I'm hoping for the balance too. There's definitely a quicker ramp-up of power for the heroes. Although it seems to vary from map to map, either the OL or the Heroes can stomp the other.

There have been a few times when one side or the other has won by the skin of their teeth, and those were some of the sweetest moments of gaming I've ever had. In the adventure with the Boss who takes away the hero's ability to use glyphs, both the heroes and the OL had thought they won multiple times before the otherside pulled some trick out of their sleeves. The game literally came down to the reroll of a black die hoping for a damage icon.

I also agree that if the OL usually loses, it's a bad OL (or you're misinterpretting some of the rules). Aside from the first 3 or 4 quests (and the trap quest) of the first book, the OL has a much better than 50% chance to win on the first play.

It would be nice if the game were balanced with less sucker-punch adventure scenarios. It seems like there's always something taken away from the player at a crucial time to make things seem unfair for the players. Not only do these adventures almost guarantee an OL victory the first play through, they feel cheap and unrewarding.

Sythion said:

I second this. Actually I wish that the quests would have more story and mystery in them than in the 1st edition. I think Mansions of Madness has a great system with its adventures and I would love to see something similar in Descent 2.

Cato_the_Elder said:

same here. streamlining to easier rules and to a shorter time like 60-120minutes, so that you have either the choice to play several successive sessions per evening - maybe a minicampaign or changing to a different game. Thats the only chance for me that i will buy D2. I have already too many too complicated games on my shelf.