I would have spent time on things like these if I hadn't had a million other games to play and a family to attend. Seriously, there are so many good games coming out these days that I can hardly keep up the pace. Descent is the only exception, as being a game we´ve always had reserved time for and I hope it is going to stay this way for a little longer. I´m not done with this game at all and I try to keep my players motivated too. But honestly, designing own quests is cool and all, but for a playgroup like mine they will always have the initial feeling that whatever I come up with will be biased towards my own interests - balance and reward wise. It's totally normal to assume that I wouldn't design a quest which would be hard for me to win AND provide me crappy rewards even if I did. RPG aside, nobody's really keen on playing a custom quest with the guy designing it as the big evil guy, unless the quest is really well-designed - which unfortunately is the thing requiring the most time (not just putting out a map and some monsters, everybody can do that).

I do not understand the above reflexion. That just defeats the point of having a human overlord, if all there is to do is to put your brain aside and go throw some monsters at the heroes. Just so the heroes spend 3 more hours to "explore" e.g. open all treasure chests there is, instead of 30 minutes if the corridors were left empty. Sounds like a great game like almost every single other game there is out there, as opposed to what makes Descent 2E unique. To each his own I suppose. But what a shame if 2E turned into this thing. Again we´re back to the mindset of having a gang of heroes masturbating at the view of their gear and skills, piercing through monsters like butter until they find a treasure chest with even more gear 4 hours afterwards. The Overlord (or lieutenant) has nothing else to do than staying in his throne room waiting to be slayed. There's no strategy left in the game other than planning your attacks. The best thing you can do EVERY TURN is always going to be an attack. Because the more monsters you kill the faster you get to the treasure. Cool! Running for the crops sounds anti-climatic? That was a brilliant idea from FFG and it totally makes sense with regards to the second encounter of the quest. Why the **** not? Knock out rules integrate very well with the game system. It makes the game flow and gives a temporary edge to the Overlord. Reviving knocked out heroes doesn't feel anti-climatic to me since this is fantasy. Globally speaking, having a finite health puts pressure on the heroes as for whether taking an action that would put them at risk, or trying to rest for coming back the next turn. It also makes them work together a lot more since death is a lot more common thing to experience in that game. Exploration is non-existent in this game but that's not what this game is intended for anyway. Descent is nothing else than a tactical game, which a dungeon delver game is not (for good or bad). Not sure what you mean by "limited monster spawns" but I find the reinforcement rules to work very well in most quests.

** takes a deep breath ** Alright so yeah, you guys are correct about the fact familiars cannot be considered as heroes for the Skarn trigger in the rookery. So Skarn would escape in the case of only familiars being left in that room. Like I said, this situation did not occur, it was just something I considered while my players did something else, so phew that we didn't play this wrong. Secondly, since I´m on a spree with false information about everything Survivalist does indeed grant +2 Health for the Beastmaster and not the Wolf. So it is correct that the Wolf only gets +4 from Predator and nothing else. I blame the Beastmaster player for that then since he said it was both To be fair, as a general comment about mini-campaigns, that's a hell of a lot of cards and skills to ingest when you start one. All my heroes had purchased 2 extra skills on top of their starting possessions, all had 1-2 item shop cards etc. So the learning curve is quite steep and I did let some of my heroes just tell me about said abilities (I normally check everything myself). I mean, even if you already know most cards, it takes a while to figure out how they interact with each other. About balance in this quest, it's a bit tricky to settle on this. I thought it was going to be an easy win for the heroes as they could have just pounded on Skarn, only leaving him with a few health left, then escape and snipe Skarn outside to finish him off. At no point I thought there was any benefits in killing him in the rookery just to give him +12 life when it reassembled outside. Skarn is weak attack-wise against the heroes' gear (near all of them had extra dices thanks to the mini campaign setup + the Wolf's brown dice) and I was also getting problems getting the extra surge cards from Basic II. In this quest I basically rolled a X on half my attacks and I thought it was going to be quick. What saved me is that the heroes decided to stay together, which allowed me to use bandits as walls to go through in order to get to Skarn. Lindel (Treasure Hunter) could un-blockade a few figures thanks to the Whip but it took them time to regroup, especially since I kept shutting the northern door on them so they had to waste actions opening the thing again. I won the quest in the end as heroes got stuck and the only one of them who was in range of Skarn died from the bandits. As far as Skarn is concerned, it was just about getting Mend to make him survive.

Reanimate sure, but the Wolf had +6 Health and gray+brown for defense, so that takes a few turns for Skarn to take down with no extra damage/pierce ability on surge. The best way to deal with it though is to at least get 1 damage through and get a double surge to throw the Wolf through the window, like any hero. With Basic II in the equation, the double surge is easier to obtain, however the one damage is a bit trickier. As always it all depends on luck

So we took a crack at Manor of Ravens yesterday, and I was wondering if you guys had been in the same situation before. In this quest the heroes start at the Rookery, which is a 4x4 tile with Skarn in the middle and a bunch of windows the heroes can throw themselves through to land on a pre-defined spot on the quest map. That's quite brutal for an introduction to the campaign, lol. The heroes need to kill Skarn, and Skarn needs to escape. Now here´s the thing, my players had 4 heroes including a Necromancer and a Beastmaster. Both Reanimate and Wolf are considered heroes, so technically the heroes could just spawn their familiars in the Rookery, and escape through the window, leaving Skarn with the familiars. The condition stating that Skarn can be moved to a landing of the OL's choice if there are no heroes left in the Rookery does not trigger since familiars are heroes too. I did not mention that to my players yesterday but they could have just escaped, looted the search tokens and basically clear the way of bandits/wraiths while waiting for the only-one-move-allowed-with-3-move-points-yeah-baby Skarn to close to the exit. What makes this way worse is the fact heroes start a mini campaign with 4XP so yesterday our Beastmaster had two skills giving +6 health on the wolf. Wolf gets to roll gray and an additional brown if next to a hero, which the reanimate is, so you have a small little tank there. Skarn has no damage surge, only Mend, OL cards off the equation. Flail is useful, though, but in our situation we had a Treasure Hunter with the surge ability allowing him to move the figure one space, so technically speaking Skarn could have been forced to a corner of the rookery with only the Wolf as adjacent figure and no way to get to the reanimate to steal the Wolf's additional brown defense die. SS.. SS.. ..W. ...R Seems a bit unbalanced to me! Luckily we never came to that situation, but it was a strange scenario to consider. It's funny how little there is to find about the Manor of Ravens expansion on the web, it almost looks like nobody's played it Unkindness in particular. I tried this yesterday in conjunction with Raythen's plot deck and it was fun to fly around looting search tokens.

Can't wait to use these Wendigos in our campaigns. They look awesome. They get one less figure than the Beastmen, but they seem superior in almost every way.

I have to say that Bestmen in "The City Falls", in the SoN finale, are a great choice for bringing down one iron ward. I don't know if the campaign designers had thought about the possibility of bringing in monsters with Ravage ability straight next to the ward and start pounding on it. Fortunately for the heroes there are only 3 spaces available next to the middle-right ward (Beastmen come in grouups of 4 with 4 players), but that's still 6 attacks with quite decent power. I´m not going to go as far as calling Beastmen overpowered for the quest, but they truly shine for this particular one.

I´m not a big fan of timed turns in games that aren't articulated around timed turns mechanisms. To each his own I guess, but I can plainly see situations where players make bad decisions and perform silly actions just because they couldn't settle on something decent to do within the time allowed. Yeah but that's the point, you say, and I know, but it also kills some of the experience. You'd win some quests based on your heroes' inability to reach a decision point by these 10 minutes, which must be incredibly frustrating for them. I´m also curious as for how you would mirror the 10 minutes window for the OL since the amount of actions depends on how many monsters you have on the map. I played the "City Falls" recently (finale of the SoN campaign) and I had millions of monsters on the map, so yeah my turns were longer but there was a reason for that. If I twist your time turns rule a little bit for the sake of the discussion, do you suggest that I shouldn't be allowed to activate all my monster groups because time ran out before I could? That would be really wrong. Plus heroes could say **** it, let's have 10 minutes chat even if they have nothing to discuss, so by trying to limit their time to discuss, you´re in fact enforcing a 10 minutes turn even if there is no discussion to be had. It's hard to quantify how much time you´d "lose" this way, but on average that seems like a lot. Depends on the playgroup I suppose. What I´m doing is that I´m trying to take their hand in the most gentle way possible to make them come to a conclusion. It sometimes involves giving them a little push by making them confirm what action they´re about to take.Or, pointing out facts for them to accelerate the discussion, or even sometimes giving them a hint about the best course of action, or at least a fragment of it. Look, I would never tell them how they can win an encounter because it would destroy my own experience if I revealed my plan, but I could give them a hint as for what to prioritize (like which monsters to fight, what I could possibly do if the heroes did not deal with a particular thing, like a Ynfernael Hulk in range close to lava spaces), but I want my players to play faster by LEARNING the best decisions they can make. If I don't point out there's a monster about to toss a hero or two in the lava space so they don't ignore it, they probably lose the encounter on the spot so my "win" is tainted by the fact they played like fools. Now they don't ignore this particular ability, so I don't have to mention about it anymore, and as a result they don't discuss for ages as for whether they should be killing this goblin archer or trying to anticipate the Hulk. It's a silly example because it looks like I think there´s always going to be one "best" course of actions to take, but often there are in fact several viable options for lack of a "best" one. That's what they want to discuss. I think they should be allowed to do so. Some of my players start to make quicker decisions because they can easily get the bad ideas off the discussion straight away. Like focusing on killing monsters while the Ol is running off with the relic they should be intercepting. It's part of the game to learn how to interact with the quest. The stuff that takes them most time to decide is the hero turn order, but normally they know which actions are going to be best to take. I also believe players that are control freaks and want the whole sequence broken down by every detail before carrying out the thing come to realize eventually that a % of these things is completely random and/or dependant of factors they cannot control, like the OL hand and the dices. I think it will come naturally that they drop some unnecessary aspects of the analysis of which actions to take as they realize they need to see if everything goes according to plan before jumping to the next conclusion. In other words, patience and a lot of play should mitigate the issue.

I think this campaign book is exactly what Descent needed. Up to now all we had was three long campaigns and three mini campaigns. The replayability for each campaign is great, but the encounter maps start to get old once you´ve run the same campaign a few times already, even if the rest is entirely different (heroes, overlord cards etc.). I´m looking for quests with interesting win conditions and exciting mechanisms. Like some other people here pointed out, I wish FFG released official quests mixing the different tiles together from the various expansions, though. I also like the format of the campaign, e.g. a book. It's so much nicer than a printed PDF. My only regret is that it would have been awesome if the book came with one or two new tiles. Whatever, a throne room, a big tile with a big tree inside etc. It would have given the campaign a unique flavour, instead of just re-using the stuff we already know about.

Battlestar Galactica!

See that's the main reason why this game is almost not working at all with one of my playgroups. It's nothing to do with Descent, any kind of thinky game will lead to the same freaking waiting time and 10-minutes decisions, like which monster to kill when both monsters are the same and are both adjacent to the hero waving the sword. My hero group would also plan in advance, which is in fact something they should be doing, but the problem is that something will invariably occur and force them to re-think the whole approach. I don't think that's wrong in any way, it's just that type of game, and I think all players should be able to dedicate time to decide over the best course of actions. The game entices player into doing it, really. The risk of losing for not thinking situations through is huge. I don't think there's any solution to that, apart from not suggesting playing the game. I would actually call Descent a GAP game, with G as "Group" because it's a collective inability to make quick decisions, slowing down the pace of the game drastically. Descent is meant to flow, but at the same time you have a lot of decisioons to make, even as the Overlord. I think you need to estimate the time an encounter would take you and your group, take that into account upon planning your sessions. If your playgroup is not capable of playing one encounter before splitting up then you can't possibly play the game. I mean, you CAN take a picture of the board and put all tokens in zip bags, I´ve done that before in emergency situations, it works fine but it truly breaks the experience from a story perspective (it leaves stuff unfinished, to be taken up two weeks later, so yeah..). My first playgroup (2 players with 2 heroes each, plus me) can complete 2 encounters in 3 hours, or one big quest (1 single encounter, like interlude) in slightly shorter time, including visiting the shop and purchasing skills. They´re quite slow, and I often (silently) come up to the same conclusions long before they do, but on the other hand they´re several people and discussion things is the killer. If you´re on your own you are just so much faster in making decisions without checking with people and analysing their other ideas. Ultimately one idea is better than the other ones so you effectively waste your time analysing bad decisions. That's just the way it is when you have a group of people, unless you have an alpha gamer in the group forcing upon his own decisions. Which is bad, lol. My second playgroup (4 players plus me) can barely complete a short ecnounter in two hours, one quest in 4 if we´re lucky. They´re VERY slow, and only 2 players seem to make the calls, with the other two as backups.

I haven't really experienced unbalance in the original campaigns when using expansion monsters, even from the H&M collection packs. Some monsters are clearly better than others, but you´ll always find a situation when a particular monster or monster group will be doing great and even grant the OL a win and therefore make you feel like it broke the balance for the particular quest. But in fact you could just achieve the same results with other monster types and under different circunstances. There are many factors involved, hero gear/skills included, and the monster card is just one of the many of them. It's like being butchered by a specific piece of hero gear and call it unbalanced just because said gear was a deciding factor in a particular encounter. You need to accumulate results of the sort before you can truly call something unbalanced. Some of my players think the Throwback ability (sending your hero three spaces away, usually in a lava/hazard space) overpowered, but when you try to figure out a way to avoid this situation as a hero you just need to prepare and don't give an opportunity for that monster to throw you in there. That's where newbies often underrate conditions when they have access to them. And even if you do you just need to accept that executing the skill will still occur a % of the time due to a OL card helping and whatnot. Same with Harpies with the Flock ability, or Volucrixes for Ravage. If you let them come close and do the things they´re really good at doing then it's easy to think of them as being overpowered, but it's the wrong mindset. Every monster in this game is good at something (even zombies to some extent) so heroes need to adapt to that. But so far I haven't seen a monster clearly abusing a mechanism from an original campaign that would warrant a "ban" or anything close to that. Powerful monsters are also restricted in numbers as per the core rules. Chaos Beasts is actually the monster group that comes to mind since I used them with 4-attack dices Tristayne in a room, that seemed like a good way to capitalize on all the dices. Still, heroes just needed to make sure the beasts couldn't snipe them. There´s always a way.

I´m fairly sure the next expansion will introduce Jedis and Wookies, and maybe light sabers.... oh wait

There is nothing in this topic that presents any concrete information about anything, nothing that we didn't know about. There is no informative analysis of why the dude thinks so or anything that can even remotely justify starting a thread/post about it. Let's be clear, people are having a bad feeling about this, start up a thread about it and then go prophetic about it. Meanwhile we get constant stream of new people saying how cool Descent is that read this crap about speculations that are not even true or interesting to discuss (for lack of info or facts). If I was bored I would go over to BGG and systematically respond to these guys. It's doing a ton of harm to the Descent fan base currently and I´m really upset about it. Oh, so you didn't see any "news" posted for a few weeks for this game, and therefore it must be dead. After all Manor of Ravens got just released, the H&M collections are stil going, there is a need for a 3rd big box right know because, frankly, content-wise, Descent is piss-poor. Oh and we want balance as well, and enough playtesting. Just wow. That's bad of you FFG, really bad. Especially since you don't have 10 years of replayability with this game and expansions already, FFG has to slow down on the mental release schedule for this game. Better off selling it on eBay before the game goes down. It's a shame to be such a bad owner. For the record, I also exlusively play games based on hotness factor. No hot anymore? We dump it in the garbage. Doesn't matter if the game is good, if manufacturer doesn't have the ability to supply us with expansions at the pace we want then it surely loses some steam. Heck, people are deserting this game. Based on the position of the stars, in conjunction with the current information from some BGG fellows talking like they knew anything, you are absolutelty right. Anyway. That's a TON of assumptions and I fail to see the point to even write them in a post. Making conclusions out of stone nowhere. I realized something similar when I saw Arcane Wonders were releasing another game than Mage Wars. It has to be that Mage Wars is a dead game. Also, last time I checked, www.mylittlepony.D3E.com was not taken, so I guess we can all assume some strong theming in the next edition of Descent. Now I´ll be nice and tell you that you don't have to worry. Seriously, I mean it. Descent is a fine game, will probably get a 3E at some point but not right now, you will get your new boxes at a somehow slower pace but we will get there, you will see.

I think both small and large monster groups are viable from a damage output perspective. Things are not as simple as that either, Leoric of the Book's hero ability for instance dampens short range attacks and therefore may be more effective in fact against multiple weaker attacks than one big sweep from a large creature. But that's a specific situation and there are probably others speaking for and against the use of certain types of monsters. In practice I think it's a tricky choice, because small monsters rarely deal relevant conditions and rarely have powerful surge abilities. There is one exception which is the Rat Swarm. This is the perfect killing machine. Since I rarely want to dedicate a monster group to killing my heroes, I value utility over attack potential. Health and defense on the monster are more valuable in my mind than attack dices and attack abilities. That's why I never pick Volucriox Reavers even though I love their design, because they fill a tiny utility niche and I so rarely need their power. My heroes just know how to anticipate them and slaughter them in response.

Yeah, I actually expected somebody to comment on it at some point I pick quests that I think are interesting to play, I don't really care about my chances of winning them as such. I would for instance always avoid quests that are typically unbalanced for the group. Because nobody enjoys them anyway. I just want to diversify our experience of the game. I pick based on cool objectives (quests with Influence are good too), how interesting the map is (the layout, or some interesting terrain features, like many hazard spaces, rifts etc) as well. I also like quests where one of the "mandatory" monster type is something we don't get to see often or at all in some cases. I typically don't pick the quest where the objective is too "obvious" or the same kind objective as the previous quest, like "saving all the villager tokens" etc. About picking based on the reward, I mean it doesn't matter a huge % of the case. I´ve picked quests with extra gold to the heroes, I picked quests with me getting a useless relic etc. I normally get an extra XP and that's where the fun is. Interlude and Finale are still decided as per the rules. Act II quests (Shadow Rune) are also decided based on who won the Act I quest. Now the reasons why we went for (read: I enforced) that "house rule": - Preparation. I bring the game to people, one group is 250km away from my place, so if we´re in for playing multiple encounters then I want to bring just what I need for these. I prepare the tiles, I choose the open groups in advance, I have the list of quests I want to play for each act in advance. I bring just what is needed to cover the current quest and the next one, that's mandatory for me because of the context of me travelling. - My players don't care, or accept that I do the job for them. They want the game unpacked when they arrive. They seldom ask about the reward of a quest, even if I bring it up. They just want to win whatever quest I suggest we should be playing. And if we played the same campaign again, I would make sure we play quests we have never played before when possible, unless there was this really awesome one that everybody would want to play again. So yeah, the only "trust" aspect in it is that my players hope I will be setting up the game to maximize their game experience. That's what it is in essence, if I deliberately chose this setup to favorize my odds at winning then they would see it very quickly and get tired of the system. So it's not even in my interest to do so. Most quests are close calls, I´ve lost many quests that I was going to win, and I´ve won many quests my heroes were supposed to win a few turns before the outcome, so there is probably still some balance in that game if you make sure you can avoid these marginal one-sided quests. The problem with those though is that it's often Encounter 2 of a quest that is one-sided based on the result of Encounter 1, so sometimes you play the quest and its first encounter hoping that encounter 2 will be quite even, but encounter 1 ends up being a total win for one side and it screws up encounter 2.

I´ve experienced more than one encounter with the Disciple spamming Radiant Light EVERY turn. I think you vastly underestimate this skill. I´ll even go ahead and say it's the best skill for this class hands down. Sorry, I meant Cleansing Touch, not Blessed Strike. I mean the additional brown defense dice, the additional yellow power dice, the condition removal, the Holy Power skill doing the same for an additional hero and making them heal fatigue.. I mean, strictly speaking the heroes getting the yellow dice have more chance to get a surge to either get more damage through or heal one fatigue, so that can work either way.

I let them pick whatever they want. I think it compensates for the fact that I pick quests for the whole campaign regardless of winner and the fact my heroes have virtually no idea or control of how I manage my skills as the Overlord. EDIT: 200 posts. Do I win an extra threat token for it?

So Radiant Light is not a thing? What about the thousand upgrades to Blessed Strike?

I don't know, Rat Swarms feel this way too when the Overlord has the capability to reinforce them, e.g. the heroes would rather not kill them off completely but try instead to incapacitate them (low life means low damage). So yeah, I have never played with Kobolds for obvious reasons, but if the heroes go after the masters to slay them, then I don't find the ability underpowered. It's just the consequence of the choice of going on a crusade to kill off all monsters. I just prefer to diversify the strategies, some monsters might be better handled if left alone or at least under control, instead of bluntly killed. They might block LoS for another more dangerous monster, they might respawn and put the hero party in danger etc. I know I´m dreaming here, but Blood Rage on a Master Kobold, possibly combined by Tristayne's Onslaught ability to round things up... I don't know how many dices they roll (probably not much) but the fact you can attack a million times in one turn must be hilarious to experience especially if the heroes are not completely geared up.

Kobolds sound like a lot of fun. Only downside is the time it would take me to paint 12 identical figures. Cause I suppose they would release as many figures as necessary bearing in mind the split ability?

I have found that a great way to deal with a powerful hero (regardless of hero, class or gear) is to give him/her something to do instead of popping off your monsters or run away to fetch every token in the game while your Shambling Zombies try to catch him (but when they do... nooooooooooo! argggghhh). Anyways, There were talks about splitting the heroes and I find that strategy as being the best way to give yourself a decent shot at winning virtually any encounter. Web Trap is great at this. I would actually not play this card to cover the most heroes possible, but rather try to catch the dude that is about to run 10 squares this turn to catch up with the group. Immobilized, then rip him apart with monsters, rince and repeat as long as he keeps standing up again, then suddenly the three heroes have to make a choice as for sending help there. If you use 1x2 monsters, they can nicely block corridors and force the rescue party to fight these in order to even reach the poor victim. By the time the hero team is put back together again, 4-5 turns have passed so that helps you getting to your objectives. You just need to dedicate monsters to slowing down the group as much as possible. Harpies are great for that. Rat Swarms are awesome at it, especially if they can re-spawn. The real danger with this strategy though is if you have a Knight in the heroes party, and even worse Syndrael being the knight, as she gets free move through a ton of different means. That means she can be anywhere very quickly. You just need to know that, and who cares if she uses this to help out a hero as long as she doesn't spend said skills in the heat of the real battle over the objectives. Still, Advance is a pain for me.

Ettins are good monsters, but I would take the Ynfernael Hulks anytime over them whenever a quest allows. The main reason being that they cover long distances through Bloodrush very easily. On a straight line that's 5 (Bloodrush) + 1 (expand) + 3 (normal move) + 1 (expand) = 10 squares. bar the use of Dash or Blinding Speed, obviously, which makes this even more insane. I use this in quests like Into the Dark (SoN) where non-1x1 monsters are a good choice (for a change..). Also you can use that for the Charge which is normally devastating. It's a tough monster so throwing it into the action to divert my heroes is a good thing to do by default, especially if you have lava/hazard spaces around. heck throwing heroes at each other is a funny thing to do too. There should actually be a rule saying that you can do this on an occupied space or even against a wall, thematically it would make a lot of sense and is already covered to some extent by things like Grease Trap. The Throw ability on the Ettins is nice, but getting a surge out of an attack on a Hulk is perfectly doable. About Sweep and Firebreath, I mean these are powerful abilities however your heroes can definitely negate them quite easily through clever positioning of the Heroes. This is where things like Shifting Earth and everything forcing the heroes to move one space in the direction of your choice is important, but that's really situational too. The heroes have this too with the Wildlander's ability to move one space every time a omnster closes down to him/her. Anyhow, I rarely get to use Sweep with my Giants, and I rarely get to use Blast with my Lava Beetles. Then Giants are good for their body alone. I like Elementals. The only shame is the lack of combat abilities, but utility-wise they are very good. The Golems also fill that spot of being a great utility tool for blocking corridors. I also like Chaos Beasts a lot more than I thought I would, especially with these RRB weapons my heroes are wielding now.

Tahlia (Warrior class) Movement 3 Health 14 Stamina 4 Defense (gray dice) Willpower 3 Might 3 Knowledge 2 Awareness 3 Ability: Each time you defeat a monster, you gain 2 movement points. Heroic feat: Use when a monster starts its activation or moves into a space adjacent to you. Immediately perform an attack that targets that monster. After the attack is resolved, the monster's activation resumes.

I had pre-ordered it and got it today. Both quests looked okay and gave the possibility for the OL to earn an overlord reward card where you basically give Sorcery 2 to a monster group until the end of turn. Useful. Mini-wise, I like them all. Golems are really bulky, but don't expect them as being as tall as Giants. They´re a bit taller than Chaos Beasts. Sorcerers have a very dynamic position and I like that. So do all of the heroes. The Golem bases were not flat though, which is a bit annoying. Otherwise really happy because I have a session on monday and Golems is exactly the monster type I was looking for using.