I did get to try out Gloomhaven myself and while there absolutely are certain elements I find interesting, I also have to say that in the end, I prefer Descent Coop.

The Card system did positively remind me of games like Mageknight and thus, I was a bit surprised that in practice, I actually found it rather unsatisfying.
Maybe it is because of the different levels of resolution, but in Gloomhaven, the different cards mostly made me feel annoyed by the degree of "gamyness" they entered into the equation.
While there is a fun part to trying to puzzle out the most effective combinations of actions for your turn while keeping future turns in mind, it adds an amount of restriction that does not feel thematically appropriate.
Descent gives me all those abilities with their fatigue and exhaust limitations and that really feels a lot like a classic RPG. The Gloomhaven cards kinda remind me of how many things in 4th Edition DnD just felt too artificial.
I also  feel that the "running out of cards" adds a sort of timer element that just does not really work well for me.
It reminds me of the first Print on Demand Coop Modules for Descent as opposed to Road to Legend.
On top of that, the looting also ended up being a lot more restrictive than in Descent with its search tokens.

 
When it comes to leveling up, I am also rather reminded of how in Descent, many bemoan that the overlord only gets to add new overlord cards which he only can use so often - or at all.
While Gloomhaven has a card system I do think I like better because it does away with a lot of the "luck of the draw", it has a bit of a similar problem that you do not add as much consistent stuff as you do in Descent.
Of course, other things make up for that to a degree, like adjusting your attack deck, but, still, I am not quite won over there.
...also, I do think Descent is handling things better for NOT having the situation that one character can be out of the game while the others are still playing.
And speaking of that, Gloomhaven really is odd to me in that much unlike Descent, the characters are rather similar in robustness to the monsters. Yes, you can use your cards to avoid damage, something we missed on our first playthrough thanks to the way the rules were structured, but that only exacerbates the issue of running out of cards.
I also am not too much a fan of the restriction of only being able to start with certain characters.
None of the Gloomhaven starting choices really appealed to me that much.
And I am not so sure about the ones that unlock later.

Things like the "consistent changes" in Gloomhaven, stuff that gets unlocked over the playtime regardless of who is playing also are not really that much my thing.
It feels like it is trying to emulate a video game with unlocks in a way I am just not sure I really care for that much in a boardgame.

In the end, there are a lot of really interesting ideas in Gloomhaven and I still would definitely play it, but, whether it is experience of play or the difference in the game, i definitely am having a lot more fun so far playing Descent.
Most of all, I actually really do like the fact that Descent offers the option to play against a human opponent.
Whether Road to Legend or Gloomhaven, playing against the game in the end just is rather "erratic". It is a bit hard to really plan, you are not even supposed to know usually what all the possible monster actions are.
In contrast to that, I can actually try planning my turn in Descent with the possible Overlord actions in mind, so it is just more fun from a strategic point of view.
 
Going forward, I would rather see Descent play to its strength, improve game balance and give us a fair and fun way to play both against a human opponent or together against the app. The current game has its issues, but I do not think games like Gloomhaven are what I would want to see being emulated.
 
 
 

I did get to try out Gloomhaven myself and while there absolutely are certain elements I find interesting, I also have to say that in the end, I prefer Descent Coop.

The Card system did positively remind me of games like Mageknight and thus, I was a bit surprised that in practice, I actually found it rather unsatisfying.
Maybe it is because of the different levels of resolution, but in Gloomhaven, the different cards mostly made me feel annoyed by the degree of "gamyness" they entered into the equation.
While there is a fun part to trying to puzzle out the most effective combinations of actions for your turn while keeping future turns in mind, it adds an amount of restriction that does not feel thematically appropriate.
Descent gives me all those abilities with their fatigue and exhaust limitations and that really feels a lot like a classic RPG. The Gloomhaven cards kinda remind me of how many things in 4th Edition DnD just felt too artificial.
I also  feel that the "running out of cards" adds a sort of timer element that just does not really work well for me.
It reminds me of the first Print on Demand Coop Modules for Descent as opposed to Road to Legend.
On top of that, the looting also ended up being a lot more restrictive than in Descent with its search tokens.

 
When it comes to leveling up, I am also rather reminded of how in Descent, many bemoan that the overlord only gets to add new overlord cards which he only can use so often - or at all.
While Gloomhaven has a card system I do think I like better because it does away with a lot of the "luck of the draw", it has a bit of a similar problem that you do not add as much consistent stuff as you do in Descent.
Of course, other things make up for that to a degree, like adjusting your attack deck, but, still, I am not quite won over there.
...also, I do think Descent is handling things better for NOT having the situation that one character can be out of the game while the others are still playing.
And speaking of that, Gloomhaven really is odd to me in that much unlike Descent, the characters are rather similar in robustness to the monsters. Yes, you can use your cards to avoid damage, something we missed on our first playthrough thanks to the way the rules were structured, but that only exacerbates the issue of running out of cards.
I also am not too much a fan of the restriction of only being able to start with certain characters.
None of the Gloomhaven starting choices really appealed to me that much.
And I am not so sure about the ones that unlock later.

Things like the "consistent changes" in Gloomhaven, stuff that gets unlocked over the playtime regardless of who is playing also are not really that much my thing.
It feels like it is trying to emulate a video game with unlocks in a way I am just not sure I really care for that much in a boardgame.

In the end, there are a lot of really interesting ideas in Gloomhaven and I still would definitely play it, but, whether it is experience of play or the difference in the game, i definitely am having a lot more fun so far playing Descent.
Most of all, I actually really do like the fact that Descent offers the option to play against a human opponent.
Whether Road to Legend or Gloomhaven, playing against the game in the end just is rather "erratic". It is a bit hard to really plan, you are not even supposed to know usually what all the possible monster actions are.
In contrast to that, I can actually try planning my turn in Descent with the possible Overlord actions in mind, so it is just more fun from a strategic point of view.
 
Going forward, I would rather see Descent play to its strength, improve game balance and give us a fair and fun way to play both against a human opponent or together against the app. The current game has its issues, but I do not think games like Gloomhaven are what I would want to see being emulated.
 
 
 

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.
 

'Nuff said.

Yes, I agree.  Also a user-selectable "Save" option would be great. 

I agree too.
It also needs a possibility to pick up the game where it was left.
 
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
Appvalley TutuApp Tweakbox

+1 to all above

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.

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.

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?

I have played this scenario as an Overlord.
Just to get this out of the way first, I so far have an extremely high win ratio, aside from first blood, I only ever lost three and a half scenarios, Acolyte of Saradyn included.
I played it against teo heroes, which may have something to do with it given that especially at the start, the new rules are very generous for the two hero party.
Still, the basic premise should hold with more heroes just the same.
Heroes can easily do a pincer move on the Barghests, goblins have only SLIGHTLY better spawning than First Blood.
My players decided to mostly let the goblins be and they still could easily beat the Barghests, within the time limit (four turns, you cannot gather the fatigue faster).
Pretty much any quest that is set up this way, with the overlord having to last X turns and the heroes having to defeat a monster or such is favouring the heroes.
And no, you cannot say "without fatigue and heroic feats" because those are there precisely for that purpose.
Any competenr hero player will make full use of their resources when the monsters are in their often suboptimal starting positions.
Barghests just do not have the staying power to last long enough unless the heroes play badly.
This is definitely NOT a scenario favouring the overlord.

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.

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.

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.

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... ^^ ;

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.
 
 

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.
 
 

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.
 
 

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.

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

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.

Heroes I would definitely Rank in a Top 5:
 
Mordrok: He has superior stats (14 health without any drawback), his recovery of fatigue is downright broken under the right circumstances (walk him over lava if you need fatigue badly or use other persistent effects to trade health for stamina) and he has a pretty good heroic feat.
 
Elder Mock: We play him with his ability being once per round, instead of once per turn (and by the standard rules, he can make use of each other hero using surge to recover fatigue and such) and he is still insanely powerful with that heroic feat on top.
 
Andira Runehand: Her ability is automatic, you can NOT prevent it unless you use reanimates or skeleton archers, there are many quests where this will hinder your efforts greatly. You can only strike her down first and she is reasonably durable. Her Heroic Feat on the other hand can end up being too unreliable though.
 
Okaluk and Rakash: In quite a lot of cases, he consistently has the equivalent of three actions every turn, his stats, to make up for it by being lackluster, but his heroic feat has been quite greatly improved. The pure advantage in action economy is still amazing.
 
Lindel: While I think that unlike some of the others, Lindel is not unbalanced, he is just so incredibly useful to have. Good stats, no weakness against any type of attribute test making him very flexible and a heroic feat that, while not too powerful, is sometimes great to make sure that an important plan works.
 
With the classes, I think there are a few which are just unbalanced and a few which are just very good:
 
Bard: Very unbalanced, he has a somewhat lackluster starting weapon, but with just a few XP (Concentration and understudy come to mind), he can do incredibly much, he needs a hard counter to balance his power to help up heroes who are knocked down, no other healer has as much fatigue recovery, period, he can just use his most basic skills and support a group to an amazing degree.
 
Treasure Hunter: He gets a starting skill that throws in extra damage better than classes whose starting skill is ALL about that for free, more or less while also being as good at searching as the thief is with extra XP, he has an extremely useful starting weapon and the trinket that will be greatly useful.
...then later, he gets sleight of hand and gets free pierce AND the ability to more easily shift around treasure.
He is not invincible, even without a counter, but just right from the start, he gives you trouble on THREE fronts: High damage, opening blockades and maximizing gold.
 
Apothecary: Good healing, buffing AND damage. Not as broken as the Bard, but definitely a handful, few bad skills (though some are slightly redundant, but stackable in return) and the only healer with a ranged starting weapon that is not that bad.
 
Champion: His buffing potential is pretty great, I think it puts him even above the knight and his charge skill is actually good. Being able to pile up resources between encounters is very valuable since heroes usually lack that option.
 
Shadowwalker: He already starts solidly, but once he gets shadow step, he REALLY gets powerful. Not broken, but the extra damage piles up nicely and the different abilities make a very solid scout, if perhaps a bit lacking in treasure finding.
 
Worst heroes and classes:
 
Spiritspeaker: Useable, but just so much lesser than the other healers. Tempest and Ancestor spirits are good, Energy drain is very solid, but shared pain is much too situational to be ever worth picking, Healing Rain is overpriced and Cloud of Mists can end up backfiring, despite being quite amazing.
 
Berserker: Bad, bad starting skill that does not work together with the good skills and is made completely redundant later, whirlwind is amazing, you will have a very hard time avoiding it, and being able to immobilize is very useful. The Berserker is still usable, but he just should get an upgrade compared to others.
 
I think otherwise, there are not really any classes deserving the nomination. Hexer is, I think, actually rather good if played right, Stalker might be a bit underrated, but I still have to reserve my judgement.
 
Heroes:
 
Grisbane: He gets better the more conditions are introduced, but I fear he still is overshadowed by pretty much every other warrior.
 
Shiver / Dezra: Too few situations where you want to get close to monsters as a mage, but okay when you have something like a rune plate.

Ulma Grimstone: You usually do NOT want the potions, but the other treasure. Reusing fatigue or power potions is useful, but everyone else needs to be adjacent... And her stats are a bit lackluster.
 
Rendiel: You do NOT want to bank on the overlord knocking your friends down, you also quite often, as a healer, do want to use a skill to help people up without using an action...

Jaes the Exile: He is pretty popular with my hero players, but frankly, I think his hero ability is just way too weak. Yes, you can get five stamina with something like mana weave, but pretty much the only worthwile point with him seems to be that he is one of the few mages with decent strength...
There just are too many alternatives to armor that does not work with runes too.

Well, we started with the German version, but it is rather badly done in the sense of changing cards without good reason (Grisbane's Feat makes him lose his defense dice until his next turn, Goblin WItchers can use their ability on any hero, not just cursed ones...), so everything after Trollfens was bought in English.

We do usually just read everything in English, but sometimes translate the rule bits.
 
....and we almost always forget to read out the flavour text in the middle of the scene. ^^ ;
It just is so easy to forget about that.

I have played this scenario as an Overlord.
Just to get this out of the way first, I so far have an extremely high win ratio, aside from first blood, I only ever lost three and a half scenarios, Acolyte of Saradyn included.
I played it against teo heroes, which may have something to do with it given that especially at the start, the new rules are very generous for the two hero party.
Still, the basic premise should hold with more heroes just the same.
Heroes can easily do a pincer move on the Barghests, goblins have only SLIGHTLY better spawning than First Blood.
My players decided to mostly let the goblins be and they still could easily beat the Barghests, within the time limit (four turns, you cannot gather the fatigue faster).
Pretty much any quest that is set up this way, with the overlord having to last X turns and the heroes having to defeat a monster or such is favouring the heroes.
And no, you cannot say "without fatigue and heroic feats" because those are there precisely for that purpose.
Any competenr hero player will make full use of their resources when the monsters are in their often suboptimal starting positions.
Barghests just do not have the staying power to last long enough unless the heroes play badly.
This is definitely NOT a scenario favouring the overlord.

I have played this scenario as an Overlord.
Just to get this out of the way first, I so far have an extremely high win ratio, aside from first blood, I only ever lost three and a half scenarios, Acolyte of Saradyn included.
I played it against teo heroes, which may have something to do with it given that especially at the start, the new rules are very generous for the two hero party.
Still, the basic premise should hold with more heroes just the same.
Heroes can easily do a pincer move on the Barghests, goblins have only SLIGHTLY better spawning than First Blood.
My players decided to mostly let the goblins be and they still could easily beat the Barghests, within the time limit (four turns, you cannot gather the fatigue faster).
Pretty much any quest that is set up this way, with the overlord having to last X turns and the heroes having to defeat a monster or such is favouring the heroes.
And no, you cannot say "without fatigue and heroic feats" because those are there precisely for that purpose.
Any competenr hero player will make full use of their resources when the monsters are in their often suboptimal starting positions.
Barghests just do not have the staying power to last long enough unless the heroes play badly.
This is definitely NOT a scenario favouring the overlord.