Jump to content



Photo

Opinions on overlord cards?


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Sixko

Sixko

    Member

  • Members
  • 107 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 09:42 AM

As title says, what are your guys opinions regarding the different overlord class card/basic decks etc?

 

Which one is the most/least powerful and why?

Which ones are not worth the xp or using in your deck?

Etc etc

 

 



#2 jadedbacon

jadedbacon

    Member

  • Members
  • 59 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 11:24 AM

Don't have time to list everything, here's Saboteur, Warlord and Punisher, I might update this later with Magus, Infector, Shadowmancer and the Universal cards.

 

Saboteur:

 

Great:

  • Web Trap
    • Immobilize is awesome
    • Might is easier to land on most non-warriors
    • In race style maps (read: almost all of them) stopping heroes from getting to their objectives is key to winning, and this does it in a pinch
    • Watch out for Logan, he laughs at this, and Apothecary/Disciple/Bard sneeze at it and its gone
  • Wicked Laughter
    • Makes it easier to land traps
    • Makes it harder for Heroes to pass quest related attribute checks
  • Uthuk Demon Trap
    • If timed right is a guaranteed kill on a hero
    • Useless if all search tokens/doors are opened

Bad

  • Explosive Rune
    • If timed right/lucky enough could deal 6 hearts to a hero with 1 Awareness, most of the time will just deal 1-2 or nothing at all which is pretty lackluster.

 

Warlord

 

Great:

  • Blood Rage
    • Nothing like attacking 3+ times (if comboed with Frenzy/Flurry/etc) on a priority target the Heroes are trying to keep alive.  Who cares if your monster dies as a result.
    • Can be comboed with monsters that have Undying or with Rise Again for maximum hilarity
  • Expert Blow
    • Reusable card, no need to keep searching/hoping to draw it (as long as you don't miss/don't roll a surge)
  • Bloodlust
    • Even with the Errata, drawing 3 cards when knocking out a hero is nice.  If you're playing with Threat and you pick threat instead of getting your one card for knocking out a hero you're still getting +1 card.

Bad:

  • Reinforce
    • Post Errata its too weak and situational to pull off.  Since its happening at the end of the turn AND you need a master monster to be alive means you've just lined up your monsters to be blown away by the heroes on their next turn.  Could be useful when blocking a corridor, but still, all the heroes need to do is pick off your master and its useless.

Punisher

 

Great:

  • No Rest for the Wicked
    • Great vs most heroes as they love to Fatigue move to inch closer to your monsters.  Fantastic vs High Mage Quellen when he uses his Heroic Feat.  Granted once you play it Heroes can choose not to use Fatigue moves, but then again you're just forcing them to waste actions, so usually its still a win-win for you.
  • Exploit Weakness
    • Again, since heroes love using Stamina whenever they can, there's a good chance they'll end with 0 fatigue at one point or another.  Use this and you get a free move + possible attack action.  Perfect for blocking that hallway that just opened up, perfect for chasing down that hero that was trying to get away.  Smart heroes will lower their chances of you using this card, but that might be an advantage anyways as they won't be Fatigue moving/using all their skills.
  • Blood Bargaining
    • Nothing like using this at the start of a hero's turn after you've blockaded a hallway with 4 barghests.  Watch as they cry as they have to hurt themselves just to bust through, or skip a turn and not do anything.

Bad

 

Honestly, none of the Punisher cards are that bad imho - Trading pains is only really great when a hero uses a Healing Potion to revive another hero.

 

Don't really have time to go into the rest - But for Basic 1 vs Basic 2.  If you want straightforward power, go with Basic 1.


Edited by jadedbacon, 02 April 2014 - 11:25 AM.

Never believe in "never"

- Algus Sadalfas


#3 Radish

Radish

    Member

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 11:42 AM

I personally feel the draw on Overlord cards is way too slow in order to make the really "clever" cards work.  So when you have to blow two cards just to get a hero a status ailment that will cost her half a turn, it's pretty wasteful.  I typically go for Blood Rage, Expert Blow and Reinforce from the Warlord cards since they can do double duty.   They kill heroes which when done in specific situations can slow down their quest progress and also generates more cards.  You need to make sure you are getting value and not say, killing a hero using three cards to get one that isn't really doing anything special in the first place.  Reinforce used to be great but it was recently nerfed and I haven't tried it since.  It's at least a three so you don't have to get it for the pyramid.

 

Unholy ritual used to be good but it was nerfed so that you can only get two cards (so basically you are drawing one extra cards that turn) which makes spending an entire monster group's action for it not that great.  The other magus cards are fairly worthless.

 

I haven't played much with the trickster deck but as webtrap seems like it can be good for certain missions if there are weak heroes.  Similar for Monkey God curse but with book.  I'm not sure about Uthuk Demon Trap.  It seems like often you are just going to be spending a card to do about four damage in a few very specific circumstances but if it goes off you are getting a free hero and card for one card.

 

Punisher just seems too clunky to get good value out of most of the time.  I understand it's designed to throw off the game of the heroes but I think often cards will sit in your hand until you get a great time to play them.

 

Infector was good the last time I saw it played.  Contaminated pretty much gives every monster on the table a [surge]: 1 damage ability and the other contamination effects are solid.  They also can't be easily removed which means the players don't have a lot of agency in how they are spent,

 

I think that basic 1 is better than basic 2 since it's more straightforward and things just work without a lot of tests or being used on specific heroes.

 

Overall my basic idea is that cards that make your monsters better are the best bets.  There will always be at least one monster on the map and its usually yours to move so you can always use cards that make them hit harder or run farther.  When you start having cards that require the heroes to do things they can easily get around them.  For instance every quest after the first one you use web trap, you can be sure that the fighter will be the one carrying important quest gear or after using Monkey Curse the mage will start opening chests and doors.  Additionally there is gear that makes tests fairly useless in ways that armor does not make damage insignificant.


Edited by Radish, 02 April 2014 - 11:45 AM.


#4 SonicStyleAdventures

SonicStyleAdventures

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 01:19 PM

HI!

 

I miss the OL-Reinforce Cards from the 1st Version. I think the RI is a Little bit too weak in a few quests.



#5 Sixko

Sixko

    Member

  • Members
  • 107 posts

Posted 02 April 2014 - 11:30 PM

HI!

 

I miss the OL-Reinforce Cards from the 1st Version. I think the RI is a Little bit too weak in a few quests.

 

On the other hand the 1st version was definitely to strong



#6 SonicStyleAdventures

SonicStyleAdventures

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 12:52 AM

On the other Hand the OL is very weak when you play with 3 or 4 heroes and little bit stronger when you play against 2 heroes. When you play with agents and fortune marker and a plot deck the game is nearly balanced.



#7 BentoSan

BentoSan

    Member

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:35 AM

On the other Hand the OL is very weak when you play with 3 or 4 heroes and little bit stronger when you play against 2 heroes. When you play with agents and fortune marker and a plot deck the game is nearly balanced.

 

Overlord is very strong against 2 heroes

Overlord gets his ass kicked against 3 heroes

Overlord and the players are fairly even in a 4 hero game



#8 rugal

rugal

    Member

  • Members
  • 615 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 03:05 AM

 

On the other Hand the OL is very weak when you play with 3 or 4 heroes and little bit stronger when you play against 2 heroes. When you play with agents and fortune marker and a plot deck the game is nearly balanced.

 

Overlord is very strong against 2 heroes

Overlord gets his ass kicked against 3 heroes

Overlord and the players are fairly even in a 4 hero game

 

This not true :

OL wins in 2 heroes

balance at 3 heroes

OL loses at 4 heroes

 

All because of the reinforcement system



#9 SonicStyleAdventures

SonicStyleAdventures

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 06:12 AM

4 heroes is really hard for the OL, 3 Heroes when the Herogroup gets or Chose the right heroes the OL can`t win.

 

there a quests that say when all Monsters are dead the OL loose the game and in the same quests there is no RI. SO WTF? I want back the RI Cards from ed1


Edited by SonicStyleAdventures, 03 April 2014 - 06:13 AM.


#10 Demoncow

Demoncow

    Member

  • Members
  • 147 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:24 AM

 

On the other Hand the OL is very weak when you play with 3 or 4 heroes and little bit stronger when you play against 2 heroes. When you play with agents and fortune marker and a plot deck the game is nearly balanced.

 

Overlord is very strong against 2 heroes

Overlord gets his ass kicked against 3 heroes

Overlord and the players are fairly even in a 4 hero game

 

My thoughts exactly. 


Demoncow: He who has become a marauder.

#11 Radish

Radish

    Member

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 08:56 AM

 

 

On the other Hand the OL is very weak when you play with 3 or 4 heroes and little bit stronger when you play against 2 heroes. When you play with agents and fortune marker and a plot deck the game is nearly balanced.

 

Overlord is very strong against 2 heroes

Overlord gets his ass kicked against 3 heroes

Overlord and the players are fairly even in a 4 hero game

 

This not true :

OL wins in 2 heroes

balance at 3 heroes

OL loses at 4 heroes

 

All because of the reinforcement system

 

 

This has been my experience as well.  I think the reinforcement system is the weakest part of this game since it scales so poorly and is exactly the same regardless of how many heroes are present.  Some of the more resent quests acknowledge this issue and have different amounts based on the number of heroes.  

 

I personally think it should be wound based or monsters should have reinforcement values or something since having one kobold equal to one giant in terms of reinforcement is beyond silly.


Edited by Radish, 03 April 2014 - 09:03 AM.


#12 BentoSan

BentoSan

    Member

  • Members
  • 387 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 09:24 AM

I have no issues playing overlord in a 4 hero game personally, my win to loss ratio is rather high in favor of winning. Not trying to talk myself up, just trying to make the statement that the OL has a very good shot in a 4 hero game.



#13 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 496 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 09:24 AM

Overlord is very strong against 2 heroes

Overlord gets his ass kicked against 3 heroes

Overlord and the players are fairly even in a 4 hero game

This not true :

OL wins in 2 heroes

balance at 3 heroes

OL loses at 4 heroes

 

All because of the reinforcement system

 

Both of these are pretty broad blanket statements and there's discussion of them all over the place.

 

It used to be (when it was just the base Shadow Rune campaign) that a lot of people felt 4 Heroes was the most balanced because of the addition of full monster groups. Whereas 3 was Hero favored because the upgrade from minion to master on large monsters (which were predominantly used over the small monsters) wasn't enough to compensate for the additional hero compared to adding another monster.

 

I think really it all boils down to party composition and quest specifics. 2 is definitely harder in general for the heroes, but that's largely because it's difficult to cover all your bases, and a 50% increase in actions (going up to 3 Heroes) is a big jump.

 

Anyway, take a grain of salt with anyone saying "This extremely vague blanket statement is always true" unless they back it up. (Especially if you see multiple people disagreeing about it)



#14 PlainWhiteBread

PlainWhiteBread

    Member

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 10:33 AM

If you're complaining that you only get one kobold per reinforcement, you have to adjust your strategy to not lose so many per round, or use them as the low-tier distraction fodder the fantasy genre has designed them to be while reinforcing the real threats.

The Reinforcement rules are there to make the OL think about what sort of monster groups he should use. Otherwise, it's as brainless as 'pick the best overall monster group' for every map. Kobolds are an effective monster group because you get a ton of them, versus Giants being an effective group because they are tough to kill -- even when the heroes fell a giant, it's like 'LOL I'M BACK GUYS' the start of the next turn. Don't get me started on monsters with Undying; an instant revival (even at minion HP) is still a pain to deal with, AND the OL can reinforce the master monster the next turn.

If I had to field a formal complaint with the OL cards, it's how some quests encourage the OL to sandbag the first encounter to amass as many cards in their hand for the second encounter; Usually the heroes' winning encounter one gives a negligible benefit or simply negates the OL having an advantage, an advantage that often pales in comparison to the OL having their entire deck in their hand for the start of the next round.



#15 SonicStyleAdventures

SonicStyleAdventures

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 10:37 AM

got the Valyndra Plot today...omg if u have huge or gigantic Monsters on the field the this plot deck is good



#16 amoshias

amoshias

    Member

  • Members
  • 132 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 12:08 PM



I personally think it should be wound based or monsters should have reinforcement values or something since having one kobold equal to one giant in terms of reinforcement is beyond silly.

 

I never get people who say stuff like this... I feel like you haven't thought that through, Radish, but I think a lot of people haven't thought the whole reinforcement situation through.

 

Think of it this way - the reinforcement rules operate as an incentive (probably the ONE incentive) for you to play larger monsters. Kobolds are so vastly more powerful than Giants that if Giants didn't get better reinforcements, there would never be a reason to take them out of the box.

 

You chose Kobolds as your example, which wasn't a great choice because they're so ridiculous, but this generally applies across the board. Smaller monsters are more powerful - they hit harder, they take more hits, they control space better, they're more flexible, in general they accomplish the goals of the game better than big monsters do. Reinforcement rules are pretty much the only balancing factor that allows big monsters to be competitive.

 

As a PS, in most situations I'd probably take a master kobold as a reinforcement over a minion giant. But again, kobolds are ridiculous.



#17 Whitewing

Whitewing

    Member

  • Members
  • 386 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 12:33 PM

 



I personally think it should be wound based or monsters should have reinforcement values or something since having one kobold equal to one giant in terms of reinforcement is beyond silly.

 

I never get people who say stuff like this... I feel like you haven't thought that through, Radish, but I think a lot of people haven't thought the whole reinforcement situation through.

 

Think of it this way - the reinforcement rules operate as an incentive (probably the ONE incentive) for you to play larger monsters. Kobolds are so vastly more powerful than Giants that if Giants didn't get better reinforcements, there would never be a reason to take them out of the box.

 

You chose Kobolds as your example, which wasn't a great choice because they're so ridiculous, but this generally applies across the board. Smaller monsters are more powerful - they hit harder, they take more hits, they control space better, they're more flexible, in general they accomplish the goals of the game better than big monsters do. Reinforcement rules are pretty much the only balancing factor that allows big monsters to be competitive.

 

As a PS, in most situations I'd probably take a master kobold as a reinforcement over a minion giant. But again, kobolds are ridiculous.

 

 

Smaller monsters individually are a lot weaker than big monsters, but I'd much rather be able to reinforce 3 goblin archers than one ettin every turn.



#18 Radish

Radish

    Member

  • Members
  • 129 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 01:24 PM

 



I personally think it should be wound based or monsters should have reinforcement values or something since having one kobold equal to one giant in terms of reinforcement is beyond silly.

 

I never get people who say stuff like this... I feel like you haven't thought that through, Radish, but I think a lot of people haven't thought the whole reinforcement situation through.

 

Think of it this way - the reinforcement rules operate as an incentive (probably the ONE incentive) for you to play larger monsters. Kobolds are so vastly more powerful than Giants that if Giants didn't get better reinforcements, there would never be a reason to take them out of the box.

 

You chose Kobolds as your example, which wasn't a great choice because they're so ridiculous, but this generally applies across the board. Smaller monsters are more powerful - they hit harder, they take more hits, they control space better, they're more flexible, in general they accomplish the goals of the game better than big monsters do. Reinforcement rules are pretty much the only balancing factor that allows big monsters to be competitive.

 

As a PS, in most situations I'd probably take a master kobold as a reinforcement over a minion giant. But again, kobolds are ridiculous.

 

 

It depends on the map and how many creatures have been killed.  While it may take more attacks to kill more monsters, if the heroes are able to blast a few kobolds or use some of their abilities to attack more than twice a turn then their value has been much diminished.  Smaller minions are much more susceptible to aoe and multi target attacks.  To make the value even more apparent we can use a master ogre instead of a giant since that becomes a minion Ogre upon death and then can be reinforced again.  If this happens in the first few turns it's much harder to gain them back in order to reinforce while every turn getting half to a full limit of creatures for a larger monster.

 

I would disagree strongly that smaller monsters control space better due to the nature of how diagonal moves and line of sight work in this game.  Typically all it takes is a single one square monster to be removed in order to break through unless there is an incredibly narrow choke point.

 

I don't think that you can say that "small monster groups are better than large monster groups" or vice versa.  I just don't think that the reinforcement system that is "one monster every time" takes different types into account at all and I don't think that it was intentionally set up that way in order to make larger monsters more attractive, just as a more simple, streamlined method.

 

 

 

 

 

Smaller monsters individually are a lot weaker than big monsters, but I'd much rather be able to reinforce 3 goblin archers than one ettin every turn.

 

 

Yeah I agree with this 100%.  I'm not sure what the ratio would actually work out to.


Edited by Radish, 03 April 2014 - 01:32 PM.


#19 amoshias

amoshias

    Member

  • Members
  • 132 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:32 PM

......

........

Yes, obviously you would prefer to reinforce the 3 goblin archers. They're better.

 

I agree, I don't think that it was done intentionally to make large monsters more attractive, but I don't think a lot of what is done in this game as far as design is intentional. FFG just isn't that good at it.

 

Look, sure, there are no doubt some circumstances that large monsters are better. In some cases, an ettin is going to be better at blocking a hallway than goblins. (Again, I'm ignoring Kobolds - the times ettins will be better are very few and very far between.) But in many cases, you'd prefer to have the goblins - because the heroes may take 3 actions to kill your ettin, but afterwards, you have no ettin. Whereas if they kill 1 goblin and run through, they've still got a second line of gobbos to get through, and even once they do, they're still in the middle of a pack of goblins.

 

Of course it's situational. Of course there will be differing circumstances. But on a whole, across a wide variety of situations, small monsters do the things that you want to do to win the game better than large monsters.



#20 SonicStyleAdventures

SonicStyleAdventures

    Member

  • Members
  • 9 posts

Posted 03 April 2014 - 02:47 PM

wait wait wait...how could you reinforce 3 Goblin Archers?

 

The Quests I've played with my group say that I can RI 1 Monster at the start or end of my turn (respecting Group Limits) am I reinforce wrong or was the  3 goblin Archer stuff a example?


Edited by SonicStyleAdventures, 03 April 2014 - 02:56 PM.





© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS