Jump to content

Unknown X

Members
  • Content Count

    59
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Unknown X

  1. Absolutely! It seems to me that there is a misguided focus on trying to avoid possibilities of the players to "cheat". And that is completely missing the point that the entire game is build around the idea that players roll for monsters, make decisions for monsters and control many things. The game trusts you on fairly reporting your attribute rolls, on keeping track of monster health and so forth. If people want to cheat or cheese things, they can. So instead of trying to avoid that possibility, just focus on ensuring a smooth play experience. Nothing is as frustrating as having the game force a misclick or such on you.
  2. I am rather pissed about this change. We had to stop in the city because one player had to leave and we were all getting tired and I quit the game in the expectation that we could pick up where we left, shopping for items. We now will be wasting one week to get new items and NOTHING IN THE GAME tells you this is the case. If you make a change like that, maybe it would be advisable to make some clear indication? Sorry, but since the game already depends on trusting the players to be honest, there seems no valid justification to implement such a "balancing feature". Players can cheat anyway, so please rather focus on avoiding unwanted hangups like that where people get stuck!
  3. From what I have seen from people posting card text, the Elementalist should have immediately gone back to the drawing board simply based on the fact that he gets TWO starting skills, both of which outperform the starting skills of other heroes. Yes, they exhaust and thus are a bit less strong in one way than those skills that can be used multiple times or offer a passive bonus, but in return, they can get 1-3 pierce, 1-3 damage or 1-3 spaces of movement right at the start. Tide at least can be countered through positioning, but in return, it is pretty great in the app where it gets to damage multiple enemies without the usual nerf to multi target attacks. And the skills you get make it only get worse while having little cost in terms of actions and fatigue. Pretty much the sole weakness of this class is the fact that you want to spend 2 to 4 fatigue per turn, but that honestly is not too much of a problem given how many other heroes and classes offer fatigue recovery options. I think we already have too many unbalanced options in this game...
  4. A) Big monsters with their more powerful attacks are actually rather good in a game where heroes can boost their defenses to much more easily shrug off attacks from weak monsters. Overlord cards boosting single attacks or giving an extra attack with one monster make this even more a factor. One more attack with a shadow dragon with flame breath is devastating, one more attack with even a master goblin archer is not even close to that. B) Reinforcement usually completely favors big monsters to a degree that would reverse any imbalance in favor of large group sizes. C) High defenses actually are a significant deal. A hero with relatively weak attacks can still reliably defeat a goblin archer but might do no damage at all against a double gray or single black defense die monster. On top of that, many heroes actually get reliable options to attack multiple monsters at once. You may be able to use positioning to avoid blast, but try doing the same when it is whirlwind or anything else that gives you more freedom to target different monsters. There are also many hero skills that trigger upon defeating a monster and those are a lot better against large groups of weak monsters. So if anything, we need to help large monster groups with reinforcement. And yes, I would absolutely support rebalancing heroes and monsters in general. It does not really matter whether you can "still win against them", the problem is that many monsters, heroes or classes just outperform others without drawbacks. I rather get tired of always seeing the bard or always seeing Andira runehand, Elder Mok and similar or fielding the xth group of bandits, Hybrid sentinels or Giants. It is okay if certain classes or monsters are a bit specific to certain situations, like Razor wings for quests where it is about moving tokens or geomancers being great in some maps but not so great in others, but please do not give us stuff that is just plainly better than the alternative or so strong you would not want to go without.
  5. Official it sure is then, I still think it is a pretty bad way to handle it, both for the reason the in other instances, multi target / affected figure attacks get treated as one event for triggers and for balance reasons. Getting +1 damage under specific circumstances tends to be a very typical hero ability for heroes with relatively balanced stats, we get Brother Gherinn as another healer with that for example but also Heroes like Steelhorn or others are an example. It is very rare to have a need to position heroes that far apart that Andira's ability does not apply, so it tends to be 1 damage per monster attack without any way to avoid it safe for not attacking at all - which is usually not an option. Even though that damage is out of your own control, it tends to be a lot more extra damage than for other heroes with damage enhancing abilities. ...say, how come it is (at least without the conversion kit) almost always the healers who are a bit on the too strong side? Honestly, I think I may just as well remove the Hero and Monster Packs with the troublesome components, since it is pretty rare for any single pack to come with enough heroes and monsters that would be sorely missed. Why that interpretation? It seems really weird to imagine that a blast stops hitting other figures. I also do not think there is any oprecedent for an attack being aborted during the deal damage step for any reason. You effectively add something to an already rather strong ability. Why?
  6. Are you sure about this? Blast and other such attacks are all resolved simultaneously, you roll defense and attack dice simultaneously, I do not think there is a separate damage step. Also, we have a parallel case with Ancestor spirits. This is a card that is exhausted on the condition that monster(s) suffer damage through a class skill. It treats this necessarily as one single trigger. I think if you can on the one hand trigger a skill in reaction to several figures suffering damage simultaneously, it seems a bit weird if you would then treat each hero suffering damage as a separate triggering event for a similar thing. It says each time, if I am correct, I do not think those are two separate "times" for this to apply separately. 5. Deal Damage : Any damage not canceled by defense dice or other effects is applied to each affected figure. This is also one single step in the rules, so I think this is completely simultaneous. I honestly do not think it makes sense to have this be handled this way if Ancestor spirit and similar abilities all treat it as one triggering condition.
  7. My experience is that heroes will usually play extremely competitively. And that is the point of the game. It is not a Pen and Paper RPG and honestly I think that is exactly what makes it fun. Do not get me wrong, I play a lot of Pen and Paper RPGs, but combat tends to just be rather boring in comparison. It is usually much more focused on your build than your execution and I do feel that Descent manages better to make it interesting how you choose to execute your abilities, both as heroes and overlord. You can decide your turn order and carefully set up a great chain of attacks, you have a lot of tactical resources as opposed to the more strategic resources of most Pen and Paper gaming (where it is more about saving uses of your limited abilities and not like descent where there is the ebb and flow of fatigue, exhaustions and card draws in a single encounter) and that is fun. ...but you do not roleplay in combat here. The story and flair is for the narration that is mostly before and after. So you should do everything to defeat the heroes when they do everything to defeat you. The Overlord can do extremely brutal combos, you end up getting to choose tons of interesting monsters and if you want a persistent upgrade: Buy one Plotdeck with abilities that do not cost you threat to activate! Belthir allows you to power plotcards by discarding a trap instead, this makes you much more versatile. Valyndra allows you to power up all big monsters permanently, even though it is costly (but +1 damage on all attacks is very nice!). Trystaine Olliven gets three cards which do not cost threat, all of them focused on master monsters, one to get extra surges but risk the monster being defeated if you do not do damage, one to suffer damage to increase the power of an attack and one to activate a master monster during another groups activation. And all the Mists of Bilehall decks have a nice zero cost aility as well. The Infector and Enchanter decks as well as the Servants provide overlord cards that stay in play (though most of them still need to be drawn). There are a number of things that make the Overlord a lot more fun. And while the base set alone may be a bit less rewarding, you still get to choose a good number of solid monsters which can be used to good effect to make it harder for the heroes. Merriods can immobilize at range and completely shut down melee heroes, Shadow Dragons are actually very nicely defensive early on (if you do not have a strong ranged attacker, you will not have an easy time damaging them), Fleshmoulders can make big monsters last longer, Barghests can shut down fatigue based abilities at critical moments, etc. If you are willing to play as a competitive Overlord, you will easily completely shut down your heroes.
  8. While I think the wording indeed gives more credence to each turn being available, I think Elder Mok is still much too strong that way. Compare for example Quellen and Elder Mok. Both have the same 4; 10; 4; grey spread. Both have a recovery ability. Both are relatively easy to trigger (healing, which healers do almost every round and being near to a hero with fatigue, which is also very common). Now Quellen gets to potentially recover two fatigue, but with a much less easily achievable condition (a hero being completely fatigued), but Mok gets to choose whether he recovers life OR Stamina, which of course is very useful. You could also take the heroic feats into consideration for this of course. I think though it would be hard to make a case that Mok looses out here so much that he deserves a much stronger ability. There are very few things that mess with the Overlord's hand of cards, Mok gets to both see all of them AND discard one. And Elder Mok has a very easy time getting his ability to trigger several times. He can trigger it once when he heals another hero (only really hampered by occasionally healing himself) and each time a hero close to him rests, recovers fatigue through a surge or uses any other ability that allows him to recover life or fatigue. All of this really adds up. And with things like the Bard's ability, it gets even crazier, as it could now be two fatigue recovered each time he triggers it. Granted this is more a problem of the Bard just being a bit too strong, but I think Mok should not get this amount of recovery on top of a very strong heroic feat. With how some Healer classes work, I think it would be most balanced to have his ability working once per round (only on his turn just makes the apothecary an unworkable pick), but once every round is making him considerably stronger and I really, really do not like Heroes or monsters being made so good that other options are no longer worth picking. The more balanced things are, the more interesting choices you have. I would rather see all sorts of heroes being played than having Elder Mok being the healer in almost every game played (and that is not because he just is someone's personal favourite).
  9. The thing with Jorem Tolk... He is a very special case... Because he counts as neither hero nor monster, there is actually a lot of stuff you cannot do to him, including monster abilities and overlord cards (aside from those that specifically deal with attacks)... I really do not like the quest with him because of how confusing and weird those rules are... I am thinking if I shall make some houserules for my own games to upgrade Magus (Both the Word of... Cards also need a buff), I am just not quite sure yet how it should work... The issue is that it is non trivial to make them better but not end up also having to change a lot of other cards like Explosive runes...
  10. And this is why Rune of the Phoenix rather makes Rise Again from the Magus deck redundant... It is extremely useful in any Boss Monster scenario to the point that it shifts the difficulty of any such quest quite a lot. It makes me really wish they would errata the Magus Cards, because it is overall one of the weakest decks in the game... ^^ ;
  11. I want the following: 1) A hero collection with the remaining 12 heroes and maybe some hybrid classes. We have had content more or less purely for the overlord, so this should be fine as well. 2) A small box expansion with a healer and a mage and some more exotic location like ice and snow, desert environments or a tropical jungle, with monsters that fit the theme and an interesting new overlord class, maybe one focused more on persistent boni like the enchanter. 3) A final big box expansion with a seafaring campaign, adding the remaining hybrid classes and possibly experimenting with some interesting permutations to the base system that, unlike the tainted cards, can be used with more of the existing content.
  12. Best class decks, I would say Labyrinth of Ruin. Labyrinth of Ruin has a very good healer, the apothecary, who gets to provide "mini potions" that can be stored for later use, he can remove conditions, buff heroes and he also is a prety good attacker. The Beastmaster is actually the kind of "better necromancer" to a degree. A warrior with a wolf familiar, which is more mobile and can support heroes close to him. The wolf does not have the multi target capacities of the Necromancer though, so it is not like he is better in every regard. Though it is the only other hero class that behaves pretty much like the Necromancer. The Treasurehunter is very strong, almost too strong. He is the best scout in terms of searching and he has a very high single target damage output. Some of his skills depend on him keeping all the search cards for himself though, which is pretty much his only rather minor flaw. The Hexer is interesting, a mage focussing on cursing the monsters with disadvantageous effects, but this makes him slower than heroes like the Runemaster. I still would say that he is at least as good as the other two non core mage classes. Shadows of Nerekhall is a pretty close second though. The Bard is possibly the best healer of them all, the Shadow Walker is also very strong (my favourite scout class), though I would say the Skirmisher (pretty much a more speed and finesse versus strength and endurance focussed version of the Berserker, specializing in fighting with two melee weapons) and the COnjurer (a mage that uses illusionary doubles) are okay but more average. I would say, Shadows of Nerekhall is better overall, so I would maybe recommend it more.
  13. I think Mists of Bilehall and Chains that Rust are pretty good, despite the lack of extra heroes, for the very different campaign style it brings. If you want something more focused on the overlord trying to defeat the heroes instead of racing for objectives, it really fills a niche. Hybrid classes are also very nice to give you extra options and the monsters are interesting and useful, though very focused in terms of theme. Though I would say Nerekhall, which also offers a slightly different campaign style with some secret information (with some interesting guessing games when it comes to strategy) is likely the best for more campaign material. Plus, Nerekhall has good heroes, a nice new overlord class, okay monsters (though let me be frank: none of them are regular favourites outside their mandatory missions in our group, so I would not say that they are outstanding) and quite some interesting items. In terms of small boxes, I would say Manor of Ravens is by far the best for the overlord. Both new monsters are really good, it has two very strong and relatively unique overlord classes and a fun, though maybe a bit too overlord leaning mini campaign. I think Marshall in return can be a rather strong class, but NOT one for new players. If you do not know what you are doing with the Marshall, you may very well end up wasting your potential and fail to actually hinder the overlord at all, which is the big focus of this class. Bounty hunter seems okay to me, but I have not seen him in action properly... I think Labyrinth of Ruin is a bit lackluster for the overlord (None of the monsters is really that outstanding, the Arachyura is pretty close to the Merriod, better in some cases, worse in others, the Carrion Drake mostly seems to be good for being a slightly tougher monster for fulfilling objectives and carrying tokens with its five speed and flying and lackluster attackpower while the Goblin Witchers are highly depended on whether Curse is actually useful against the heroes and mostly shine when they can be paired with some other monster which allows the overlord to actually make propr use of their ability to move heroes), Basic II is interesting, but not really that big of a factor and I think the campaign is not really that well balanced, with missions like Fury of the Tempest being extremely slanted. The allies are interesting, but they can easily fall behind in power and can only be used here... The hero classes are almost all pretty strong though (Logan lashley is the only Hero though which is really popular, it seems), with only the Hexer not being seen as above average. Trollfens selling point are mainly the relatively good infector deck and the new classes, the monsters are weak and the campaign tends to be too easy for the heroes. Lair of the Wyrm has the great hybrid sentinels, the interesting but maybe overshadowed punisher deck, two solid heroes and classes, but a mini campaign / rumors that are the least balanced and thought out. Hero and monster packs honestly are a matter of taste, they do not offer as much content as other products, but they are very nice to round out options.
  14. Hmmmh, it does not sound then though like Balance was a problem there. Unless the finale somehow was totally onesided, this actually sounds like a good case in favor for acceptable balance. Hmmmh, you say heroes are too strong but at the first matches, the overlord seems to be pretty strong already? This, confuses me a bit... may there be an issue of the overlords just going too easy on the heroes at the start and then never really recovering? But even the base game plot decks are rather good. Belthir adds a lot of versatility and enhances already strong cards, the Baron is often said to be one of the strongest decks (but I think he has few if any zero cost cards, so maybe he is less good for beginners at least). I think the newer ones are overall more powerful though, at least in terms of zero cost powers. Erh, which class do you mean by "hunter"? Given that it is onefist (a warrior), i think beatsmaster could be the only class that at least somewhat fits. I assume you are not playing this in English? Though it does not sound like it is all about optimal teams then. Frankly, I think your overlords are doing something wrong if heroes can both exploit mobility AND kill the monsters quickly. There are a good couple of tough monsters which the heroes should take a good while to kill. Furthermore, the monsters should usually be placed so that heroes can maybe quickly decimate one group, but not more than that (and then they should be low on fatigue). Other monster groups should get to do hit and run tactics or otherwise force the heroes to expend the resources to get to them. You should be able to quickly defeat heroes as well and ideally make them waste actions and have even less fatigue. There are many monsters which, with the right cards, can wipe out an entire party if everyone is already a bit weakened (Hybrid sentinel targeting a low strength hero with critical blow and dark might can potentially do 7.77 damage on average to up to four heroes). This to me sounds like how a friend of mine plays the overlord, he rarely saves up cards for big combos and he throws monsters into the fray too quickly and positions them so that they can often be defeated way too quickly. Of course sometimes you can just have bad luck, but if it is that consistent, it really sounds like you may not be using what you have to it's best effect.
  15. I think it is very hard to make any community fix when there is a split where half of the community seems to think the heroes are to strong and half that it is the overlord... I have a few questions too. First, do you use plot decks? They tend to give the overlord a definite edge (unless he uses them unwisely like spending threat tokens for an inconsequential effect while the heroes make optimal use of their tokens received) and there are some which allow effects that are not based on giving the heroes tokens (Belthir allows to trade trap card for Plot deck effects, Valyndra has Guardian of the horde which gives a damage boost to all of the four and six square monsters, Trytsan Oliven lets master monsters do a couple of things without using threat, etc.), which are very good in my opinion. Secondly, do you see certain classes always being picked? Is there for example always a treasurehunter or bard in the group? Some hero classes just are a bit too good in comparison with the rest, as are some heroes (Elder Mok is still way stronger than heroes with comparable abilities for example) and maybe the solution is to houserule those classes (maybe weaken the treasurehunter's base skills damage bonus and/or that of sleight of hand or limit some of his search deck manipulation, or make it so that the bard's song tokens get discarded when he is knocked out to avoid some of the stuff a bard can do) instead of any general change to either side that would affect every class or hero equally. Are there any consistent factors in the heroes "steamrolling"? Is it that they always get lots of equipment? I can definitely say that this makes a big difference. Do the heroes use any particular tactics that the overlord is not able to stop? If so, maybe we can share advice on how some of us deal with it. Which number of heroes do you tend to use? There are at least some people who believe that this makes a significant difference, personally, I find it hard to make a verdict on whether four or three heroes is better for the hero players since one more goblin archer or even barghest are very different in terms of balance from one more shadow dragon or giant (and one more card in the starting hand can honestly sometimes make a significantly big difference too, since you will get the card you really need earlier for sure). Did you finish all of the campaigns? I ask this one mostly because I see a lot of people quitting early when the game turns onesided and this may preclude any possible turning of the tide later in the campaign.
  16. Yes, this case is perfectly clear. Though to be fair, it usually is a very bad idea to split the group, so teleporting one hero through an obstacle the others cannot pass is usually a pretty bad idea. So ideally, you should just take this as a chance to pummel the hero and have no one be able to help him / her up, though that of course requires that the hero in question does not stay next to the portcullis where they would still be in reach of healing and helping up.
  17. I disagree there, for the same reason Frenzy, which reads " Play this card when activating a monster during your turn. That monster may perform an additional attack action this turn in addition to its normal 2 actions. " does not need to be played at the start of a monster's actviation. It does not say "when you choose a hexed monster as the target of your attack", it says targeting, as opposed to an attack that just affects a monster (like monsters adjacent to the target for blast, etc.). For example, plague cloud explicitly says " Perform an attack with a Magic weapon. This attack targets each hexed monster in your line of sight and ignores range. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Before rolling dice for the attack, each monster adjacent to you is hexed. " to be in accord with this. I targeting and such is a bit too vague I think to be sufficent and I am rather certain that it is exactly the intention of the timing to make this clear.
  18. This "before surges are spend" thing is mainly there to ensure that you cannot use the extra damage on the initial attack. Hex Tokens get placed through spending a surge, they must be used before surges are spent, thus explicitly excluding any chance of using tokens on the initial attack. Spending hex tokens of course does not require any surges
  19. I think the best you can do there is make sure that you kill many monsters before they get to do damage. Alas, if you do not have good weapons, that is going to be hard. Both Runemaster and Berserker get a skill for an extra surge. This can make both of them deal rather well with high defense big monsters. Do keep in mind that at the start of Act II, you are at a disadvantage. The overlord just received an upgrade while the heroes will not have act II gear for the first quest and not much of it for the second. If you get bad items, you will suffer for it. But even in the base game, there are rather strong weapons for act II and those kill monsters fast - and dead monsters deal no damage. Honestly though, my impression is that it really boils down to gold. When heroes get lots of items, they become really strong and steamroll the overlord, when they get few items, they loose much more often. I think if a game is that one sided, it might be a good idea to give some extra gold to compensate (or in the reverse case, cut the gold supply down a bit).
  20. I think making three more Hero and Monster collections with nine new monster groups total would be not that great an idea. We already have a bit of an issue with monster overlap, I would rather see them save monster designs for new full expansions and put all the remaining heroes in one box. Or maybe bundle it up with something else. I usually feel like we have a very nice selection of monsters to use. I could maybe see a new basic deck for the overlord to balance things out though. ...or maybe bundle it with a campaign that features heroes on the other side? It might be fun to make a campaign that was all about heroes facing other heroes. I just think making nine more monsters would most likely be better spend on a thematic expansion. We could still have desert terrain, jungle, ocean or maybe one that focused on natural caverns opposed to the focus on buildings and each of those would need monsters that complement that atmosphere, like fishmen and seamonsters for an ocean campaign. In short, I would like to see one big box of heroes with maybe an extra thing for the overlord best.
  21. The thing is, long range ranged attacks are not that much of a factor in many Descent games. Yes, Goblins have surges for range, but those are surges they will not be spending on damage. Most importantly, none of the big groups (Zombies and cave spiders as well as Shades) do blue and red either. So even if you value range very highly, Bandits still overshadow the other monsters in their "class". More importantly, Bandits have an extremely powerful combo by using the master first to doom a hero and then have all minions attack him. This also makes it much easier to use Pillage. They are extremely powerful just on their own. And the math in Descent DOES make it. See, you can have wild swings of luck. You might have monsters constantly dealing low damage or some other times heroes rolling very highly. When it comes to damage, math trumps playtesting to a degree, because unless you do a high number of repetitions, playtesting for such things as damage or survivability are not necessarily representative. I have had shadow dragons or giants last through multiple turns while decimating the heroes, I also have seen both fall in one turn. And luck has played quite a role in that. So you have to look at the actual math to judge this, a few lucky or unlucky runs of the game do not make a solid case. I can show you that Medusas, unless facing heroes who are clearly above average in defense, consistently are able to inflict conditons. They have a 70% chance on a non-miss to roll a surge and against a grey die would do 1,43 damage on average and a chance of 75.56% to at least do one damage. So without any effort to boost it, you have a pretty good chance to immobilize (or in the case of the master stun) a hero, which will potentially leave him unable to do anything useful (including attacking the medusa, if it is a melee hero who does not, yet, have a skill to negate the restrictions of immobilize). I have seen this play out in game. Yes, certain parties will counter this with higher defense or good defense boosts that can be used when needed, but any monster can be countered. Big monsters with high defense get demolished by weapons with pierce, reanimates and other swarm monsters can be decimated with blast, heroes with high attributes can make certain conditions less useful, etc. But balance must be based on the overall range of opponents. Plus, what does it solve in the end, when Medusas turn from primary condition inflicters to mostly damage dealers with the exception of the master?
  22. I am sorry, you are now complaining that things do not come from play? I have used bandits, I have faced bandits, quite a lot of times and if you honestly can say that, I have to doubt if you ever did. yellow versus red is a difference in average range of 4.67 versus 4, you have fifty percent chance to roll any range at all on yellow, it is not really that great a difference for consistent attacking. Whether it is Blue+Yellow or Blue+Red, you always try to get as close as you can afford and ranged is still always better than melee as you only gain options. Have you ever checked the damage output of the other groups with a size of 4+1? None of them have a red power die. Most of them also are very fragile when they have ranged options (fire imps and goblins). Could you for example ever think of a scenario, where you would put something like a cavespider even on the same footing as a bandit? I have used Medusas multiple times to great effect, especially with the enchanter deck to boost damage and thus make sure they almost always are able to immobilize. Ranged immobilize is extremely deadly unless you ave a lot of heroes who can ignore it (anyone with skills that let you move freely, like Berserker, Champion or certain heroes). And your solution is to make Medusa Minions much worse (no immobilize) while making the master too good against a lot of heroes. Also, whether you tested this or not is a bit beside the point. I do not know your group, I cannot access any of that. I and anyone else can only go by our play experience and the pure numbers. I can easily say what would have happened with a Medusa as you made them in scenarios where they were used. I can also apply this to other cases. And I am saying that those big changes without even a real explanation are of no great use to others. I would indeed have to playtest or extensively theorize on many of those, simply because they are so very different, that experience so far does not apply, they are for all intents and purpose closer to fan made classes than any normal fix. And when you give the reason that you see them as "too similar" to another class, that does not really make a good case for the balancing either. And sorry, if you say " I've explained, but most of you didn't read what I wrote. ", but your responses are something like " and it's stupid that medusaes do not do what they are intended to : petrify, but only the master do this now. ", then how exactly do you expect this to be taken? I have explained to you why my experience indicates that your replies are insufficient, I am showing you why on average, Medusas do a fine job inflicting conditions on heroes and why the existing cards, many of which are generally strong (Dragon Bone pendant is a card that is worth taking even if you do not use enchanter), already do address the problems that can arise when heroes get better at defending. I would rather say that you apparently do not read or address my points. But fine, if you think that valid criticism is somehow a reason to act dismissive or insulted, it is your right to do so.
  23. Bandits have blue and red dice (save for the master, who makes up for it with other boni), 4/5 health, normal speed, range, can inflict poison (or poison and doom) and also are able to take away search items, something no other monster can do, which can seriously mess with the heroes. Please look at other monsters with their group size, unless you desperately need one of the things they are good at, Bandits are always better. Bandits even compare rather well to groups like fleshmoulders or sorcerers. Their combination of high numbers, high damage and survivability (the brown die does not matter as much as their high life points which make one shotting them hard) and sopecial abilities is brutal. My problem with beastmen is that they now wopuld pretty much outperform Volucrix reavers easily. The boost is a bit too strong, especially given that they already have a solid ability in command. Yes, they fall as easily as most monsters of their group size, but you can still make use of ravage, unless you send them straight at the heroes without any backup at all. If nothing else, their ravage ability forces the heroes to deal with them or flee from them, and that is rather good on its own. Also, I completely disagree on Medusas. They roll an average of 2.77 damage, an average hero has 1.33 (grey dice), 2 (grey and brown) or 2.17 (black) shields. You have a pretty good chance to immobilize at range and then you can leave many heroes unable to do anything but rest on their turn, which is extremely powerful. The added stun only makes it better. If you use any card to boost medusa damage, they are downright terrifying even against well armored heroes. I really dislike that one because it can hurt some heroes really badly and on the other hand makes medusas loose any unique flavor in a two player game. I just feel like you do not foresee how far many of this changes can affect balance and just having big changes for style reasons (medusas should petrify, treasure hunter and thief should be more different) seems bad to me. Just nerfing some of the treasure hunter abilities and maybe boosting some of the thief should really be enough to make him viable. Maybe loosen the restriction on dirty tricks and boost Lucky (permanent defense bonus would be a start) and such and nerf the starting skill of the treasure hunter and maybe sleight of hand to get them on more even footing. I generally prefer cards to remain what they are and not have them, change too much. It makes it just too much work to figure out the balance.
  24. I am definitely in favor of having a collection of rebalancing fixes, but I have to say that I think you make many of them way too different and I cannot yet say if that the results are balanced. Some changes, like those for the Spirit speaker, seem very reasonable and the kind of minor adjustments I think are necessary. But many monsters have completely new abilities now which I am not at all sure are balanced (beastmen seem a tad bit too strong as now the can, with high frequency, move AND attack twice, Medusas can now shut down a hero for way too long in some cases, etc.) and same goes for other cards. And no addressing some candidates desperately in need for balancing? Nothing on Bandits (I think they need to have one less minion in their group limits)? No fix for the bard (like making song tokens be removed from cards when he is knocked out, after all, if you go to the ground, you rather have to start from scratch with playing a song)? It is very hard to have any kind of consensus on such big changes as you do in many cases, why not some minor ones which can be more easily reasoned for? I think hardly anyone would object to the buffs for Grisbane or the Spirit Speaker, but I could really not see the thief finding approval in a whole group of players which all will have to be convinced of such a change. I would really rather see some small but sensible tweaks than all those big changes.
  25. I alas could not find the Special Effects, but if I encounter them next, I shall take care to write them down immediately so that I can point to the exact wording that confused me. I ran througjh a couple of "pretend runs" of the Delve to get a number of different monster groups, but every one I encountered indeed was worded perfectly clearly. But as a general rule, the special effects would be read (and if applicable executed) first and any effect that is "immediate" would happen exactly once before any of the monsters are activated, correct?
×
×
  • Create New...