants and threat tokens), etc. could turn a rather simple game into a heavyweight monster, crumbling under the weight of its body and difficult to introduce new players to.

I would also be concerned that the interactions of all those new rules could generate unexpected and complex problems.

These sorts of problems are not uncommon in FFG games. They were the death of D1E. Well, that and I'm thinking FFG wanted to rewrite the system with campaign play in mind from the beginning. At the rate D2E is expanding, I don't see how such issues can be avoided for long. The system is set up well for expanding, with almost everything being modular and interchangeable, but past a certain point the sheer volume of material becomes an issue, no matter how well designed.

That said, Descent is still a pretty epic experience for those who are willing to get entangled in it. For new players, just don't introduce it all at once. You can always take out expansion material if you're bringing in new blood. =)

Is this a new concept from FFG?

The rate of expansions being launched for Descent is very high, does it really have to be this way?

Really I can't understand what people are thinking with comments like this.

Surely if they are releasing content quicker than you are playing it, you just simply wouldn't buy it until you are ready for it. None of the content is required to enjoy the content you already have, so it makes absolutely no logical sense to wish they would slow down their releases.

I for one love new content coming through and hope it continues. At least if it's made I have the option of one day buying stuff I'm not ready for now (If it's cash flow that is causing an issue for some people) .

Can anyone actually logically explain why some people would prefer we don't get content? Saying slow down, means just that at some point in time.

Can anyone actually logically explain why some people would prefer we don't get content? Saying slow down, means just that at some point in time.

I don't think that equating less and nothing is logical at all.

Please provide a mathematical model where 1 + n = 0, when n is greater or equal to 0 (and represens expansions added to the 1 basic game).

To wait until one is either ready to play an expansion or to pay for it, is taking the risk of seeing it go OOP - with the "option" of paying huge sums on eBay for it.

Our hobby is a niche one and products quickly disappear from the radars (try to find Descent 1 products available and at a reasonable price).

The rythm of production of new expansions certainly can be a cause of concern for those reasons.

If two minor and one major expansions - and add the Lieutenant packs - in less than 18 months does correspond to your idea of a comfortable rythm of production, I don't think it is very difficult for you to understand that it is slightly too fast for other players (especially if they have a game experience which covers other games).

It is, at least, faster than for other games, such as GoW, Talisman, Starcraft, ...

So, things are fine for you - and I do understand your p.o.v.

But I believe that you can understand that, from a logical, quantifiable p.o.v., other people find the production rythm quite fast.

Another partly related concern is the addition of new mechanics in the system.

Adding heroes, monsters, tiles and new quests is fine.

But accumulating new conditions, special features (e.g. secret rooms, rumors, lieutenants and threat tokens), etc. could turn a rather simple game into a heavyweight monster, crumbling under the weight of its body and difficult to introduce new players to.

I can appreciate your concern, but I think, based on what we've seen so far, we have little to worry about in terms of complexity creep. Most of the new stuff only happens occasionally, so there's no need to explain it until it comes up. Additionally, FFG seems to be far more interested in expanding existing mechanics than introducing new ones.

Another partly related concern is the addition of new mechanics in the system.

Adding heroes, monsters, tiles and new quests is fine.

But accumulating new conditions, special features (e.g. secret rooms, rumors, lieutenants and threat tokens), etc. could turn a rather simple game into a heavyweight monster, crumbling under the weight of its body and difficult to introduce new players to.

I can appreciate your concern, but I think, based on what we've seen so far, we have little to worry about in terms of complexity creep. Most of the new stuff only happens occasionally, so there's no need to explain it until it comes up. Additionally, FFG seems to be far more interested in expanding existing mechanics than introducing new ones.

You may be right - I would even say that "fears" don't usually find a full accomplishment and that they rarely do help progress.

And one can select some elements (such as rumors or the Lieutenant special rules) or not.

The modularity of the expansions does reduce the risk of generating a maze of entangled mechanics.

So, yes, nothing dramatical is in sight for the moment.

Is this a new concept from FFG? The rate of expansions being launched for Descent is very high, does it really have to be this way?

I agree that the rate new expansions are coming out is very fast, even for FFG. I wouldn't mind if they slowed it down a bit.

The only problem I see is waiting. When an expansion is announced, and the moment I can buy it, there"s month ! And I never used to be patient.

So, If FFG could make announce of expansion the month it comes out, I wouldn't mind, so I wouldn't have to become crazy all the day along.

I don't think expansions come out fast I think they get announced fast. New expansion comes out sometime 2014 that's months away! Plot decks i think most people will be forced to buy the ones they want most even if people want all (there's so many). And for some 2014 is far far away!

I'm more intrested in campaign expansions anyway. I don't like LoR that much but I like the fact that there's another place to go besides SR. I'm looking forward to this next campaign theme wish it would get here sooner. Plot decks think I'm more intrested in the model more then anything(there clever to give more then just a model). Some content is more exciting then others so this is good way to see what's on the horizon.

Can anyone actually logically explain why some people would prefer we don't get content? Saying slow down, means just that at some point in time.

I don't think that equating less and nothing is logical at all.

Please provide a mathematical model where 1 + n = 0, when n is greater or equal to 0 (and represens expansions added to the 1 basic game).

[/q]

If that formula actually represented what I was saying you would have a point. Is what I'm saying is that demand will drop if support drops out over time, meaning that some products we may receive at the current release schedule will never see the light of day. Given the equation has no demand or profit variables it's totally useless for this conversation.

[q]To wait until one is either ready to play an expansion or to pay for it, is taking the risk of seeing it go OOP - with the "option" of paying huge sums on eBay for it.

Our hobby is a niche one and products quickly disappear from the radars (try to find Descent 1 products available and at a reasonable price).

The rythm of production of new expansions certainly can be a cause of concern for those reasons.[/q]

So you are more worried about something eventually going out of print then never being made? If it is popular it will stay in production, you are not making a lot of sense.

[q]If two minor and one major expansions - and add the Lieutenant packs - in less than 18 months does correspond to your idea of a comfortable rythm of production, I don't think it is very difficult for you to understand that it is slightly too fast for other players (especially if they have a game experience which covers other games).

It is, at least, faster than for other games, such as GoW, Talisman, Starcraft, ...[/q]

Given it's all optional expansions and none of it is required to use any other part of it, no I don't understand why people have an issue with a decent release rate of optional content. It has no affect on people that are not ready to buy it, but has a great affect for those ready for new content for the game, which keeps it popular and ensures future production.

[q]So, things are fine for you - and I do understand your p.o.v.

But I believe that you can understand that, from a logical, quantifiable p.o.v., other people find the production rythm quite fast.[/q]

I'm not disputing people don't appear to find the releases quick (Which is opinion and hence unquantifiable), I'm arguing it makes no logical sense to have objections about that. The concern of things going out of print is a slightly different topic.

I don't think expansions come out fast I think they get announced fast. New expansion comes out sometime 2014 that's months away! Plot decks i think most people will be forced to buy the ones they want most even if people want all (there's so many). And for some 2014 is far far away!

Two expansions per year is plenty fast for me. Throw on the LT packs in top of that, and I'm counting my pennies very carefully. If you can afford to keep up with this pace, I'm happy for you, but I'd still prefer if they toned it down a notch, personally.

I'm also concerned with how much time they're spending playtesting these expansions. D1E only saw one expansion per year and it was still plagued with issues from interactions between expansion elements. I readily admit that D2E is doing a good job thus far, but I'm brought to wonder how long they can keep it up.

Can anyone actually logically explain why some people would prefer we don't get content? Saying slow down, means just that at some point in time.

Let me preface my points with this: I think you've introduced a logical fallacy that you're driving your argument off of. Saying "slow down" does NOT mean "don't make stuff". The only case it would is if Descent 2E was slated to end after a specific time period instead of after all the quality content has been exhausted, in which case a slower pace would mean fewer items. It's still possible for them to produce the same amount of content, but spread it out over a longer period of time, which is what I think most people want.

Why they want it slower has a couple of major reasons:

1) Many people aren't able to play through the current content fast enough to keep up. And even though there's always the ability to just pick stuff up when you get to it, there's a few things to keep in mind:

a) There's a risk of it being out of print when that happens. Just assuming that there will be enough demand to warrant a second printing is a pretty big assumption.

b) Even if it IS slated for a second printing, it doesn't mean it'll be easily available when you get to that point. Especially when considering expansions, they often sit out of print for much longer than base games before getting a second printing.

c) When playing a game that keeps having new content generated, there's a very real negative psychological effect of feeling like you're "falling behind and will never catch up". Is that better or worse for a company than the people who burn through content so fast and feel like FFG can't keep up with their play speed and risk moving on to other games by different companies and not coming back? Who knows, but that's a whole other can of worms.

2) People are worried that the content is produced hastily with more of an emphasis on cash grabs and content quantity than on content quality. As I mentioned above, I think a lot of people would rather the same AMOUNT of content spread out over a longer period of time (because this game will come to an end eventually), thus keeping it "alive" for longer. This can especially be a big concern of long-time FFG fans who know that the company has a history of releasing lots of different content that is supposed to be able to interact with each other, but somehow missed a full suite of testing and creates even more rules issues than already exist.

Can anyone actually logically explain why some people would prefer we don't get content? Saying slow down, means just that at some point in time.

Let me preface my points with this: I think you've introduced a logical fallacy that you're driving your argument off of. Saying "slow down" does NOT mean "don't make stuff". The only case it would is if Descent 2E was slated to end after a specific time period instead of after all the quality content has been exhausted, in which case a slower pace would mean fewer items. It's still possible for them to produce the same amount of content, but spread it out over a longer period of time, which is what I think most people want.

Why they want it slower has a couple of major reasons:

1) Many people aren't able to play through the current content fast enough to keep up. And even though there's always the ability to just pick stuff up when you get to it, there's a few things to keep in mind:

a) There's a risk of it being out of print when that happens. Just assuming that there will be enough demand to warrant a second printing is a pretty big assumption.

b) Even if it IS slated for a second printing, it doesn't mean it'll be easily available when you get to that point. Especially when considering expansions, they often sit out of print for much longer than base games before getting a second printing.

c) When playing a game that keeps having new content generated, there's a very real negative psychological effect of feeling like you're "falling behind and will never catch up". Is that better or worse for a company than the people who burn through content so fast and feel like FFG can't keep up with their play speed and risk moving on to other games by different companies and not coming back? Who knows, but that's a whole other can of worms.

2) People are worried that the content is produced hastily with more of an emphasis on cash grabs and content quantity than on content quality. As I mentioned above, I think a lot of people would rather the same AMOUNT of content spread out over a longer period of time (because this game will come to an end eventually), thus keeping it "alive" for longer. This can especially be a big concern of long-time FFG fans who know that the company has a history of releasing lots of different content that is supposed to be able to interact with each other, but somehow missed a full suite of testing and creates even more rules issues than already exist.

+1

There are very logical reasons that some people find that the production rythm is too high.

Can anyone actually logically explain why some people would prefer we don't get content? Saying slow down, means just that at some point in time.

Let me preface my points with this: I think you've introduced a logical fallacy that you're driving your argument off of. Saying "slow down" does NOT mean "don't make stuff". The only case it would is if Descent 2E was slated to end after a specific time period instead of after all the quality content has been exhausted, in which case a slower pace would mean fewer items. It's still possible for them to produce the same amount of content, but spread it out over a longer period of time, which is what I think most people want.

Why they want it slower has a couple of major reasons:

1) Many people aren't able to play through the current content fast enough to keep up. And even though there's always the ability to just pick stuff up when you get to it, there's a few things to keep in mind:

a) There's a risk of it being out of print when that happens. Just assuming that there will be enough demand to warrant a second printing is a pretty big assumption.

b) Even if it IS slated for a second printing, it doesn't mean it'll be easily available when you get to that point. Especially when considering expansions, they often sit out of print for much longer than base games before getting a second printing.

c) When playing a game that keeps having new content generated, there's a very real negative psychological effect of feeling like you're "falling behind and will never catch up". Is that better or worse for a company than the people who burn through content so fast and feel like FFG can't keep up with their play speed and risk moving on to other games by different companies and not coming back? Who knows, but that's a whole other can of worms.

2) People are worried that the content is produced hastily with more of an emphasis on cash grabs and content quantity than on content quality. As I mentioned above, I think a lot of people would rather the same AMOUNT of content spread out over a longer period of time (because this game will come to an end eventually), thus keeping it "alive" for longer. This can especially be a big concern of long-time FFG fans who know that the company has a history of releasing lots of different content that is supposed to be able to interact with each other, but somehow missed a full suite of testing and creates even more rules issues than already exist.

+1

There are very logical reasons that some people find that the production rythm is too high.

+2 Well said!

I appreciate the 2-player tips and no, I have not seen any yet. I find it a bit difficult to search these forums for any question relevant topics since I can't find a search feature... maybe some help with that would be, helpful .

Two of the three of us are very seasoned Bloodblowl players so we know exactly how to move our pieces for blocks and the the ability to be in range of anything without sacrificing extra moves. The Overlord and I are the two. He knows how to block and how to move in ways that circumvent my feats and skills making them useless. Add on to that the bad luck of all my abilities needing a bow with only three bows in a 35 card shopping deck (both acts together) and all I have is the starting bow which gives minimal anything. The Knight of course has upgrades out the wazoo coming at him at every shopping sequence and ended up with the Bearded Axe, forgoing the shield since it's the only thing so far able to halfway carve our way to the objectives.

I'll admit we actually won our second quest (The Dawnblade) but only because our Overlord didn't think it was fair if he moved one of his minions on the tomb to stop us. We were able to do a Hail Mary on the very last turn the light was going to hit the tomb to win. Personally, I think the Overlord was starting to feel sorry for us and let it happen on purpose. He quite a few mistakes that he would not have normally made. I know him well, and he is too good for those kinds of mistakes. One or two, ok, but he made quite a few.

I guess the game gets completely different when you have more than two players, but that's where I come in and say the difficulty completely depends on the who's playing the players, who's playing which heroes, the Overlord and, apparently, how many players.

I bought all the 1st edition heroes with their conversion cards and this gives us a bit more to look through. Other than that, I don't see us getting more players than what we have already. The only games people play around here are Magic and the miniature battle wargaming types. It's going to be a rough ride.

Thanks much for your help!

-Saf

About the use of the Shadow dragon in an open group, it only can be used if one his traits corresponds to one of the two that appear on the top of the encounter's page.

I bought all the 1st edition heroes with their conversion cards and this gives us a bit more to look through. Other than that, I don't see us getting more players than what we have already. The only games people play around here are Magic and the miniature battle wargaming types. It's going to be a rough ride.

For your next campaign, you may want to consider having each hero player play 2 heroes for a full party of 4. It's not an official rule, but it's an extrapolation of playing with only a single hero player where he is specifically told to use 2 hero characters.

About the use of the Shadow dragon in an open group, it only can be used if one his traits corresponds to one of the two that appear on the top of the encounter's page.

Unless the Overlord wins The Desecrated Tomb, which offers as a reward the ability to use them as any open group, independent of trait, which is what he was referring to. ;-)