Ken

I'm looking forward to it!

Monolith could take certain actions that show they endorse the campaign, such as play-testing and promotion. I wouldn't object to that. I also wouldn't object to them printing and shipping it, although I agree with Epaka that the vocal minority have probably ruined that hope.

I like the new chart! I agree with the October deadline. It would be nice to see some action on this.

Sounds good. I know we are turning the whole victory point idea on its head, but I am anxious to see how it plays out. Thanks for doing this. We probably won't hear back from Matt until after Gen Con, though, so any final decisions might be a ways off. I will probably use ompahlos from Mythic Battles Pantheon, but Conan comes with a ton of tokens (rocks, webs, etc.). Maybe we could recommend one of them.

a) I still think legacy loot is enough reward without also granting VP. That being said, your chart seems fine given our current situation. b) Looking at this chart, I think "None" might be too severe for someone who has already lost 4 games and is preparing to go up against someone with extra armor & dice/rerolls. What does everyone think about giving a consolation prize? Like 3 bonus gems instead of "None"?

@Matt John S @Neil Amswych @Primeval @drmauric Here are my thoughts: 1. Since victory points are capped at 4, the heroes probably won't agree unless they lose one of the first two scenarios and they want to try to make up for one. At least it makes for a meaningful decision. Of course, completionists will play the scenario regardless. 2. Speaking of victory points, scenario 2 has the potential to grant the heroes 2 victory points in addition to 2 legacy weapons. Should we consider leaving the VPs at 1 and have the carryover items (or lack thereof) be their own reward? 3. Speaking further of victory points, has anybody tried playtesting under victory point conditions? I pity the player/team who has 0 and goes against a player/team who has 4. 4. I don't want to speak for everyone, so I would also like to hear from Neil, Matt, and Primeval.

@drmauric I have been thinking about this, and here are my thoughts: 1. The scenario looks fun! 2. My scenarios were balanced with the spellbook in play, which is a powerful item. Without it, I think the heroes would have a hard time in the Streets of Khemi, and probably also the Trap. Rather than be stolen and lost for the rest of the campaign, perhaps the spellbook could be damaged and thus permanently reduced to 2 gems instead of 3? This would make later scenarios incrementally harder rather than impossible. 3. I don't see any incentive for the hero players to agree to play this scenario. They have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. To keep the scenario optional, there probably needs to be some carryover rewards for the heroes. Otherwise, the scenario should be required. (If everyone in our DEV team approves.)

I haven't read it yet and I already love it. (Of course, I will withhold judgement until I have read it.) 🙂

@Matt John S It occurred to me that a printed version of this campaign would make a great stretch goal for the next Conan kickstarter (hint, hint). I'd sign a waiver if it was needed.

Glad to hear this. I was getting worried. @Neil Amswych By the way, how would beefing up the sorcerers have affected your playtest? I am still toying with the idea of giving them better spells.

Good catch. Poor Conan has so many things controlling his mind. I will need to clarify in the rules that Atali's enthrallment is not actually mind control like the other spells. This means that: A) Conan CAN be moved away from Atali via possession/mind control. B) Xuthal's Crown does NOT protect Conan from Atali's enthrallment.

I know how: Overturn Rising Sands has your head spinning! 🙂 (BTW - I backed that game on day 1 and dropped on day 2 because of their weaselly behavior and comments.)

@Neil Amswych Thanks for the feedback! I agree, the spellbook is overpowered and makes Hadrathus virtually unkillable. My original scenario did not have it, and I had to tweak the scenario once it got added - including adding a monster that could actually hurt him (the dark demon, who was not in my original scenario). During my playtests, I had Hadrathus teleporting everywhere, killing things and opening chests in the process. My concern is that this would be unbalanced in sessions that don't have Atali. During an early playtest without Atali, all 4 heroes zerged the ODD and would have killed him in round 2 if not for his movement. Even the DD will drop quickly faced against the combined firepower of the heroes...and then it is just a hop skip and a jump to kill Shuang Ming. That being said, I like some of your suggestions (especially beefing up the sorcerers), but I will need to break out the game and have another design session in order to be comfortable making those changes. (Which is tough for me right now with my schedule.)

Noted.

Yikes. This is one of the reasons the players should try for both Xuthal's Crowns.

Atali does not hinder nor harm any hero but Conan. However, the Overlord's units CAN see/interact with her (for example, guards can sacrifice for her).

Battle axe!

@drmauric gave it another play-through and said it was still slightly skewed towards the OL. I just haven't had a chance to tweak it. One of his suggestions was to start Conan with a two handed weapon for better cleaving power. Another was to drop Shuan Mings hit points (perhaps to 4?). If you play this weekend, why don't you try it with these two changes?

No kidding! I hope you are settling in nicely and welcome back to play-testing! Really appreciate your help with this campaign. I agree with @drmauric, they all need testing. I recommend checking out the campaign rules in the Whispers from Stygia PDF, but don't use the scenarios from that PDF. Most of them have been updated since then, but the updates have not made it to the PDF yet.

@Neil Amswych @drmauric I updated the scenario with the following changes: 1. Reduced the life points of both demons to six. 2. Removed a javelin thrower 3. Reduced the reinforcement rate to six 4. Fixed the wording and typo in the Mind Possession text 5. Added the rules for the Medallion of Zhangpau I ended up leaving the crossbow in the chest. Although it is not maximized for any of the heroes, it is a good weapon and could come in situationally useful.

@Neil Amswych I designed this scenario with the intention of making it impossible for either team to win quickly. That is why the sorcerers can only move 2 zones, and why I have the stygian artifact so far away, and the scepter hidden in a chest. But you are right, the easiest way for the OL to win is by killing Hadrathus - so I expect the heroes to protect him at all costs. That being said, here are my suggestions for leveling the balance without making drastic changes: 1. Drop the reinforcement rate to 6. This should help keep the heroes alive. 2. Switch the crossbow to the explosive orb (I like this idea!) 3. Drop the health of the Outer Dark Demon to 6. (Sure he can fly away once, but then he is stuck and can't fly away for another few rounds. And like you said, there is nothing to dredge in the river to speed this up.) I prefer to keep both demons in the scenario if possible, but if this doesn't level the playing field, I could swap the locations of the demons and give the artifact to the Dark Demon (since it is slower). With Ikhmet's armor reduction skill (and possibly even the medallion), I can see him doing serious damage very quickly. What do you think?

Sweet! I'll try to get an updated version posted this weekend.

Good idea. I will clarify the rule with this revised text. They can melee attack another hero, range attack another hero, move, and drop gear. Yes, I think we are. Good catch! Thanks.

@drmauric @Primeval @Neil Amswych @Matt John S Neil, I like you idea. I will update my scenario to include the "If Hadrathus has the spell book...." line and I would encourage everyone to do the same. I will look into adding this to spellbook section of the campaign rules as well.

Good to know! I will definitely have to try these strategies.