Zyla looks like she might break quite a few quests whenever terrain-heavy maps are involved. She has an amazing heroic feat too. The new monster group is interesting. Besides the mini (which looks awesome), the master's ability is something falling right into my alley. The lifethirst thing seems a bit lackluster though. Edit: Also, B+Y attack in Act II, even for the master, is really weak.

I certainly have many hopes A new Basic deck would be more likely to be released in a big expansion, after all that's how Basic II came to life. However there hasn't been any announcement made about the next possible big expansion. One can hope, though. I just like to believe this game still has many new paths to explore.

You can probably achieve balance in other ways than throwing in Act II monsters into the equation, especially if you can control the amount of gear heroes have access to. Maybe some revolutionary changes around search tokens, or additional ways for the OL to disrupt that, although I doubt it would be very fun to the heroes? Maybe these "weak" Act I monsters are used in a particular way that makes them more dangerous or relevant towards the Ol objectives, in areas that are not directly related to combat? This is an expansion about undead monsters, maybe they keep spawning or are a lot more harder to kill? In all honesty I´m like all of you, I just have zero idea. But I don''t think we can plain categorize this as a low tier campaign just assuming it's going to be run as a standard Act I campaign,. There must be something else to explain why you only get one act. I am totally puzzled.

H&M versus conversion kit sans minis is not only a price issue, there is also the hassle to locate the 1ed minis, bid on whatever offer has to be made, trust the seller that the set is complete and not damaged, trust postal service etc. You have to be really commited to pull that out, and that's assuming you´re not facing huge shipping costs because you live on the wrong side of the ocean. I´m assuming these minis when put together in a box weight a ton. The 1ed minis do not look at nice as the 2nd edition ones in my opinion. Even my collector side has close to no interest in buying the 1ed minis (or the game for that matters). I would always use the latest version of the rules, and that includes the monster cards. The conversion kit has huge balance issues and that will cripple your experience of the game. However if you have the 1ed minis you could still print the H&M monster card from the internet and use it instead of the CK version.

Lately I´ve been using Basic II exclusively and never looked back ever since. I find that the flexibility of Basic II outshadows the punch coming out of the Basic I deck. But that's for my own playstyle and I think it might be coming down to that - in a vacuum. Basic I comes with a lot of fat (weak cards) while all Basic II cards have some relevance, it's just some of them may be harder to pull out based on heroes attributes. I cut them as soon as I can for some juicy Shadowmancer cards for best effect. I also find interesting strategically speaking to find cards that have possible double effects based on hero archetype. This makes up for a nice granularity in the choices you can make as the OL. Basic I is more straight forward, but now that my hero players have learnt how to properly choose their heroes and skill up, I as the OL seldom can interact with them with brute force in the later game. I find more utility in Basic II when taking the long term into account. I think Basic I is very strong in the early campaign when knocking down heroes remains a viable strategy, Once all heroes have gotten harder to kill I normally switch to dealing conditions instead, with the whole package of monsters doing this exact thing, supported by Befuddles and the likes. I basically NEED all of these trap-like cards to stop them, once we´ve gotten to the point where killing them doesn't advance my position any longer besides making me draw a card. Some people also pick Basic II just to get Mimic. This card is just the nuts, along with the Curse of the Monkey God card (note this one is not a basic card). Otherwise it depends on many factors: - Your own playstyle. Sneaky or agressive? - Your hero players' playstyle. Overly careful or all-in? - The monsters you have access to. Brute force or utility? - Your future OL card purchases. I try to stick to a roadmap and adapt it later if required. Which branch will you be digging into? - Your plot deck. Any possible synergy with your OL cards? You want to exploit these as much as you can. Note: I'm looking forward to playing Basic III with monster trait-based effects

I provided measurements and component listing to these guys when they ran the first iteration of their project. They are now running the project once again for those interested: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/932371889/mantis-storage-for-zombies-and-mythical-minions?ref=category_newest These measurements can be found on BGG: http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/115160/components-count-and-size-including-minis I am not suggesting you should back this project, I´m not myself, mainly because I want the full storage solution to look worthy of Descent in terms of look & feel. Foam is nice to store painted minis, though, but I want more than a series of foam boxes. Note this project is not about Descent, but you could use their design to store Descent components as well I guess.

That's beautiful work and I´d be interested to know how you store your expansion components. If you ever come up with a full storage solution then don't hesitate to let us know.

Full plastic? I´d love to store all of my Descent collection in a wooden CHEST

About the 1 versus 4 minds topic.. I´m not sure I completely understand that. The game is asymetrical and your powers as the OL should, at least in theory, match 4 combined hero powers. I don't think it's much about being outsmarted by a 4:1 rate, on the contrary you get to focus on your own decisions and I would even wager making decisions with three other persons can be more difficult. Sure, having additional pairs of eyes/minds help you not making mistakes, but as playing the OL exclusively I can find some solace knowing that decisions are entirely mine. And if I do something wrong then so be it and I hopefully won't do the same mistake again. I would almost summarize the game as a battle of Actions, and how to use these actions to the best intent. In short, it doesn't matter if you face four PhD brains if three of them have heroes on the floor, all that matters is that they only have 2 actions left regardless of how smart these actions can be. I think the 4:1 is a psychological thing people have. OLs use it as an excuse to either blame the asymetry in the game when the campaign turns in their disadvantage, or the opposite by saying how clever they are as they are outsmarting 4 other people. In reality, you´re just rolling dices and drawing cards. If you get rid of the randomness then sure, it's brain power versus brain power. But randomness means everything can happen. The only things where I would agree that 4:1 factor makes real relevance are: - Conflicts related to the rules. It can be tricky trying to argue with 4 players, not only because of the number of detractors but because you represent the opposite side of the scale so hero players will initially favor their own side regardless of how your reasons make sense. - Some players do not always accept the fact the OL is not only a fifth player but actually needs more time to play a turn. I have felt psychological pressure as the heroes basically looked at me like I should be done with my turn whereas I was just activating monster after monster with no particular waiting time.

I think you just need to come prepared. The best piece of advice is probably to understand the hero party you´re going to face. What are their strengthes and weaknesses. Basically you want to prevent them from using their strong skills and lean on powerful heroic feats as much as possible. At the same time, you want to force them to be in situations they have difficulties dealing with. Understand their hero attributes and pick both cards and monsters in consequence. Play by the objectives and focus on them only. Only kill heroes when it doesn't interfere with your prime goal. Buy useful cards more than fun ones. It's sad I know, but if you want to win then it's the obvious choice to make. Try to plan ahead in terms of OL card purchases. Which trees you want to dig into etc. Only attack with your monsters when you can hit hard, preferably alpha strike heroes. Mass attacking can be devastating, unlike single attacks from monsters who will probably end up dead next turn. Monsters = actions.

My wallet is getting a headache right now...

We´ve tried that with other games but it did not really work with us. The group ended up being stressed, the clock ticking was causing more AP than without, and it lead to bad play eventually. This being said YOU can be the clock by reminding players to speed up their turn in the most gentle/smooth manner, or whatever works best with your group. It's very individual though, some players like being reminded, some other players are craving that time otherwise they would get grumpy and deliberateley making bad decisions in response of a player trying to cut that time they think they own. It's everybody's time actually, even if it's technically that player's turn.

This is amazing, man. About the parts of the mini that are not in the same color as the overall model (cockpit, weapons etc). Do you prime them again once you´re done with the rest of the model? About the Eldars you did, is that yellow with brown ink? (I'm not familiar with the GW names as I use Vallejo)

Wow, I really don't know what's taking you so much time, especially when I compare your figues with my slowest playgroup. These guys take ages to make decisions and are overly cautious about everything. Is it the decision making? Is it that people leave or are unavailable so you are waiting on somebody all the time? Or is it that you need to check the rules all game long? Man, 8 hours is not human Maybe points 4- (people just freeze in the middle of an action, and even sometimes consider reverting an obvious move) and 6- (people plan for the next 35 rounds) that I wrote in my earlier post are the ones that are making your games drag so long? I like strategy games but had Descent taken longer to play encounters (in the lines of what you said) then I´m not sure it would have hit the table very often. Our sessions need to be able to cope with the length of the games we play, as interrupting an encounter can be a pain to resume afterwards. It happens from time to time but we really try to avoid that situation. Mind you, I´ve found there are a few categories of people when taking playtime into focus. I don't know if people would agree with this. 1- People who just take the time they are supposed to take to make decisions and execute their moves. Hopefully most people are in that category. Then depending on experience you can narrow down that time, as newbies for instance need time to review rules and so on. But once you get up to speed with all that you just take time to analyze decisions that are tricky, otherwise you play reasonably fast when making straight forward decisions (like getting that search token when there is nothing else to do). 2- People who are just blasting through the game in order to get most sessions down. For good or bad, just trying to maximize their amount of experience and try to make fast decisions to see what's next. Not overanalyzing situations, just following the game flow and hope game balance somehow supports intuitive decisions made on the fly. 3- Strategists who try to process/beat the whole game by analyzing every single factor in it. This is how deep you can get. That is possibily the most comprehensive playtesting of the game, it's interesting as well to try to include every mechanism in the game into one big equation, however you never reach the end of the game because it's just not practical to play like this. In a game like Descent there is a certain reasonable amount of time ahead you can plan for, but past that point you are probably wasting your time.

Alright thank you.

Melee attacks don't require any range, we all agree on that. What you are saying is that no range = zero range. You can add 3 to 0 and require any melee attack to roll at least 3 range for it to hit. But the point I´m trying to oppose is, that melee attacks don't require range, period. The number of range is irrelevant because it's not applicable to melee attacks. Following that logic, Stealthy does not apply to melee attack because affecting range has no effect on a melee attack. Just discussing. At this point of time, unless somebody has a more official answer to this I think my point has some validity. EDIT: Question asked to FFG, will let you know.

Could you please point me to that source? The new Wendigo card doesn't say more than the Deep Elf card does: or did FFG release a FAQ entry for this ability somewhere?

Are you 100% sure Stealthy would trigger when attacking the Elf with a melee attack? There is a difference between saying the required range is zero, and that no range is required. If it's the latter then Stealthy is useless in that case.

I am not entirely convinced that the success of Descent directly reflects on the sales of side products like the H&M collections and the other expansions. It would be interesting to see if the H&M product line (or the lieutenant packs) really has a high demand value, or if they´re just seeked by completionists or collectors. In all cases they should be generating revenue, but I would think the number customers commited to buying the H&M packs is a small fraction of the actual number of players using the game in a regular way, effectively attesting the success of the game overall. Ultimately, there is a small possibility in my mind that FFG is not in need to finish off the H&M line in order to keep customers getting the game. That factor might in fact be insignificant when compared to the number of players initiated to the game willing to own their own copy, and players with interest in fantasy willing to be playing one of these games with a rather active community. So yeah, in my mind I don't think releasing H&M packs really helps the game to "survive". It does somehow for us fans because it shows some attention from FFG and shows activity in the product line, but not everyone of us will in fact go and buy these packs. Another factor is also the fact a huge product line like Descent is not always very appealing to new players. It is both overwhelming and pricey. Not every owner should consider getting everything, but Descent is not the same game (in terms of longevity/variety) if you just play the core box, which virtually puts a much higher price tag on the game once you´ve added 1-2 expansions, a couple of lieutenants, the Heirs of Blood booklet and a couple of H&M packs for the best possibnle value. As for the speculation, while FFG certainly has a timeline for this game, which possibly includes its end of production, I don't personally think FFG is wrapping up anything currently concerning Descent. Activity is slowed down because of other factors. Descent doesn't really need new products to be a good game. And once it ends, if not replaced by another iteration or even another game, there are tons of possibility for including new monsters and heroes. Even tiles.

Do you have sources at FFG?

Hmm but you´re talking about the roleplaying game aren't you? Isn't Madness at Gardmore an adventure for D&D 4th ed? I don't really see how it integrates with the adventure game system, or are you just talking about inspiration?

In the previous campaign, the OL won every single quest and the finale was a joke. At the end of the campaign the OL had tanked on everything he could find and the heroes had just a few sub-par items. In every single quest we started it felt like the heroes would not make it, then dice rolls and bad card draw from the OL would give them advantage again, but then time was already out or the OL pulled the card he needed. In the on-going campaign the situation is the exact opposite. Insane gold due to flaw in an early quest, along with treasure chest in every single encounter into a top tier weapon just ended the campaign prematurely. So with no XP and facing overgeared heroes the OL can't do anything.

I´ve been travelling in public transport with Descent and other games (some of which even more problematic than Descent) for the past 5 years. I´ve found that the key was to plan for the next quests and only carry whatever is required to cover these. It takes me 1 big box, 1 small box, 1 tool box (tokens) and sometimes one extra shoe box for the minis if they don't all fit in the big box. I could try and find a nice looking box where all of this stuff would fit, but it would be way to big for me to carry (thinking height mainly) and easily damageable bearing in mind the transport (e.g. it's not just sitting in the back of a car). At home I simply split the components we are currently using from the rest, which also helps in planning for the next quests. Then I don't really care if the Descent boxes take light damage due to transport, they´re just boxes, but I have to admit that painted minis need some care. In the shoe box I have sometimes wrapped them around a t-shirt or even used socks to hold them, which limits friction.

I don't own any of the Dungeon Command games, but to me they´re just H&M packs to the other games except the minis come pre-painted. Maybe there are ways to assimilate more of these into the D&D games but I haven't felt any particular interest in doing so. It's also the fact that I don't want to spend my house in buying the 5 dungeon command games, which mind you don't come with "much" in them. So yeah we play the 4 D&D adventure games, which is a billion components and a ton to carry with me on the train (yikes). But we don't play the game as described in the campaign books. I developed a variant allowing us to play in Epic mode with everything combined. It's full-coop and my players absolutely love it. D&D adventure games can be compared to Descent in a multiple ways, but it's mostly the co-op feature that makes the difference, coming along with the monster activation (like in Descent co-op). One game is not plain better than the other, they´re just different, but if the only thing you´ve been playing for the past 2.5 years (with one particular playgroup in my case) is Descent then starting something new can be quite refreshing and motivating.

I would say that it entirely comes down to the people you play with. One playgroup I play with manages to beat two quests under 2-2.5 hours. My other playgroup does the same in 4-4.5 hours. Decision-making, experience and preparation are the main causes of this difference. Even the standard 1 hour per quest could be further improved. It depends on the quest too, because quests where you have a limited amount of turns/time tend to have a quicker clock. There are the rare quests where you win very quickly too. Some suggestions to speed up your games: 1- Have everything prepared for the next two quests - and only for these quests. That includes selectng the tiles, choosing the monsters and your OL deck. I initially had everything on the table when we started playing this game, but this was a mistake - even with everything prepared I had to fight through a pile of components to get what I needed. 2- Have a plastic bag for each hero and all cards owned by that hero (skills+items). Open, deploy and you´re set. No need to look for cards in any deck. Obviously this is more complicated if you happen to run multiple campaigns in parallel, but you can still get close to that. 3- Help each other during the game. As the OL I can sometimes give a small piece of advice or information to help the heroes making a decision, if I feel that they´re stuck due to inexperience or if they´re being ridiculously careful/slow for something that should be obvious to them. You don't lose much from keeping the players rolling, at best it increases their knowledge of the game and their capacity to make decisions which makes the game more competitive and interesting for everybody in the end. 4- If a player is taking unreasonable amount of time to carry out an action after making the actual decision of what to do, then just remind him/her to roll the dices or say things like "so how did you want to move" to put the person back into focus. I had some players tell me that it actually helped them to remind them, as brains can sometimes freeze as they overcomplicate a situation and lead the person to confusion. 5- Be flexible in case of conflicts whenever the rules can be interpreted in different ways. Give yourself 5 mins to google up an answer then go for what seems to make more sense and check for a definite answer later. We have been stuck 30 mins or so a couple of times and I feel in retrospective that it was plain wasted time as people argued over something that sounded like the obvious thing to do. 6- Stop players trying to plan for the next 10 turns or so. Having an overall strategy for a quest is necessary, but planning every single action and counting spaces for the next 15 moves is completely pointless. 7- Have people check rules/read cards/look at the minis when it's not their turn, unless it affects a decision they need to make now. Again, it's all about focus. 8- Brief new/unexperienced players about the rules outside of the game session, preferably right before the game starts. People also tend to learn more efficiently when they face ONE single person explaining the rules instead of a whole group of people trying to help out. 9- Also playing with the "right" people helps a lot. It's hard to qualify but we had one session with a newer player one day and this guy was effectively working against the group (he played a hero). Stuborness and bad attitude are always going to cripple your experience and make the game drag longer than it should. And I would encourage alpha players to play as the OL.