I respectfully disagree with you and Kunzite on this particular point. You may have a different experience of the game and I respect that, but as far as my playgroups are concerned, OL rewards have never been at the centre of discussion as a critical object to either allow or deny for securing a win in a quest or even in the long term. OL relics have very marginal use, and heroes can often control them quite easily whenever the OL gets the chance to field them. Extra XP for the OL changes nothing as the OL cannot control his draws anyway. You can buy all the OL cards in the world and still lose terribly. The only way you can remedy that is giving up on encounter 1 and gather your whole deck in your hand upon starting encounter 2, which is arguably a cheaty way to put the odds in your favor. If that is what is required then it tells as much about balance in this game in general. In comparison, heroes can buy one good bow off the item shop deck and win every single encounter thanks to it thereafter. Extra XP means you can buy a card earlier than expected but I don't think it affects anything in the grand scheme of things. On the other hand, hero rewards, or whether getting them or giving up on them (for grabbing money instead) is the great question and the only one that has any real relevance. Talking about skill level of the OL is just an easy way to say that if you can't manage your heroes and be in control in a campaign then it's probably because you lack experience. The only part of that I would agree with is that if your OL does not have the balls nor the wits to put up a decent challenge then he/she's pretty much screwed, raw luck aside. Apart from that, this game is random enough to make a OL with any skill level lose, and I will claim that equally skilled heroes will be in better position for defeating an overlord and his minions given the arsenal of possibilities they have access to thorough the campaign. In the best of the worlds I would wish that the game wasn't that hard on the Overlord so we could allow more players to play this role. I'm happy being the Overlord because I'm a total masochist in that game and get huge satisfaction destroying my opposition with a swipe or complex sequence of awesome plays that stupefy my audience. Yeah, it's a big show and even if they mock the actor most of the times they sometimes stop and look at you like you're Jesus fraking Christ. I love that. But right now nobody else would remotely like to replace me on a future campaign. Not a question of how clever my players are, just the fact that the Overlord is clearly not a role for everyone. I don't like the elitist part of that design, that's all. So speaking about the skill level of the OL only seems to emphasize on that accessibility issue. Extra gold for the heroes is always better than any OL reward. I am adamant on that point. The sheer power of the items in the shop decks is the primary source of upgrade for the heroes, with class cards as a distant second. With good gear you can go all the way in a campaign. I will go even further and say that any weapon in the shop deck is better than any of the OL relics you can get (Staff of Dominion being an exception maybe). This is where you would typically disagree because what's actually printed on the card may prove me wrong for some of the better OL relics, but my point is that it doesn't matter what's printed on the card. It can say that you automatically defeat a hero on a surge or anything you like. You simply cannot use relics the way heroes use gear, you don't have access to them a huge % of the time, and when you do your Lieutenant can be managed by the heroes just as easily anyway. No need to have experienced hero players to do that as long as they have a rough idea of what the OL is toying with in terms of monsters and abilities. I'm not saying you won't get a good mileage out of a relic on occasion, but I don't think that situation is very common to say the least.

Immobilized as a condition is probably too powerful as it is, considering the larger % of quests resolving around moving around or reaching to some specific place in an encounter. It is definitely OP in the Gryvorn Unleashed quest which I just played. It is not that this particular encounter is only hard, it is in fact completely pointless if heroes can Immobilize the monsters turn after turn. Meriods are also very powerful because of it, but they are melee/reach creatures, which is different than somebody getting Ice Storm off the shop deck and shooting from long distance. I don't know how I would house rule it if I even had the possibility, a nerf would be what I would do but I don't see my hero players land on an agreement in that matter, even remotely. I think I would like FFG to release future content helping against this particular condition so players (OL needs it the most, but heroes could use it too) can have access to more elements of defense against it.

The game isn't that open to interpretation. In no game ever can you make the argument "well the rules don't say I can't do that". The rules don't say I can't declare myself the winner if you don't want to get punched. I don't think the problem is the game, it's the alpha gaming players. They are insisting how the game should work, with no regard for how it affects you or the balance of the game. They are pushing you around, even if they are your good friends in other settings. It's really just a subtle form of bullying. I'd have to stop playing games with these people. I totally agree. It is valid for any game really, regardless of how much freedom the players get from the game to interprete its rules. The best example I can come up with is Cosmic Encounter, where you need to sit down and decide how your power will be working or interacting in regards to other aliens. But since you do this upon setting up the game, there is rarely any argument to be had during the game itself, as people have already settled on the way these things should be working. Whereas in Descent, situations come and go and many of them are critical enough so people easily get heated up, as it affects the outcome of an encounter or something else. IMHO Descent is not really enjoyable if you have a hero player with a really big mouth and dictating how the other players should be running their character. Another poster said earlier that somebody is his/her playgroup had to leave because of that very reason. If you're still there and reading, then I would actually give your friend a favor and re-introduce her back into your group and kick out the douchebag. If people cannot behave then nobody is having fun, thus there is no point having game sessions. Doesn't feel like these are times where people with a normal life would enjoy additional stress and arguments with their friends. But it's the same for any co-op game really, every player should have a voice. But I also think that it's not your job as the OL to keep your heroes in check with regards to that aspect. It's THEIR job to make sure they have a good group they can handle in the best possible manner. So technically speaking even with an alpha player around, the other heroes should be able to collectively tell him to stop acting like an *******. Why would it have to be the OL's decision? I'm not saying that you should't be part of the discussion, but it's everybody's game. The OL is not the GM, he's a player on his own, but it is probably common that the OL owns the game and is the rules master as well, which probably makes this fine line between the heroes group and the OL fade away, as you suddenly need to step up and take responsability for the whole group instead of watch them tear themselves apart. That could be part of the game, mind you, when heroes just cannot decide efficiently over the course of actions because they are in a disagreement. It just creates tensions though, which is not the best way to experience this game.

Thats part of what makes it challenging for the heroes if you ask me, they know full well (or should atleast) what cards you might have in your hand and they need to plan their actions accordingly and in some cases just assume that you can play dash/frenzy/etc. Overall it sounds like a though situation for you and Im not sure that I would actually play with people like that...I mean, this is a game after all! It is supposed to be fun! Fun for ALL the players, not just the heroes. That's the thing, you're not really a player from their perspective, you're the "human" pulling the strings behind the monsters instead of some random automated mechanism with spawn points, action priority and standard monster behaviour systems and whatnot. As said earlier by some other poster, you're the GM and you make informed decisions to make it tough for the heroes, but the bottom line is that it remains THEIR adventure and you're only here to put some sticks in their wheels. Heck no, you're slapping them in the face and then get all your minions wiped out afterwards, that could summarize my experience with Descent lol. But it feels good doing so, har! The storyline does not help much on that point as there isn't much said about you anyway, heck it could do some good if you claimed to be Zachareth instead of some unclear evil figure. On a personal note, I play the English version of this game but we talk a different language which is not my native one either so arguing can be tricky at times, although I would still claim that it works more than alright mainly because we try to be reasonable and make sense of things. That's where we normally land after 15 minutes of heated discussion lol.

Yeah exactly, many heroes think you're just there to accomodate them. The game is articulated around them. This said I have no interest of playing Myth for instance, I really prefer being the mastermind behind the evil forces, and who the hell cares if my heroes still think they'll meet Hello Kitty in a treasure room.

As always, the sceptical have the biggest mouth, so it can lead to some spicy situations. In that case I was so tired of the bs that I didn't even get the balls to check for a FAQ entry and granted them the **** token since it was such a particular situation. But yeah, at this precise time, there was a me versus them situation for a rule they tried to exploit to their advantage. And yes, I am really looking forward to experiencing the same again with me in the role of the person taking advantage of said rule. Feels like I can wait for a long time, lol. Same thing with the closed door on a dragon, which I couldn't find an explanation for at the time, they actually said we would vote for the outcome No way the dragon would be killed I said, no way the dragon would be pushed forward said the heroes, so I had to revert 3 actions just to get the clarification later on, that the monster could have well remained in place. What's frustrating is not that somebody is disputing my interpretation of the rules or that I end up in a difficult situation because of my own misunderstanding, the big problem in my mind is that NOBODY is actually taking my side or even remotely considering that I could be right. That just won't happen, lol. Then yes, it's 4 vs 1. Oh I almost forgot but by players absolutely DESPISE the rule making lieutenants raising up after death have one additional action. Unfairness, they say! Yeah.. The LoS rule is also a classic example. They would always push for getting LoS in ridiculous angles because it looks like they could draw a line although clear passage would clearly be arguable. On the other hand my monsters apparently cannot shoot from corners or "exploiting" the same rule as it makes no sense in comparison. A hero archer may lean towards a side and throw an arrow due to sheer agility (heck, the mini itself looks like the hero can shoot from every angle), but a goblin is so stiff and stupid that he has to shoot from the middle of its square. Nobody is arguing about these things really as it would get ridiculous all the time, but people still make comments of that kind as the game progresses. Also, I play Frenzy on a monster. They have Grisban and his third attack action, but playing Frenzy is cheaty in comparison, I don't know why. Actually I do, it's because I know they can activate Cosby's third action as the hero sheet appears visible in front of me whereas they have no idea I hold this OL card. But yeah.. "And we don't know if you're not changing the campaign track sheet and re-spec yourself for free since you have full control of everything". I mean, I think they trust me but still these comments arise from time to time, making the game psychologically tough! Tough to be the OL.

Yeah, I also think it all comes down to the way you look upon the campaign thingy. I made very clear to my playgroups that they would be disappointed if they expected some raw epicness in the finale, although I do still believe there is some kind of klimax in it because it's still a final boss battle. From my perspective (I have only played OL in this game), it's kind of a relief to play this quest and end the campaign. I always feel like I want to start anew because my heroes are too strong and cocky. On the other hand, I also had heroes winning a lot of quests in some campaigns, and getting ultra-confident with every attack they made, and that simply wasn't enough for the finale. I took out the guy with the immobilize bow and was called a ****** for it, what can you do about it? I seriously think heroes are playing a different game than you, and you're just a troublemaker, I have never felt as if there was a good versus evil aspect to the game, which is a shame. So if they walk over you and lose the finale, they can just say that the result was not representative over the course of the campaign and your win was not deserved. But at the end of the day you use the tools you've got in the quests you play, finale included, to do the best that you can. An OL win is just not a very appreciated situation by heroes especially if the campaign ends straight after it. Mainly because the heroes lost their reward, not because you got to buy an extra card that will be probably marginal at best anyway or a random relic to hang over your bed, but because not getting maxed up is utterly annoying for the common hero. They are greedy in nature, I tell you. Very much indeed. Hey, even one player did not know the OL could win the campaign. I got this strange comment in one of our sessions close to the end of the finale. He thought the heroes would get some sort of victory points calculation that would tell how well they did in the campaign. Like I said, it's their own game and you're kind of an accessory. You feed them with monsters. Heroes cannot be killed anyway and this sense of immortality does seem to do something to the atmosfear around the game. I'm at the edge of starting two new campaigns and I made sure we discussed these things together so people have a clear view of the OL role and how a campaign is run. It's a question of respect, to avoid heated debates and misunderstandings.

It's you against them basically, so tensions will naturally arise. The typical situation that has been occuring a lot in my playgroups is when you get to use a rule or ability that your heroes had not seen coming. They can get really frustrated. Like, if your heroes do not know what your monsters have for abilities, then you activate Knockback on a Hulk and throw a hero into the lava. You may say that your heroes could have asked about it earlier, but you are also responsible somehow for going through every component supposed to be visible to all players. I go through monsters prior to starting the encounter but I also go through Plot cards so we can avoid BS discussions afterwards where heroes basically accuse me to pull off cheap/cheaty wins out of abilities they did not know I possessed. Basically heroes have troubles with the OL hiding OL cards since they all have everything visible on the table so it is easy for them to blame me for deliberately missing out some rules or pointers over the course of the game. Of course if you have an equally knowledgeable partner across the table then it helps a great deal. The most recent situation of that kind was interesting. They basically wanted to grant a downed hero a Valor token for the reason that I could get an Infection token off the atttack killing off that hero. "If you can can do it, we can do it, period". That was tense.

I cannot find any explanation anywhere about what is supposed to happen when the door of the Wyrm Turns is closed while a large monster sits on its base (covering at least 2 squares on each side of the door). Some heroes smiled and said that my dragon would die. I said it would be split in two and each half would have 1/2 life, and roll a half RRB die for attack, and a 2 squares fire breath. Anyway, moving the dragon to make space had repercussions on the outcome (besides, the dragon might have not been able to expand), so I had to cordially revert a few actions and avoid the situation. Has this situation occured to your playgroup?

You are being played by your heroes, mate. I can accept that your metagame is different than mine, and that you think plot cards are more valuable than I do, but that's a hell of a house rule you got. No way I would have accepted such deal, even with booze involved in the bargain. Firstly, unlimited currency supply makes no sense, otherwise like the above poster said you may just purchase your whole deck with no notion of saving said currency for it. Your crazy +12 threat per quest completely tears this rule apart, tramples it with iron boots and throws the remains into the fires of Mount Doom. But even more importantly, what do you do with this billion threat tokens? Play enablers and weak versions of OL cards in exchange of extra actions and rerolls to the heroes? No wonder why your heroes are okay with that. It's Vegas, baby [for them]. I realize that you have only played a few quests with this rule, and maybe you are putting a lot of faith into these plot cards. I don't think you'll find what you seek but maybe you'll have tons of fun doing it your way.

FFG just announced a 100% fan-based expansion to Cosmic Encounter where they clearly stated their design team had to step back to allow said fans to push through their ideas and preserve them the best way they could. I don't know in details how this worked out but there seems to be history for effective connection to the customers that is more than just posting a post in a random thread. I will also say that the "ask a question" facility has been working very well for me, with quality replies from the designers. On many forums you can wait for days for an official response (if it ever comes) using a regular forum. If this email thingy is the tool FFG chose to address these rules points in an effective manner than so be it? If that's their support model then why would you want to criticize it because of some supposed "standard" amongst other companies? It works very well as far as I know, for the reasons why I would need direct contact to FFG. Would I like to see official replies on these forums? Probably. But I wouldn't qualify them as necessary. The community is run by the fans themselves, as long as FFG can connect to said community in some way then I don´t see the necessity to throw resources into forum posting. We're not brainless sheeps either, we can answer most of our own questions without involving FFG and that's a great resource. I wouldn't like to see an overwhelming presence of the designers on these forums. I like to express positive critique of the game and its mechanisms, which is not something you would feel very confortable doing if 80% of the forum was about previews, announcements and further advertisement of the product. Some sites are like that. Facebook is like that. If that's your thing, if you like FFG to take your hand and pre-format the community work for us then fair enough. I think the number one quality is listening, which I think they do (and they read these forums, I´m sure about that given some replies from the designers). They don't need to be omnipresent. We can do a lot ourselves. I prefer high quality response from FFG for those important matters rather than some random official poster telling pieces of information and trying to keep us happy. No BS policy, yeah I´m fine with that.

Both quests look interesting, the OL card reward is fine too. The monsters seem okay but definitely not top tier monsters. Heroes are cool, their minis are stunning.

That was about time. I lost this **** encounter earlier because my heroes rolled a blank on the dice although they hadn't saved any single guest. Like: mission failed but Theodir wasn't having fun at the Ball after all, and was waiting outside for the heroes all along. People were really adamant on the fact a blank roll meant the encounter was won regardless, which kind of upsets me now as I've always thought it made no sense. Ah well, Theodir, you cheaty bastard. A bit of a shame, especially since we know FGG is keeping an eye on these forums. They could have waited a bit more and included this one as it feels like one of the most problematic situations. Also, the following isn't making this discussion any better: ... which indirectly enforces the concept of "activation" as being a specific moment in time (when you pick your monster basically before executing its actions), which conflicts with the idea of an activation covering the whole time while a monster is performing its turn (as per discussion about Dash and Frenzy in the other thread). Semantics seem to matter.

Yeah, this weapon was by far the most annoying of all the gear the heroes managed to gather through the campaign.

I largely prefer the drafting mechanism in this game. BBTM is based on your ability as a manager to obtain upgrades and star players so to me the need to customize the team upon setting up the game feels over the top. I like the game as it is.

And said ability was not printed on a class card It was Augur's hero skill. Sorry about the confusion. Anyway, things went very fast yesterday, thought I would give you a short synopsis. In Encounter 1, I got completely destroyed as the OL and could save none of the ritual components. I managed to destroy most search tokens though, bar 2 of them. One gave them a stamina potion, the other gave them the shop II armor giving you a black defense dice. It was kind of an "oh ****" moment as they handed over the armor to Augur, my prime target for encounter 2. They left Sir Alric with only two life points at the end of their first turn (why the hell does he have to start so close to the heroes). Alric destroyed the first search token instead of attacking as it was pointless to slap the face of a random dude anyway, and threw himself in the way for the heroes, trying to block LoS between the heroes and Belthir. Belthir tried to fly south but the next hero attack immobilized him. I Shifting Earth:ed the heroes sitting 4 squares away from him to bring them into reach (well, Belthir has Reach too) and although immobilized he performed an attack and destroyed the southern search token. I thought that was justice and he could die happy. He got slaughtered afterwards. Splig is just too fat and slow. He cannot even move to the component, take it and stand by the door in the same round. Since the hallways were full of heroes I decided to destroy the two western tokens while carrying the component. The heroes went for him and thought I would play Dash and move 9 spaces away (which would have been completely pointless because of Logan and his Ice Storm), so I played Blood Rage on Splig and tried to get some damage on Augur prior to Encounter 2. He sat 5 damages away from death and the encounter was over instantly. Heroes were confident. In Encounter 2 my heroes did not even consider searching the tokens as I had anticipated. They spent fatigue to reach the corridor leading to the throne room and began to shoot from there, with additional attack from Grisban's heroic feat. That was really greedy as range was either 6 or 7 depending on hero. They missed every attack and passed to me. I played Dark Charm on Logan, he passed the test only barely so I threw another OL card away and used the staff to force a re-roll. He failed, used Lucky Charm, and failed again. He shot Augur with his bow and killed the man instantly, using the buff from Expert Blow (much needed). Then Gryvorn got Frenzy:ed, stepped ahead and did two attacks with 11 damage each on Logan, who died as well. Grisban attacked twice but only managed to scratch the dragon. I got my second turn and dealt 15 overall damage to Grisban (3 points away from death). He responded with resting to get rid of his fatigue and did his death rage to deal a good 12 damage to Gryvorn. He died afterwards. Zachy attacked once but he was only a spectator to the carnage. I considered eating him up just for the lulz but did not want to intimidate my heroes more than necessary. Victory had to be savoured. I think overconfidence in combat is what killed them. Until now I only had cannon fodder to throw at the heroes but Gryvorn needed to be micro-managed. Immobilize condition would have changed the deal completely but I did not give them a second chance to inflict it. Obviously, one could say I was lucky enough to pull out Dark Charm, effectively killing one of the heroes before I even took my turn. That's life.

I know I won't get my rules book automatically replaced and free of charge, but I would gladly sink some money into acquiring the new version of the rules book if it ever gets released, and maybe some of the revamped cards as well. Unfortunateley I am not aware of any FFG game with that sort of product line, although it would actually be very useful for people like me. I don't see myself printing tons of erratas and FAQs and bring them to every session, the information needs to be centralized somehow otherwise there are too many sources with conflicting interpretations.

Yeah, that's a shame. Would be interesting to see if other languages are doing a better job for this particular point.

From what I got, a DCed hero is treated as a monster, and monsters have no stamina/fatigue, therefore they cannot receive, lose nor spend fatigue. So technically speaking the hero's fatigue/stamina level has no relevance for the duration of Dark Charm. That's how I would interprete the rules.

Scratch that, I meant Expert Blow. My bad.

Alright so we have played this game 4-5 times now and I would like to ask the community for what people think would be best to play this game in terms of additions and additional setup. What we have done: - Deal 3 alien cards to each player (one of each color: green, yellow and red). Each player chooses two of them, one face up (main alien power) and one face down (as per rules for operating a secret alien power). - Played with cosmic quakes. - Played with advanced encounter cards (which you draw upon taking your defensive reward). - Played with Hazards. What we have not tried out yet for fear to burden our games too much: - Technologies. - Space stations. - Alliances (but we don't want to anyway). I know these two are not entirely necessary to the experience. but have you found they were fun to play with? I was mainly concerned by the fact technologies would speed up the game too much (since ships disappear to support the research, making it easier to attack colonies). I am not sure either which rules I would use for dealing with the conquest of a colony when a space station is attached to it, I dislike the idea that the station can be moved out of the colony. Any tips about how to incorporate these two mechanisms into our games? What has been playing out best for your playgroup? Or is it just a bad idea?

Okay, "when activating" could reasonably be understood as "anytime during a monster's activation" (although "when" is not "while", I would have thought "when" referred to a specific moment in time, but I'm not a native english speaker so I'll leave that to you), but I was wondering about any other occurences of the wording "when activating" or "when you activate" on other cards or even quest rules. Can we extrapolate the new definition to any instance of the wording? I wish we had a PDF version of everything in this game so we could search for specific text and make sure we have everything covered. But yeah, I mean that's a hell of an improvement. I was already championing these cards but now this errata makes the cards Frenzy and Dash even more viable. I really like the flexibility. I don't think this is going to improve my win/lose ratio by any means, but I'm going to use my cards more effectively from now on. Wish Expert Blow got the same errata

Its called "Descent Second Edition Unoffcial FAQ" so no, it is not official It is a compiled list of questions that have been answered by FFG just as you suspected. You're killing me, man My hero players are very strict in terms of rules, this unofficial FAQ is nothing they will trust. But I mean, shouldn't this be in the official FAQ for a change of that scale? That changes a lot of things for me as the OL.

Sounds like you're basing a lot of assumption on everyone playing a 4-hero campaign. Both of these are far less likely to happen as you reduce the number of heroes. (Fewer choices / usable gear to spend gold on, which delays buying equipment, which reduces chances of winning further, and fewer search tokens = fewer chances at Treasure Chest) Yeah, but it's just hard to talk about balance considering a variable number of heroes in general, although many mechanisms do remain linear in this game so it's probably not as much of an impact as you think it is. I mean, statistically speaking you obviously don't get the same odds for obtaining cool gear off the shop deck the fewer heroes you have, however the % of these odds your heroes are losing by being fewer is somehow compensated by the OL getting access to less resources as well (monsters and OL cards, even threat tokens). It can go either way, but again, between getting a good equipment from the shop deck and getting one more OL card for the next encounter, the heroes have everything to gain. So you are correct Griton when you say that it changes things, but I will claim that the result remains the same (more or less, I guess you can always dispute that, but I'm not going to split hairs). Oh and I think everybody should be playing this game with 4 heroes to get the best experience. 4-heroes seem the commonly agreed standard for playing the game, so I'm not going to preface every assumption I make with the number of heroes considered unless it's relevant for the said assumption. That's because I'm lazy, lol. Back on topic (apologies to the OP) I would actually try and not play the rumor quest mechanism especially if you intend to run the mini-campaigns anyway. The only solution I see is heavy house ruling. I don't think you can get away with a minor change on this one, but we saw some people here who reckon +1XP to the OL is the only required change. I disagree but if people can test this and say it's good as it is then why not. I'm much more enclined to buff the OL a fair bit on a global level, and then (only then) play rumor quests with some interesting rewards. What I think eventually would be the solution is a Descent 3.0 with even capabilities between heroes and OL. I know exactly what mechanisms I would put in there, but it's too much of a stretch to even suggest as a house rule.

Dash is played when activating a monster, thus its played before the monster does any of its actions. The FAQ on BGG doesnt agree with you on that one, has this been changed in one of the later erattas? http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Descent_Second_Edition_Unofficial_FAQ Q: When can we play "Dash" or "Frenzy"? When we first activate the monster before we take actions? Or at any time while we are still activating said monster? A: Those Overlord cards may be played at any point during a monster's activation. (1) Really? Is this for real? That's a tremendous change and there is no way you can back this new ruling with the printed text on the card. Okay about errata:ed cards bringing some limitations or clarifications about the rules which somehow still relate to the printed text on the card, but we're talking about a different text here practically speaking. The current text clearly emphasises on the "when activating a monster" which is by definition before executing its actions. Plus this FAQ does not look very official even if it might be sourced by official responses from FFG. So seriously, how do you take this into account? Can somebody confirm?