Not to turn this into a meme topic, but alternately:
 

Both of the posters who asked for my examples of "better" co-op games got a PM. I figure the specifics are off-topic. The point is that (again, in my opinion) taking the OL out of Descent takes away the very thing that sets it apart, similar to what you alluded to, Indalecio.
That being said, there's nothing wrong with Road to Legend. It's fun to play, I just don't know if it would be my first choice to hit the table in that genre.

When someone alludes to a better game, but refuses to divulge its title, I automatically assume its an amazing game with some incredibly intricate and interesting mechanics wrapped in a deeply embarrassing theme. 8}

Such as any game, because Descent is not a dungeon crawler anyway.
It's the same discussion again, i.e. what you define as being a dungeon crawler. Some people think it's the exploration (Descent has none of that, at least in that edition), some people think it's the random monsters spawning, etc.
But I don't think it really matters. The point is that Descent (standard play) is the game it is because of the OL mechanism. Not many games with that type of asymetry can be said to be good. To be honest Descent is quite the pinacle of that category (even topping Imperial Assault). Therefore if you fall into the more standard co-operative play (which the app does), then you hit a huge concurrence of really good (and modern) games. What games exactly depends on the definition of what you are looking for.

Such as any game, because Descent is not a dungeon crawler anyway.
It's the same discussion again, i.e. what you define as being a dungeon crawler. Some people think it's the exploration (Descent has none of that, at least in that edition), some people think it's the random monsters spawning, etc.
But I don't think it really matters. The point is that Descent (standard play) is the game it is because of the OL mechanism. Not many games with that type of asymetry can be said to be good. To be honest Descent is quite the pinacle of that category (even topping Imperial Assault). Therefore if you fall into the more standard co-operative play (which the app does), then you hit a huge concurrence of really good (and modern) games. What games exactly depends on the definition of what you are looking for.

That actually brought up a good idea.
Play the Apothecary Class. Everytime you give a player an elixer token, also give them a shot (of something, could be alcohol, doesn't have to be.)
Could be a fun way of keeping your players around.

If you're the type to be competitive to the point you get upset when things don't go your way, play cooperatively with the app. If you're not, I truly feel like standard Descent offers a better experience. You need the right group of people to play with an OL, but (in my opinion) the OL mechanic is what makes Descent special. In all honesty, there are better (and truer) dungeon crawlers. There are better cooperative games. The Overlord/hero dynamic that Descent offers is something relatively unique, and I really like the way FFG does it. To me, that's the heart of this game- the app will just never have that.
What the app offers is a way to play Descent without that dynamic, and with a few other tweaks. The biggest benefits of the app (in my opinion) are that you can play it alone or with friends (whereas standard Descent requires at least 2 people) and that the competitive element is removed for groups who can't (or don't like to) have a human Overlord. 
 
The good news is that the base app (and first campaign, Kindred Fire) are free so you can always change your mode of play. Play the standard intro, First blood. Play the intro campaign in the app- see which feel you like better.

Question is legitimate.
Common sense says your speed should be 3. Everything else is intellectual masturbation. Nobody with some sanity would consider your speed being 2, unless your overlord was a jackass.

You can absolutely give Python a graphical interface if that's the way you want to go. I have developed a full application for Descent working on Windows using Tkinter and py2exe. You can also make it an app on Android using Kivy, which I've also done in a different project. Obviously you can also port that on to the iOS if you're willing to pay the absurd fee Apple require.
The website approach is probably the simplest one by far, though.
Plus graphs could be tricky to render properly, although I have never tried that. There are powerful libraries handling it in Python, if you're willing to dig into this.

You can absolutely give Python a graphical interface if that's the way you want to go. I have developed a full application for Descent working on Windows using Tkinter and py2exe. You can also make it an app on Android using Kivy, which I've also done in a different project. Obviously you can also port that on to the iOS if you're willing to pay the absurd fee Apple require.
The website approach is probably the simplest one by far, though.
Plus graphs could be tricky to render properly, although I have never tried that. There are powerful libraries handling it in Python, if you're willing to dig into this.

I'll figure it out I guess, the option you suggested is not really an option without becoming even more tedious than you think.
Somehow, from all the exceptions in this expansion, I think someone from FFG also uses the site and said to himself "what if.. we add as many special exceptions into this expansion as possible!!"

Me too.I´m having a hard time thinking that somebody who really disliked HoB for balance reasons would like any of the other campaigns, tbh.
I hope to be wrong, and I really don't want to judge anybody on anything, but it's very likely that somebody has had a bad experience of the campaign, or at least some of the quests in it, and therefore the campaign sucks overall, following that logic. I will preface my future response to this explanation by warning that some players have expressed or left the impression that people should have the core expectation that the game should be just balanced at all levels, quest, campaign included. Now we can pretty much agree that people really don't want to start a new quest thinking they have no chance of winning it, obviously. Truth is, you can win ANY quest, but the variance in difficulty will always vary between the two extremes. Why? Because the heroes have one configuration, itself being the combination of many factors, and the overlord also has his/her own configuration. Access to a monster monster type can make a quest much easier. Access to a specific shop item can also make some quests a lot easier. The array of possibilities is what is balanced in this game. You lack AoE effects? Buy Blast effects. You are vulnerable to a particular ability? Go around it or buy an item that makes you stronger against it. The list goes on.
It's an asymetrical game, so you can never really quantify balance or fairness between the sides at instant T of a given campaign. The tools for the job for each side are radically different. You can of course quantify the number of wins and losses, but you cannot ev en compare Hero XP with Overlord XP. It really has no equivalence.
So yeah, the game is NOT balanced in that regards. It is a game of affecting the scales, at all times, really. It's a game of ping-pong, I buy an OL card to be better at something, then the heroes buy cards to be better at defending themselves against it. Heroes buy crazy weapons, then I use a specific monster type against it due to immunity to some of this power creep.
More often than not quests look balanced once you´ve gone through the quest objectives and the players (including the overlord) are positioning themselves. Some few quests feel unbalanced, because an earlier decision or purchase made the quest lean towards one side rather than the other. That's part of the game.
Then you can lose badly on a dice roll. Or a card draw. That sucks. But that's luck. Just be prepared for these situations where you think you can pull off something and fail miserably at it based on sheer bad luck.
EDIT: updated my text to get rid of the ridiculous "variance will invariably vary"

Me too.I´m having a hard time thinking that somebody who really disliked HoB for balance reasons would like any of the other campaigns, tbh.
I hope to be wrong, and I really don't want to judge anybody on anything, but it's very likely that somebody has had a bad experience of the campaign, or at least some of the quests in it, and therefore the campaign sucks overall, following that logic. I will preface my future response to this explanation by warning that some players have expressed or left the impression that people should have the core expectation that the game should be just balanced at all levels, quest, campaign included. Now we can pretty much agree that people really don't want to start a new quest thinking they have no chance of winning it, obviously. Truth is, you can win ANY quest, but the variance in difficulty will always vary between the two extremes. Why? Because the heroes have one configuration, itself being the combination of many factors, and the overlord also has his/her own configuration. Access to a monster monster type can make a quest much easier. Access to a specific shop item can also make some quests a lot easier. The array of possibilities is what is balanced in this game. You lack AoE effects? Buy Blast effects. You are vulnerable to a particular ability? Go around it or buy an item that makes you stronger against it. The list goes on.
It's an asymetrical game, so you can never really quantify balance or fairness between the sides at instant T of a given campaign. The tools for the job for each side are radically different. You can of course quantify the number of wins and losses, but you cannot ev en compare Hero XP with Overlord XP. It really has no equivalence.
So yeah, the game is NOT balanced in that regards. It is a game of affecting the scales, at all times, really. It's a game of ping-pong, I buy an OL card to be better at something, then the heroes buy cards to be better at defending themselves against it. Heroes buy crazy weapons, then I use a specific monster type against it due to immunity to some of this power creep.
More often than not quests look balanced once you´ve gone through the quest objectives and the players (including the overlord) are positioning themselves. Some few quests feel unbalanced, because an earlier decision or purchase made the quest lean towards one side rather than the other. That's part of the game.
Then you can lose badly on a dice roll. Or a card draw. That sucks. But that's luck. Just be prepared for these situations where you think you can pull off something and fail miserably at it based on sheer bad luck.
EDIT: updated my text to get rid of the ridiculous "variance will invariably vary"

Plz don't forget to do this.
 
So far I've read only very positive opinions about HoB, I'm very interested to hear reasons why people don't enjoy this campaign.

Did you add the new relics? I think there's one (Robes of something) with the same name for the overlord and the heroes.

The non-app stuff is also campaign-play.

These **** Hybrid Classes are giving me a headache :/

The problem is in this environment tools like that don't get created in the first place. Why spend the time and effort on something that can be shut down at any time?

It looks like since Asmodee aquired FFG, the policy around the use of company property for the intent of making fan-based tools or applications has been severily restricted. From what I could gather, not even the use of cards scan is allowed anymore. It used to be that such practice would be allowed at the price of lower picture resolution, to prevent people from getting high-res printed cards without the need to get the expansions. At least this is the reason being given, but it remains very controvertial in my opinion.

What I find controvertial is the fact sales are normally not affected by content leaking on the internet, for trivial things like rules or cards. Instead, it is a general trend I have been observing, that players would find that material on the internet (say a set of class cards from an expansion), find it interesting, and then buy the expansion just for that. I don't really believe in players fully proxy-ing games to play them, given the level of effort such thing would represent. I don't either think many players out there enjoy playing a game with vastly sub-par components made on the fly just to avoid the cost of buying a copy of the core game. I also believe most board gamers with our level of investment care about game publishers, or their FLGS and don't hesitate to purchase a game or an expansion for a product line they love.

People normally make fan-based content based on one or several of the following reasons:
1- New quests, new heroes, new items, new teams. Templates are easily found on the geek, free for people to photoshop out a few cards for their own personal use. FFG does not currently provide templates - although one could argue you can easily remove the text off a card and use the rest as a template - . The Quest Vault is, as everybody knows, but a shadow of what it could have become with the support of FFG.
2- Wikis, cards lists, card scans. These are primarly used for reference, mainly to illustrate rules questions, strategy guides (which are highly valued by the community, but FFG does not post such articles bar for X-Wing or some of the Star Wars games) and balance discussions. FFG currently doesn't allow the use of cards, nor does provide any API or even raw text reference of what the cards say. Heck, they are not even considering printing updated card text content based on errata information. You need to compile this information yourself.
3- Applications, or advanced tools (can be just an Excel sheet), to keep track of things. FFG really does leave this task to the players as for how to organize their campaigns, therefore such tools naturally emerged from the community to automate some of the quite tedious steps of campaign handling. It's also about speeding up the preparation time before actual play, to be honest.
 
Below is an email I got from FFG's legal department. I post it to showcase the actual phrasing in it.
 

I´m a bit concerned by this, because it showcases a decision not to let the fans expand on the game on any level whatsoever. It's hard to keep the community tight with strict restrictions like these. I'm guessing this has no impact on existing fan-based content that has already been released, but I have to say not being able to distribute game-aids or tools to the dedicated hardcore fanbase of that game feels a little harsh and almost punitive. The users of these tools are not only the player base of that game, but also people that are so dedicated to the game so they are actively searching for this kind of material, which is normally free. What damage this does to the company is still unclear to me.

What is your view regarding legal property in conjunction with the use of fan-based content?

It looks like since Asmodee aquired FFG, the policy around the use of company property for the intent of making fan-based tools or applications has been severily restricted. From what I could gather, not even the use of cards scan is allowed anymore. It used to be that such practice would be allowed at the price of lower picture resolution, to prevent people from getting high-res printed cards without the need to get the expansions. At least this is the reason being given, but it remains very controvertial in my opinion.

What I find controvertial is the fact sales are normally not affected by content leaking on the internet, for trivial things like rules or cards. Instead, it is a general trend I have been observing, that players would find that material on the internet (say a set of class cards from an expansion), find it interesting, and then buy the expansion just for that. I don't really believe in players fully proxy-ing games to play them, given the level of effort such thing would represent. I don't either think many players out there enjoy playing a game with vastly sub-par components made on the fly just to avoid the cost of buying a copy of the core game. I also believe most board gamers with our level of investment care about game publishers, or their FLGS and don't hesitate to purchase a game or an expansion for a product line they love.

People normally make fan-based content based on one or several of the following reasons:
1- New quests, new heroes, new items, new teams. Templates are easily found on the geek, free for people to photoshop out a few cards for their own personal use. FFG does not currently provide templates - although one could argue you can easily remove the text off a card and use the rest as a template - . The Quest Vault is, as everybody knows, but a shadow of what it could have become with the support of FFG.
2- Wikis, cards lists, card scans. These are primarly used for reference, mainly to illustrate rules questions, strategy guides (which are highly valued by the community, but FFG does not post such articles bar for X-Wing or some of the Star Wars games) and balance discussions. FFG currently doesn't allow the use of cards, nor does provide any API or even raw text reference of what the cards say. Heck, they are not even considering printing updated card text content based on errata information. You need to compile this information yourself.
3- Applications, or advanced tools (can be just an Excel sheet), to keep track of things. FFG really does leave this task to the players as for how to organize their campaigns, therefore such tools naturally emerged from the community to automate some of the quite tedious steps of campaign handling. It's also about speeding up the preparation time before actual play, to be honest.
 
Below is an email I got from FFG's legal department. I post it to showcase the actual phrasing in it.
 

I´m a bit concerned by this, because it showcases a decision not to let the fans expand on the game on any level whatsoever. It's hard to keep the community tight with strict restrictions like these. I'm guessing this has no impact on existing fan-based content that has already been released, but I have to say not being able to distribute game-aids or tools to the dedicated hardcore fanbase of that game feels a little harsh and almost punitive. The users of these tools are not only the player base of that game, but also people that are so dedicated to the game so they are actively searching for this kind of material, which is normally free. What damage this does to the company is still unclear to me.

What is your view regarding legal property in conjunction with the use of fan-based content?

It looks like since Asmodee aquired FFG, the policy around the use of company property for the intent of making fan-based tools or applications has been severily restricted. From what I could gather, not even the use of cards scan is allowed anymore. It used to be that such practice would be allowed at the price of lower picture resolution, to prevent people from getting high-res printed cards without the need to get the expansions. At least this is the reason being given, but it remains very controvertial in my opinion.

What I find controvertial is the fact sales are normally not affected by content leaking on the internet, for trivial things like rules or cards. Instead, it is a general trend I have been observing, that players would find that material on the internet (say a set of class cards from an expansion), find it interesting, and then buy the expansion just for that. I don't really believe in players fully proxy-ing games to play them, given the level of effort such thing would represent. I don't either think many players out there enjoy playing a game with vastly sub-par components made on the fly just to avoid the cost of buying a copy of the core game. I also believe most board gamers with our level of investment care about game publishers, or their FLGS and don't hesitate to purchase a game or an expansion for a product line they love.

People normally make fan-based content based on one or several of the following reasons:
1- New quests, new heroes, new items, new teams. Templates are easily found on the geek, free for people to photoshop out a few cards for their own personal use. FFG does not currently provide templates - although one could argue you can easily remove the text off a card and use the rest as a template - . The Quest Vault is, as everybody knows, but a shadow of what it could have become with the support of FFG.
2- Wikis, cards lists, card scans. These are primarly used for reference, mainly to illustrate rules questions, strategy guides (which are highly valued by the community, but FFG does not post such articles bar for X-Wing or some of the Star Wars games) and balance discussions. FFG currently doesn't allow the use of cards, nor does provide any API or even raw text reference of what the cards say. Heck, they are not even considering printing updated card text content based on errata information. You need to compile this information yourself.
3- Applications, or advanced tools (can be just an Excel sheet), to keep track of things. FFG really does leave this task to the players as for how to organize their campaigns, therefore such tools naturally emerged from the community to automate some of the quite tedious steps of campaign handling. It's also about speeding up the preparation time before actual play, to be honest.
 
Below is an email I got from FFG's legal department. I post it to showcase the actual phrasing in it.
 

I´m a bit concerned by this, because it showcases a decision not to let the fans expand on the game on any level whatsoever. It's hard to keep the community tight with strict restrictions like these. I'm guessing this has no impact on existing fan-based content that has already been released, but I have to say not being able to distribute game-aids or tools to the dedicated hardcore fanbase of that game feels a little harsh and almost punitive. The users of these tools are not only the player base of that game, but also people that are so dedicated to the game so they are actively searching for this kind of material, which is normally free. What damage this does to the company is still unclear to me.

What is your view regarding legal property in conjunction with the use of fan-based content?

And accept the consequences of house ruling a game mechanic that has specifically designed a particular way.

The additional black dice is only granted to the target of the attack, and it only works against Melee attacks without Reach. So additional figures affected by the attack due to AoE effects wouldn't get the extra dice. Hope that helps
 
EDIT: To be clear, these additional figures you want to include in your AoE attack are NOT targets. They are only AFFECTED by the attack. The target is the one figure you attack. Only that figure is entitled to get the extra black dice if the right conditions are met. Note some special attacks have multiple targets. In that case each target would potentially benefit from the extra black dice.