Probably this thread should be on the "gameplay" section, but since it's my first one I'm apparently not allowed to post there just yet. I've been playing for a week and a half now, and 5 days into the game I came up with the hypothesis that the Monster's faction is broken (as in, overpowered). Now, 5 days later, having kept track of the Leaderboards, I noticed that on the top 10 players global, 8 of them main Monsters. Sure, they have good synergy, as most other factions, but it's the base value from some cards that are just plain wrong. For example, the Rotfiend (4 health, 5 provision cost, deathwish: deal 4 damage to a random enemy), and the Bridge Troll (same but gives +4 to highest ally). Most bronze cards have about the same raw victory points in their kit (health + what they do on their own), with many others having a +-1 balance, which depends on being able to capitalize on circumstances, and a few one's that have a negative balance of about -2/-3, but the longer they stay within the board, the better they make up for it . Despite this standard of card balance, Rotfiend and Bridge Troll both defy this. If "consume" and "trigger a deathwish" effects didint exist, perhaps then they wouldn't be overpowered. But considering how easy it is for players to abuse the deathwish effect, having bronze cards that in a single turn can make 8 victory points worth out of 5 provision cost (not taking into account that they could easily be killing something worthy, and not just dealing 4 damage worth of victory points), these two cards are clearly out of line. This of course doesn't mean that the Monster's faction is unbeatable, obviously there are cards and decks that are strong against this type of deck (mostly Nilfgaard who have a lot of disruption cards), but they are still stronger than they should be. For anyone who might care, this is not a week and a half worth of game analysis. It's 15 years worth of game analysing, being put in practice on this game I've only recently started to play.