I want to hear people's encounters (no matter if you are a hero or an Overlord) with the plot decks as they happen.

I have started with Balthir's. After reading over all the plot decks this one sounds the least complicated. And seeing this is a new toy, I felt it would be a good to start with simple.

We are playing Shadow Rune. First Blood, I knew I would not win, so I changed my tactic. I came at my heroes with all my monsters and cards. Turn one I took out the mage. Second turn I took out the scout. Third was the warrior and fourth was a very lucky shot to take out the healer with just Mauler. Shortly after the heroes beat me into the ground after taking all the search tokens.

I then played a rumor card. All said and done, first quest reaped me six threats all used to buy skills and selling my exp for three threats for the following quest. I did not have happy heroes.

We are half way through our next quest. I really went for the goal this time so after expending two threats for Dark Charm x2. Could have been a costly two card draw, but it did not bite me back, yet.

I feel I am entering an entirely different kind of play style when I am faced with the plot deck. It feels very... odd. I am not sure I like it yet. Any other OLs feel this as well?

How are heroes taking this change?

It seems like Descent is becoming a game of going for treasures and killing players rather than winning the quests???

Can't wait to get mine, in transit as we speak! (well type anyway)

It seems like Descent is becoming a game of going for treasures and killing players rather than winning the quests???

Can't wait to get mine, in transit as we speak! (well type anyway)

As we players got to know Descent more and more, it became apparent that the best tactic for heroes, in the mindset of an overarching campaign, it's to grab as much search token as possible, sometimes holding back victory in that particular quest/encounter; the OL, tough, has to win short-term because he doesn't get any additional rewards from the map (Trollfens experimented with that a bit), and the best tactic for that is to kill heroes often to deny them actions so they lose the race agaisnt the clock AND they don't have the opportunity to grab search tokens.

This is evident even from Shadow Rune right out of the first box, but it takes a couple of games to become accustomed to this mindset.

It seems like Descent is becoming a game of going for treasures and killing players rather than winning the quests???

Can't wait to get mine, in transit as we speak! (well type anyway)

As we players got to know Descent more and more, it became apparent that the best tactic for heroes, in the mindset of an overarching campaign, it's to grab as much search token as possible, sometimes holding back victory in that particular quest/encounter; the OL, tough, has to win short-term because he doesn't get any additional rewards from the map (Trollfens experimented with that a bit), and the best tactic for that is to kill heroes often to deny them actions so they lose the race agaisnt the clock AND they don't have the opportunity to grab search tokens.

This is evident even from Shadow Rune right out of the first box, but it takes a couple of games to become accustomed to this mindset.

I don't agree. Killing the heroes is useful, yes, but it has never been my goal unless the quest required it. This is the first time I have tried to fit in "kill the heroes" as apart of the quest goal. Before now, I have done really well. Being focused on the goal has reaped allot of reward. I kind of feel my thought is a little divided now and it also holds the temptation of forfeiting a quest for threats.

I have stated before, I really don't like when heroes give up on their goal for gold. I know it's strategy, but it sucks some of the fun, or heart if you will, from the game. Heroes are to be heroes and overlord is to be evil. Goals are set and we should really try to achieve them. Otherwise it might embitter one side. Therefore, I feel, and still feel, the OL should strive for the quest goal with a side of death killing. We are getting the threat win or lose anyhow. (but man is it tempting!)

I don't know. Does that make since?

It seems like Descent is becoming a game of going for treasures and killing players rather than winning the quests???

Can't wait to get mine, in transit as we speak! (well type anyway)

As we players got to know Descent more and more, it became apparent that the best tactic for heroes, in the mindset of an overarching campaign, it's to grab as much search token as possible, sometimes holding back victory in that particular quest/encounter; the OL, tough, has to win short-term because he doesn't get any additional rewards from the map (Trollfens experimented with that a bit), and the best tactic for that is to kill heroes often to deny them actions so they lose the race agaisnt the clock AND they don't have the opportunity to grab search tokens.

This is evident even from Shadow Rune right out of the first box, but it takes a couple of games to become accustomed to this mindset.

I don't agree. Killing the heroes is useful, yes, but it has never been my goal unless the quest required it. This is the first time I have tried to fit in "kill the heroes" as apart of the quest goal. Before now, I have done really well. Being focused on the goal has reaped allot of reward. I kind of feel my thought is a little divided now and it also holds the temptation of forfeiting a quest for threats.

I have stated before, I really don't like when heroes give up on their goal for gold. I know it's strategy, but it sucks some of the fun, or heart if you will, from the game. Heroes are to be heroes and overlord is to be evil. Goals are set and we should really try to achieve them. Otherwise it might embitter one side. Therefore, I feel, and still feel, the OL should strive for the quest goal with a side of death killing. We are getting the threat win or lose anyhow. (but man is it tempting!)

I don't know. Does that make since?

It makes a lot of sense, but a lot of players, both heroes and OL, approach the game with a "win at all cost" mentality that leads to optimize the way they game - often at the expense of short term goals, immersion or "fun".

Personally I feel it's fine to think like that, since Descent is still a boardgame and I always played in a pretty competitive group. But it's certainly not a "better" way to play.

As for Plot decks (to try and stay on topic), I am wary to use them. I fear adding even more rules would contribute to unbalance the game, and I'm pretty irked by the disparity between Agent cards - they all cost the same threat and sacrifice the same number of monsters, so why would I ever summon Splig or Eliza?

To all of you who are playing with plot decks, I have questions:

Do you use Agents in your game? I think the price of one master, one minion, 2 threat and the very likely possibility of having to repurchase the card is a high price for them, no matter how powerful they are

Do you manage your threat asto not ever have an hero with 2 fortune tokens? Because to me it seems giving an extra action to a hero is to be avoided at all costs

they all cost the same threat and sacrifice the same number of monsters, so why would I ever summon Splig or Eliza?

Not true. Eliza, Merick, and Splig only replace 1 master monster. Alric, Belthir, and Zacareth replace 1 master and 1 minion monster.

Also remember that the "Summon" card is only a small fraction of the utility gained from the deck. I know that some people may think that the only point of getting the lieutenant pack is to be able to bring them onto the field, but from what I've seen, it looks very viable to just ignore the Summon Agent cards entirely. IMO, they're there for flavor more than function anyway as you don't get that much extra utility out of them (they can't wield relics as they aren't lieutenants, so are really just slightly better versions of master monsters).

I did the same as you, Kunzite! I'm playing Eliza's deck, and immediately in First Blood against 3 heroes, I knew I wasn't winning (Varikas basically mowed down all of the goblins before they could even move). I only managed to KO one of the heroes once (due to some of the worst rolls I've ever seen). It was still enough to buy my Summon - Eliza plot card (with two left over to summon her in a near future quest). However, we haven't played since First Blood, sadly. I'll have to post more when we continue.

I'm excited to hear how everyone else is faring with the plot decks!

It makes a lot of sense, but a lot of players, both heroes and OL, approach the game with a "win at all cost" mentality that leads to optimize the way they game - often at the expense of short term goals, immersion or "fun".

It seems like Descent is becoming a game of going for treasures and killing players rather than winning the quests???

Can't wait to get mine, in transit as we speak! (well type anyway)

As we players got to know Descent more and more, it became apparent that the best tactic for heroes, in the mindset of an overarching campaign, it's to grab as much search token as possible, sometimes holding back victory in that particular quest/encounter; the OL, tough, has to win short-term because he doesn't get any additional rewards from the map (Trollfens experimented with that a bit), and the best tactic for that is to kill heroes often to deny them actions so they lose the race agaisnt the clock AND they don't have the opportunity to grab search tokens.

This is evident even from Shadow Rune right out of the first box, but it takes a couple of games to become accustomed to this mindset.

I don't agree. Killing the heroes is useful, yes, but it has never been my goal unless the quest required it. This is the first time I have tried to fit in "kill the heroes" as apart of the quest goal. Before now, I have done really well. Being focused on the goal has reaped allot of reward. I kind of feel my thought is a little divided now and it also holds the temptation of forfeiting a quest for threats.

I have stated before, I really don't like when heroes give up on their goal for gold. I know it's strategy, but it sucks some of the fun, or heart if you will, from the game. Heroes are to be heroes and overlord is to be evil. Goals are set and we should really try to achieve them. Otherwise it might embitter one side. Therefore, I feel, and still feel, the OL should strive for the quest goal with a side of death killing. We are getting the threat win or lose anyhow. (but man is it tempting!)

I don't know. Does that make since?

Personally I feel it's fine to think like that, since Descent is still a boardgame and I always played in a pretty competitive group. But it's certainly not a "better" way to play.

As for Plot decks (to try and stay on topic), I am wary to use them. I fear adding even more rules would contribute to unbalance the game, and I'm pretty irked by the disparity between Agent cards - they all cost the same threat and sacrifice the same number of monsters, so why would I ever summon Splig or Eliza?

To all of you who are playing with plot decks, I have questions:

Do you use Agents in your game? I think the price of one master, one minion, 2 threat and the very likely possibility of having to repurchase the card is a high price for them, no matter how powerful they are

Do you manage your threat asto not ever have an hero with 2 fortune tokens? Because to me it seems giving an extra action to a hero is to be avoided at all costs

I'll gladly give up a goblin archer or zombie for Eliza or a different agent. I do like the cheaper agents like Eliza and Splig since you never want to get rid of too many monsters.

I think strategizing with your threat tokens is key... you don't want to give a hero 3 actions, but sometimes the good for you outweighs the bad.

Some really good input so far, guys, thanks. As we play please keep posting. All the plot decks are still very new, so it's bound to have some interesting twists.

Summoning an agent could work to the OL's advantage because the heroes feel that they have to kill it to cause the OL to re-buy the card thus hurting the OL's game, but they are wasting actions not completing the goal of the quest which is never "Kill the OL's agent"

So sure you spend 4 threat to buy the card and 2 to summon the agent, but if you can win a quest that you otherwise would not have I see that as a fair trade. Plus hopefully the agent gets some good kicks in at the Heroes before they are defeated

We played with the Lieutenant packs for the first time this past weekend. My buddy was playing as the OL and used everyone's favority mastermind Baron Zachareth. The thought of screwing with Heroes outside of a quest seemed like too much fun for him.

We ran a mini campaign of LotW and modified the rules so he would have a comparable amount of Threats to the Heroes Gold. We decided on 3 threat per exp (so 12 Threat total + 4 Exp). We didn't have the Lieutenant packs until after we had already completed GoldDigger, so we gave the OL another 3 Threat (15 total).

We played Rude Awakening. Since he wasn't sure how best to use the Plot deck, he simply got the one Plot card where the OL can put a newly revealed Search card on the bottom, and the Plot card so that ol' Zachy could make an appearance. Ol' Zachenstein was relaxing with his two pet Volucrix Reavers, having a nice chat with the Innkeeper. They must've had a nasty fight, because after the door was opened, ol' Zacherino decided to stab the Innkeeper, stopping him from helping put out the fire.

Quest went to the OL, heroes had terrible rolls the whole night (even with the free rerolls we got from the Fortune tokens), but thems the breaks. We did manage to take out Ol' Z before we lost though, so the OL has to repurchase the card. He figures the 5 Threat spent was worthwhile. Since he barely spent any Threat other than to summon his agent and to deny us a Power Potion (we so desperately needed that!), we didn't get too much Fortune token. Should point out though, he didn't choose to get any extra threat whenever he knocked us out. He was too worried that the cards he was giving up would be essential to winning (and he was right).

Yeah, that's pretty much my sentiment aswell. Win quickly to prevent the heroes from getting gold. The only time this may change is if the dawnblade or another good relic is up for grabs.

I must admit it is one area of the game that could be enhanced (ie trying to actually win quests), but we've decided to play a few more campaigns first before we add any house rules. We are currently thinking along the lines of only being able to retain gold that when a quest was won, otherwise it must be spent at the shop on the next campaign phase.

So, Brigg (My hero willing to play 4 heroes at once) and I had most of the tail end of this week to do very little but play Descent and general hang out. So, we plowed through the first half of LoR with me playing Zachareth's plot deck. I have been itching to play it (seeing he is my favorite character so far) but I didn't want that to be my group's first plot deck encounter.

His card draw is AMAZING! I really love it. He has two plot cards that let him draw. There is some great synergy with his deck and Basic II as "Rush of Power" gives you cards at the end of your turn. Most cards in Basic II need to be played on the heroes' turn. I could be happy with just that card on the board. This is the first time in a long time I have not had Dark Ritual in my deck.

"Nefarious Power" in generally a good plot to have. It adds a shield to an attribute test. Coupled with a "Befuddle" makes even some of the heroes' best attribute tests hard to pass.

And Summon Zachareth... I would have been better off letting my open group do their job. In Act I he is really underwhelming. The good thing was Brigg was too focused on the goal to go kill him, so I ended the quest with him still willing to work for me.

We didn't get into much more then that. Sadly, we had to bag that campaign. I am going on a trip soon and we can't run through another 5 quests before then.

In my campaign with my group of friends, I am running my second favorite character, good old Belthir. He runs just as I would expect him to. The plot deck REALLY encourages the OL not to buy ANY OL cards for his deck, but play threats like candy or discard traps to play his workings for free (which seems to be my play right now).

We are going into our 4th quest soon and I almost have all of his plot cards setting out. Honestly, it's a little over whelming for me. This is the very reason why I have a hard time playing the heroes. Too much stuff to remember. I can't hold it in my hand like my deck. I still like it, but my turn play had become slower as I learn everything. I have missed simple triggers like "Dark Charm" because I race into my turn forgetting beginning of the turn triggers. It lost me a quest as well since the miss trigger was the turn before my LT fell.

Though, in our last quest, the heroes where able to bring said LT down to one health turn one while limiting his ability to run (see Hexer) on turn one. Due to encounter one being a huge stall out, I was able to get all but three of my cards in my deck. The heroes where sweating when I dropped half my hand to play my first turn with the aid of my plot deck. "Dual Training" put my guys in striking range of my target while the target of the dash got him deep to point blank hit for lots.

I assumed I would not have another turn, so plan B went into effect. Get threats. By the end of turn one I had 3 threat tokens. I was ready to lose.

"Make Your Own Luck" almost saved my bacon again, but, alas, my LT failed. It was a GOOD game though. Had it not been for the plot deck, I would have lost the turn after. Three heroes down meant the heroes needed to do magic. What should have been a turn one win for the heroes was a turn three win for the heroes buy luck. If I had rolled one more shield for my LT, I would have won the quest.

In conclusion, I like the plot decks. New toys means learning new things and for someone with a bad memory and has only played a hero in two quests, I am at a somewhat disadvantage. I don't mind the challenge.

Just got mine today. I mostly interested in the Baron's and Splig's, but after reading through them all I think Eliza & Belthir's look better. Merick has a nice 'target a player' theme which could overcome those heavily armored heroes. Alric's have nice buffs as well.

Can't wait to finish our Trollfens campaign and give them a try.

Whenever I get my packs (I'm from Spain) I'll play them as a support for my strategy but, never in a way I give up winning quests to gain threat. In the Shadow Rune Campaign winning a quest in Act 1 is crucial, it lets you choose the next one and some quests are favorable to the OL. The rewards for those quests can be good relics for the OL to have either for his own benefit or to prevent heroes from getting them.

What use can threat tokens have in the Gryvor's quest for example? It can help you a bit but surely heroes will win that quest so, in my opinion, avoiding to play this quest by winning quests is more important than to gain lots of tokens.

So far the only complaint I have with the plot decks, other than some at-a-glance imbalances between decks, is that summoning any of the lieutenant agents is absolutely not worth the threat in almost every situation. The total cost comes to five, and they exude a veritable "kill me" beacon when summoned, for this very reason. I imagine they are better in act 2, or in some cases Splig can be used to reasonable effect due to an overall increase in survivability through his greatly enhanced version of Not Me!, Him Instead!. All around I find this to be the only major problem, and that is largely because the idea of summoning agents is appealing to me, but also very, very difficult at the same time.

Other than that though, I absolutely love the alternate progression options. Making the difficult decision of drawing threat instead of cards when killing people for the first time, is fun and interesting. Also the fact that threat is rewarded at the end of any quest regardless of the other rewards, it gives strong reasons to play any plot cards that may feature imbalanced relic rewards without feeling like you're risking too much to play the super late game.

All in all, I feel these are a great addition to the game, and I look forward to testing them all out.

So far the only complaint I have with the plot decks, other than some at-a-glance imbalances between decks, is that summoning any of the lieutenant agents is absolutely not worth the threat in almost every situation. The total cost comes to five, and they exude a veritable "kill me" beacon when summoned, for this very reason. I imagine they are better in act 2, or in some cases Splig can be used to reasonable effect due to an overall increase in survivability through his greatly enhanced version of Not Me!, Him Instead!. All around I find this to be the only major problem, and that is largely because the idea of summoning agents is appealing to me, but also very, very difficult at the same time.

Other than that though, I absolutely love the alternate progression options. Making the difficult decision of drawing threat instead of cards when killing people for the first time, is fun and interesting. Also the fact that threat is rewarded at the end of any quest regardless of the other rewards, it gives strong reasons to play any plot cards that may feature imbalanced relic rewards without feeling like you're risking too much to play the super late game.

All in all, I feel these are a great addition to the game, and I look forward to testing them all out.

A good tactic is to annoy the players by bringing out your agent, laying some damage and getting them away from the objective. If they take they bait you can sacrifice your agent to win the quest quicker, otherwise you can keep your agent alive and retain their card for the next encounter It works best when you can distract the player and keep your agent alive.

So far the only complaint I have with the plot decks, other than some at-a-glance imbalances between decks, is that summoning any of the lieutenant agents is absolutely not worth the threat in almost every situation. The total cost comes to five, and they exude a veritable "kill me" beacon when summoned, for this very reason. I imagine they are better in act 2, or in some cases Splig can be used to reasonable effect due to an overall increase in survivability through his greatly enhanced version of Not Me!, Him Instead!. All around I find this to be the only major problem, and that is largely because the idea of summoning agents is appealing to me, but also very, very difficult at the same time.

Other than that though, I absolutely love the alternate progression options. Making the difficult decision of drawing threat instead of cards when killing people for the first time, is fun and interesting. Also the fact that threat is rewarded at the end of any quest regardless of the other rewards, it gives strong reasons to play any plot cards that may feature imbalanced relic rewards without feeling like you're risking too much to play the super late game.

All in all, I feel these are a great addition to the game, and I look forward to testing them all out.

A good tactic is get annoy the players by bring out the agent, laying some damage and getting them away from the objective. If they take they bait you can win the quest quicker, otherwise you can keep your agent card for the next encounter It works best when you can pull off both

And this can happen. I have pulled it off at the last moment once in act one. *thumbs up*