I am of the same opinion as any2cards and BruceLGL.
In addition to what they said already, I will state that I am really happy that there are "bad cards" in this game (as in heroes, classes, monsters etc.). It means I can tailor my level of competitivity to my opposition. It also means that I am forced to do the best I can with the resources given, which can be challenging. I like that. I understand if others don't, but I think it's some kind of a key feature of the game after all.
To be honest I don't think I would apply any changes whatsover unless it was made official by FFG. Even if the community jointly issued a recommendation. I would still be wanting to play by the intent of the designers. I really do salute initiatives from people willing to alter the game if they think it would make it better for them. We´re here for the fun after all.  But I am personally very happy with the game as it is. There are a few cards where I wish they´d be useable at all, but there is also so much content in that game so such thing is not a real problem. It's not like I have to choose between 5 cards and 4 of them are bad. It would have been a problem.
I think you are going to have a very hard time justifying the changes, whatever they may be. Just look at any discussion on these forums, involving players with deep experience of the game and still diverging on some opinions. People have different playstyles, oppositions, backgrounds etc. This is not to discourage you for running such initiative, but by basing it on the contested premice that something with the game needs fixing, the race will be uphill for you in my reckoning. Like I said to Rugal in his thread, nothing prevents anybody from running his/her own little project and showcase the results on these forums. But as soon as you want to seek community-approval I think the conditions are a lot harder to meet. Just be prepared to be called out.
Blood Bowl Team Manager (R.I.P.) had team factions  that were really inferior to other races. Everybody screamed for a fix to Vampires and a nerf to Humans. I think it's cool there are top-tier factions and low-tier ones. We'll give Humans to the dude who has never played the game, and I'll play the Vampires and try not to get my arse kicked. Same wth Descent. I will gladly play Word of Pain and field Fire Imps as my open groups whenever I´m looking for a challenge, or even more likely when playing with my 8 y.o.
My philosophy is to only change what is broken. There are obnoxious combinations in this game, but nothing I would call OP. There are lackluster cards in the game, but I think the vast majority is still playable in the right context. Most abilities in the game, especially from the Overlord, are situational. Their variance in effectivity can be everything between very bad and extremely good. I don't think the situational part can be removed without impacting the flavor in the game. There needs to be traps, doors opening etc. Attributes tests also incarnate the risk factor of many abilities, and contribute to the tension in this game.

I am of the same opinion as any2cards and BruceLGL.
In addition to what they said already, I will state that I am really happy that there are "bad cards" in this game (as in heroes, classes, monsters etc.). It means I can tailor my level of competitivity to my opposition. It also means that I am forced to do the best I can with the resources given, which can be challenging. I like that. I understand if others don't, but I think it's some kind of a key feature of the game after all.
To be honest I don't think I would apply any changes whatsover unless it was made official by FFG. Even if the community jointly issued a recommendation. I would still be wanting to play by the intent of the designers. I really do salute initiatives from people willing to alter the game if they think it would make it better for them. We´re here for the fun after all.  But I am personally very happy with the game as it is. There are a few cards where I wish they´d be useable at all, but there is also so much content in that game so such thing is not a real problem. It's not like I have to choose between 5 cards and 4 of them are bad. It would have been a problem.
I think you are going to have a very hard time justifying the changes, whatever they may be. Just look at any discussion on these forums, involving players with deep experience of the game and still diverging on some opinions. People have different playstyles, oppositions, backgrounds etc. This is not to discourage you for running such initiative, but by basing it on the contested premice that something with the game needs fixing, the race will be uphill for you in my reckoning. Like I said to Rugal in his thread, nothing prevents anybody from running his/her own little project and showcase the results on these forums. But as soon as you want to seek community-approval I think the conditions are a lot harder to meet. Just be prepared to be called out.
Blood Bowl Team Manager (R.I.P.) had team factions  that were really inferior to other races. Everybody screamed for a fix to Vampires and a nerf to Humans. I think it's cool there are top-tier factions and low-tier ones. We'll give Humans to the dude who has never played the game, and I'll play the Vampires and try not to get my arse kicked. Same wth Descent. I will gladly play Word of Pain and field Fire Imps as my open groups whenever I´m looking for a challenge, or even more likely when playing with my 8 y.o.
My philosophy is to only change what is broken. There are obnoxious combinations in this game, but nothing I would call OP. There are lackluster cards in the game, but I think the vast majority is still playable in the right context. Most abilities in the game, especially from the Overlord, are situational. Their variance in effectivity can be everything between very bad and extremely good. I don't think the situational part can be removed without impacting the flavor in the game. There needs to be traps, doors opening etc. Attributes tests also incarnate the risk factor of many abilities, and contribute to the tension in this game.

I am of the same opinion as any2cards and BruceLGL.
In addition to what they said already, I will state that I am really happy that there are "bad cards" in this game (as in heroes, classes, monsters etc.). It means I can tailor my level of competitivity to my opposition. It also means that I am forced to do the best I can with the resources given, which can be challenging. I like that. I understand if others don't, but I think it's some kind of a key feature of the game after all.
To be honest I don't think I would apply any changes whatsover unless it was made official by FFG. Even if the community jointly issued a recommendation. I would still be wanting to play by the intent of the designers. I really do salute initiatives from people willing to alter the game if they think it would make it better for them. We´re here for the fun after all.  But I am personally very happy with the game as it is. There are a few cards where I wish they´d be useable at all, but there is also so much content in that game so such thing is not a real problem. It's not like I have to choose between 5 cards and 4 of them are bad. It would have been a problem.
I think you are going to have a very hard time justifying the changes, whatever they may be. Just look at any discussion on these forums, involving players with deep experience of the game and still diverging on some opinions. People have different playstyles, oppositions, backgrounds etc. This is not to discourage you for running such initiative, but by basing it on the contested premice that something with the game needs fixing, the race will be uphill for you in my reckoning. Like I said to Rugal in his thread, nothing prevents anybody from running his/her own little project and showcase the results on these forums. But as soon as you want to seek community-approval I think the conditions are a lot harder to meet. Just be prepared to be called out.
Blood Bowl Team Manager (R.I.P.) had team factions  that were really inferior to other races. Everybody screamed for a fix to Vampires and a nerf to Humans. I think it's cool there are top-tier factions and low-tier ones. We'll give Humans to the dude who has never played the game, and I'll play the Vampires and try not to get my arse kicked. Same wth Descent. I will gladly play Word of Pain and field Fire Imps as my open groups whenever I´m looking for a challenge, or even more likely when playing with my 8 y.o.
My philosophy is to only change what is broken. There are obnoxious combinations in this game, but nothing I would call OP. There are lackluster cards in the game, but I think the vast majority is still playable in the right context. Most abilities in the game, especially from the Overlord, are situational. Their variance in effectivity can be everything between very bad and extremely good. I don't think the situational part can be removed without impacting the flavor in the game. There needs to be traps, doors opening etc. Attributes tests also incarnate the risk factor of many abilities, and contribute to the tension in this game.

I am of the same opinion as any2cards and BruceLGL.
In addition to what they said already, I will state that I am really happy that there are "bad cards" in this game (as in heroes, classes, monsters etc.). It means I can tailor my level of competitivity to my opposition. It also means that I am forced to do the best I can with the resources given, which can be challenging. I like that. I understand if others don't, but I think it's some kind of a key feature of the game after all.
To be honest I don't think I would apply any changes whatsover unless it was made official by FFG. Even if the community jointly issued a recommendation. I would still be wanting to play by the intent of the designers. I really do salute initiatives from people willing to alter the game if they think it would make it better for them. We´re here for the fun after all.  But I am personally very happy with the game as it is. There are a few cards where I wish they´d be useable at all, but there is also so much content in that game so such thing is not a real problem. It's not like I have to choose between 5 cards and 4 of them are bad. It would have been a problem.
I think you are going to have a very hard time justifying the changes, whatever they may be. Just look at any discussion on these forums, involving players with deep experience of the game and still diverging on some opinions. People have different playstyles, oppositions, backgrounds etc. This is not to discourage you for running such initiative, but by basing it on the contested premice that something with the game needs fixing, the race will be uphill for you in my reckoning. Like I said to Rugal in his thread, nothing prevents anybody from running his/her own little project and showcase the results on these forums. But as soon as you want to seek community-approval I think the conditions are a lot harder to meet. Just be prepared to be called out.
Blood Bowl Team Manager (R.I.P.) had team factions  that were really inferior to other races. Everybody screamed for a fix to Vampires and a nerf to Humans. I think it's cool there are top-tier factions and low-tier ones. We'll give Humans to the dude who has never played the game, and I'll play the Vampires and try not to get my arse kicked. Same wth Descent. I will gladly play Word of Pain and field Fire Imps as my open groups whenever I´m looking for a challenge, or even more likely when playing with my 8 y.o.
My philosophy is to only change what is broken. There are obnoxious combinations in this game, but nothing I would call OP. There are lackluster cards in the game, but I think the vast majority is still playable in the right context. Most abilities in the game, especially from the Overlord, are situational. Their variance in effectivity can be everything between very bad and extremely good. I don't think the situational part can be removed without impacting the flavor in the game. There needs to be traps, doors opening etc. Attributes tests also incarnate the risk factor of many abilities, and contribute to the tension in this game.

I'm going to back any2cards. It is balanced enough for what it is, in my opinion. The effort from here increases exponentially as perfect 'Balance*' is reached. I'd rather pay or make more content.
 
* Just defining criteria for balance is hard enough. The number is variables is staggering, even if you limit yourself to one quest, and basically impossible over all published quests.

I am not opposed to this idea in general, but ...
Let me first state that I have invested more than 1,000 hours in playing this game (campaigns, co-ops, app driven, etc.).  About 95% of the play is with FFG official products, and the other 5% is playing custom quests/campaigns from the Quest Vault.
In either case, it always involves heroes, classes, etc. officially provided by FFG.  I have actually played every single hero and every single class (and most in all combinations) multiple times.
I know this may come as heresy to some of you, but I find very little in this game that is too weak, non-functional, too-strong, broken, op, etc.
Yes, there absolutely are some heroes that are better than others.  Yes, there are some classes better than others.  There are some monsters better than others.  Etc. But that is the nature of the game.  And that is the challenge I enjoy ... finding ways to win with so-called sub-par combinations.
I also play X-Wing.  One of the on-going battles with many of the younger players within that forum, seems to be very similar to battles in this forum ... the mistaken belief that every single hero, familiar, monster, class, shop item, etc. must be equally playable, must be equally functionable, must be equally capable.
Perhaps this comes with the current era of everyone getting a trophy just for participating ... 
I think the game would be very boring indeed if each and every object within the game were all equal.
Having said all of the above, I am open minded, and I am willing to listen to ideas that others on this forum have that may potentially make the game better.  To that end, I will participate.  But understand, that I am going to come from the perspective (my opinion) that you are really going to have to PROVE to me that something is so bad, that it needs to be changed in the first place.

I finally got my bases, so I decided to share this with you guys.
What do you think about the master/minion features? Would you say it's clear which one is the master?
Thanks!

I actually like Dark Host. It is quite easy to meet the requirement even with just Airborne alone, and its effect is very strong.  There are so many good OL cards now, so its hard to justify the cost at times, but there are way worse 3xp cards than this that one.
That said, I don't think it combos with Blood Rage. Dark Host turns the hero into a monster for the OL's turn, but Blood Rage can only be used at the end of the OL's turn, which is after the hero stops being a monster. There was a thread with this ruling on BGG some time ago.
I'm kinda glad that doesn't work, because its a little cheezy.

Because this has been discussed when Trollfens was going to be printed, and FFG clarified that it doesn't work

When you draw a treasure chest card, it is custom to prepare your cell phone, then slowly reveal the card to your overlord, and catch his dismay on picture. 
Then up here in the North, we generally celebrate with mead and moose slices on the side. Except the overlord, who must get out naked, dive in the near frozen lake, and warm up in the sauna next to the gaming room. Don't tell me a sauna is not a cool thing you'd always want in your board gaming cave. Many a quests have been played in places like these, at least in this area of the globe.

Checking...
It's definitely a typo, 8B is the sanctum, because 82B isn't even part of that map.
I have no idea whether FFG uses a vault-like tool in their official map construction. If they do, it is MUCH simpler to make a typo of a number (82 vs 8) than to choose a wrong map piece, including an endcap.

If you play really competitive, there are a few heroes/classes I would rather not pick:
 
Heroes:
Ashrian, Grisban, Dezra the Vile
Classes:
Spiritspeaker
 
Imo all the other heroes and classes are fine or at least viable. The strongest heroes and classes probably are the Liar of the Wyrm heroes and classes and the treasure hunter class, but I consider only the treasure hunter to be really problematic and bordering OP.
 
If the heroes perform really bad it's alsways possible to limit your monster selection to thematic fitting monsters or not play your OL cards.
You can also grant them more gold and/or maybe an extra shopping step if they are really unlucky with items or got a long losing streak and the quests start to feel one-sided and unwinnable.

You have quite the collection started already! I wouldn't worry about top tier strategies though. Avoid googling the best setups and go for fun. Learning the strategies on your own is much more rewarding.

To be honest I don't know how I could possibly set aside Soulbinder for any of my future campaigns. It works well in any setting, it synergies with other classes, it's very hard for heroes to counteract it, etc. I would throw my Magus and Infector cards into the fire in an eye blink if I had to, in comparison.
I guess what I like the most about it is that it introduces an element of unknown from the heroes perspective, as some kind of parasite entity following your every step. Unkindness introduced it in the first place, and it was nice, but I am happy this concept was expanded further.
Obviously it will not substitute your usual Swiss knife set of cards, but it is worth investing in in any campaign in my mind.
I just hope the new generation of well thought class/plot cards is a real thing, and that more of it will come in the near future.

I would say no, because the clause stating "as if the door were not on the map" specifically refers to move and attack actions. Any other action would not ignore the door, therefore adjacency is not established for the purpose of grabbing a villager, as per standard rules regarding doors separating two spaces.

To be honest I don't know how I could possibly set aside Soulbinder for any of my future campaigns. It works well in any setting, it synergies with other classes, it's very hard for heroes to counteract it, etc. I would throw my Magus and Infector cards into the fire in an eye blink if I had to, in comparison.
I guess what I like the most about it is that it introduces an element of unknown from the heroes perspective, as some kind of parasite entity following your every step. Unkindness introduced it in the first place, and it was nice, but I am happy this concept was expanded further.
Obviously it will not substitute your usual Swiss knife set of cards, but it is worth investing in in any campaign in my mind.
I just hope the new generation of well thought class/plot cards is a real thing, and that more of it will come in the near future.

Sort them alphabetically.
Then use an application showing you the selection valid for the encounter, make your choice and then grab the cards.
You can use a list-based excel sheet, although that won't be necessarily reflect all open group selection rules (some are complex). You can also use web-based tools like Atom's campaign tracker. Or you can do like me and build your own program. 

Soulbinder probably claims a few spots in my Top10. This class is nuts, and it's fun to play too.

Great idea Charmy (and thanks for the tribute, lol). I´ll give my 2 cents. I also tend to purchase 1XP cards and not try to stick to a class. 2XP/3XP cards are normally hard to justify as XP is a very scarce resource. There are obviously a few exceptions:
 
10- Airborne (Infector). The ability to turn these failures into something useful is really nice. Heroes can't remove Infection tokens, they carry over to encounter 2, and I like that. It also puts some pressure on the heroes, who must play carefully if they carry infection tokens.
 
9- Imitation (Unkindness). That's psychological warfare here, but the raw power of this card is another thing too. I just love this card, and heroes always try to kill the ravens anyway so there's always a use for it.
 
8- Expert Blow (Warlord). I like cards that bounce back to your hand once used. Very useful. +2 damage is a big deal when you want to stick a condition on a hero, like when using Medusae for instance.
 
7- Wristlet of Wind (Enchanter). An additional move point to a monster group is really nice. I cannot fathom a situation where you wouldn't find a use for this card. Ok, maybe Golems and Ironbounds are not really a good target for this card, lol, but giving this to a 4-5 monster group with ranged attacks can be devastating. Everything in this game comes down to calculating the range a figure has to the various actions it can take. If the hero stands one space shy of your monster attack range, then cards like these breaks this balance and allow for powerful plays. 
 
6- Call of the Ravens (Unkindness). Even with no boost, the bird is one of the best monsters you can have at least during Act I. It gives you additional actions, it's fast although (although it doesnt fly!!!!!) and deals nice damage. Use it to shift the heroes focus to it. It's also the fact you always have access to that card, which is priceless.
 
5- Blood Rage (Warlord). There you go, the big nasty attack. 2 additional attacks is just what I often need to make sure somebody dies, or get the condition I want to stick on that hero.
 
4- No rest for the Wicked (Punisher): Having a counter to fatigue move is really nice especially if you have kiters like small ranged monsters. Its effect applies the entire turn!
 
3- Imploding Rift (Shadowmancer). Again, not puchasing this card if heroes are high on Willpower. Still I value this card as one of my best ones. Traps are game breakers in that game. You need them to disrupt the heroes' indomitable march against you.
 
2- Treacherous Shadows (Shadowmancer). This class is my favorite, and this is the 3XP card that comes with it. Obviously this won't work if your herioes are high on Willpower, but complemented by Befuddles and the likes, you can still achieve quite a lot with this card. Basically this is a powered up Dark Charm, so much that it can wipe out an entire party, so all your monsters have to do is sit and watch the mayhem before stepping in an finish off the heroes. A bit exagerated maybe, but yeah the plan is to kill one or two heroes in the process, or deal a nasty condition so that you screw up the heroes' next turn to give you an edge in the quest.
 
1- Web Trap (Saboteur). The most boring card of all times, there you have it. It's just the best card in the game if you ask me. Everything resolves around heroes movement. Ability to reach search tokens, connect for a melee attack, revive a dead hero, split to avoid AoE attacks, even winning quests by standing on a specific spot or escape the map etc. Also the fact you can have two in your deck is really nice. I like to purchase one as soon as I get my first XP. I wish I didn't for the sake of variation, but it's just too good to pass on. The more my heroes get skilled at playing Descent, the more I turn myself up to these cards. Their value is immense.
 
Then you have some nice 3XP cards but they require you to dig too deep into a class, so I can't really rate them. From a pure strategical perspective I think it's way more effective to try to diversify and purchase low-cost high-return effects. To give an example, Uthuk Demon Trap (Saboteur), or Envelop for that matters (Unkindness), are really powerful cards, but then if you compare their effect (doesn't always work or can be pulled out at the time you need, and only targets one hero) against a combination of 1XP cards in my top10 list above, the choice is indeed easier to pick the 1XP cards instead. Saving up XP is problematic as the OL, because it means the heroes just take off and gear up faster than you, which in turn increase the risk for you to lose quests. I personally prefer to invest in cards I can use straight away. One last thing is that purchasing 1XP cards means you can remove more cards from your basic deck. Dead cards in your hand is a real sucker so I don't want these cards to stick around too long.

Soulbinder probably claims a few spots in my Top10. This class is nuts, and it's fun to play too.

Okay, so I got a second reply from Nathan:
 
OK joke aside, the real reply:
  So, surges cannot be soaked up by Uncontrolled Power unless one has been previously assigned to the surge imposed by the quest rules. Phew.

Okay, so I got a second reply from Nathan:
 
OK joke aside, the real reply:
  So, surges cannot be soaked up by Uncontrolled Power unless one has been previously assigned to the surge imposed by the quest rules. Phew.

Okay, so I got a second reply from Nathan:
 
OK joke aside, the real reply:
  So, surges cannot be soaked up by Uncontrolled Power unless one has been previously assigned to the surge imposed by the quest rules. Phew.

Okay, so I got a second reply from Nathan:
 
OK joke aside, the real reply:
  So, surges cannot be soaked up by Uncontrolled Power unless one has been previously assigned to the surge imposed by the quest rules. Phew.

The truth is that IA is badly balanced as I found out on BGG when I discussed my frustration with the game on those boards.
There is a thread on BGG that tracks the win% for all the missions and only 2-3 story missions and a few side-missions (including the introduction) feature a win-loss rate that isn't 2/3s to 1/3. Especailly if the Rebels win the introduction, they have to play 2 story missions that are lost with a chance of around 70%.
Adding to that the IP classes are badly balanced as well. Subversive tactics is said to be the most OP deck, only getting managable in late game (when all your losses probably make winning unlikely) and Military Might, which is also OP, but only really starts to get imbalanced in the latter half of the campaign.
Also BGGers run a few play-by-forums campaigns where people play the missions the 2nd time (meaning the secret information becomes a non-factor there) and it seems to be much closer this way.
 
All in all IA is badly balanced and I think this game shouldn't be recommended for the core-campaign if you don't plan to GM this game (and play the game as intended), as long as there is Descent 2ed. If you want to play a fair game at the first go, you have to pick the least interesting IP class (meaning no choices in IP-classes and basically 2/3s of the IP content being unusable). The story-part of the campaign basically features one excact path that isn't unwinnable for the rebels, yet I even played the hero-favoring finale and won it as the IP in 3 (out of 11) rounds despite gifting the rebels XP and gold as if they won every mission and searched every crate (yes I played also with military might, because I thought only subversive tactics is OP).  So if you respect the design-decision of secret information, this game has practically one fairly balanced playthrough that comes with an finale that is an automatic win for every decent IP, no class-choices for the IP and no second playthrough.
I really don't understand how no review mentions this glaring problem with the game.
 
True and not true.
While there are no natural choke points in IA you can utilise like in De2ed, there are programmed choke-points also known as doors all the time.
Doors can only be opened if a rebel is in the 2 spaces in front of the door. This means the IP places all his units on and near these spaces, requiring the Rebels to kill them. The Rebels can only prey to the dice that they kill the monster with their first action, so they can actually move onto that space before (courtusy of alternating activation) another enemy moves onto the space and the hassle starts again.
True in theory, but in practice there is not much difference.
All the large, massive and super-large monsters in the core set either shouldn't move (the Gunner), don't need to move since they are ranged, or are mobile or massive that lets them freely move through blocked terrain and whatnot. The only melee large creature (Nexu) doesn't only have 8MPs but also an action that let's them count 3 spaces and attack, basically being even easier to navigate than the Descent monsters even with the shrinking rule.