After talking with several people on these forums/ in our own game group about how useful it could be to have a definition of terms for Descent, I made one. It's hosted on BGG here . If there are terms that you think need adding/changing, please let me know! Enjoy!

EDIT: Version 2.1 has posted on BGG. Enjoy!

It has come to my attention that some pdf applications don't properly display the bold text. If you are having this issue, open (or print) the pdf using chrome's plugin. Everything seems to display fine there.

Looking forward to reading this. As you know, I have been a big advocate of FFG creating an appendix called Definition of Terms .

If they won't do it, I hope those of us who are active on this site and play the game, can all work together to expand Zaltyre's start to make a good reference tool.

It would be especially helpful that we define the terms not based on how we think it should be, but based on FFG's definitions (RAW, FAQ, Unofficial FAQ, etc.).

Here's the fundamental problem with an endeavor like this (which I fully support, and intend to check out/assist with.) FFG doesn't use terms consistently. While there are undoubtedly many places where this would be helpful - and it'll be a great resource for new players - there will be some places where there's just no 'right' answer. For example, the "normal defense pool" question that came up here the other day.

But as I said, I strongly support the idea, and obviously agree that this is something FFG should have done already. (And they should actually start using it themselves.)

Edit - I just looked at this, Zaltyre... I thought it would be something wiki-like. Doesn't BGG have the ability to create wikis within the site? Is that something you might like to do? I feel like that would be a more useful format (and make it easier for people to help you) than a static PDF.

Looking at it, I feel like you're using circular definitions for at least some things - the first entries my eyes fell on were "block movement" and "block LOS", and you're not actually giving definitions. You're giving some rules explanation, which is also useful, but not necessarily what you described as the purpose of what you're doing. If I don't know how to understand if something blocks movement or not, the block movement entry doesn't help me.

Figure is another good example. There's a LOT of confusion about figures, what they are, what they do, what counts as a figure, etc. I might structure it like this - and please note that I'm just writing text, I have no idea if what I'm putting down as "rules" is even vaguely accurate. This is purely a recto.

Figure - Figures can represent many things, including characters, monsters, familiars, and allies. A figure blocks line of site and enemy movement. When the rules say something "counts as a figure", they mean those two specific things - blocking LOS and enemy movement - and that that thing can be affected by cards which say they do something to figures.

Does that make sense?

I have read the document and think it is a good start. I need time to consider other terms that I personally think should be added, but off of the top of my head, and since this comes up almost every time I play with beginners (and sometimes even experienced players):

What is a "monster"? Is a Hero that is Dark Charmed a "monster". Is a Lieutenant a "monster"?

What is a "NPC" and/or Ally? Is it a Hero? Is it a Monster? Is it a Figure? What r to rules/actions/cards etc. apply to them, can be used for/against them?

What is a familiar? Is it a Hero? Is it a Monster? What rules/actions/cards etc. apply to them, can be used for/against them?

One other thing ... somewhat similar to what amoshias above stated ... I think we need to order the document in such a way that terms defined early on get built on for terms that come later. In other words, if you define LOS early, and then define blocking LOS later. Each successive entry (for those related) should build on the ones before.

[moved to first post]

Edit - I just looked at this, Zaltyre... I thought it would be something wiki-like. Doesn't BGG have the ability to create wikis within the site? Is that something you might like to do? I feel like that would be a more useful format (and make it easier for people to help you) than a static PDF.

Looking at it, I feel like you're using circular definitions for at least some things - the first entries my eyes fell on were "block movement" and "block LOS", and you're not actually giving definitions. You're giving some rules explanation, which is also useful, but not necessarily what you described as the purpose of what you're doing. If I don't know how to understand if something blocks movement or not, the block movement entry doesn't help me.

Figure is another good example. There's a LOT of confusion about figures, what they are, what they do, what counts as a figure, etc. I might structure it like this - and please note that I'm just writing text, I have no idea if what I'm putting down as "rules" is even vaguely accurate. This is purely a recto.

Figure - Figures can represent many things, including characters, monsters, familiars, and allies. A figure blocks line of site and enemy movement. When the rules say something "counts as a figure", they mean those two specific things - blocking LOS and enemy movement - and that that thing can be affected by cards which say they do something to figures.

Does that make sense?

I went with a pdf just as a starting point- if it turns into a wiki sometime, that's fine.

Regarding your rules suggestions, yes, this makes sense. For "blocked movement" and "blocked LOS," I tried to define them in terms of activity. Earlier in the document, I defined a "path" as a series of adjacent spaces. For "block movement," I tried to say that when moving, that path can't include any spaces that "block movement." For LOS, I said that if you're tracing a LOS, that line can't go through any spaces which "block LOS." That is, I defined it more from a stance of "ok, the rules say this space 'blocks movement'. What does that mean? Oh, that we can't move from space A to space B via that space."

However, I like what you're suggesting. The definitions could definitely be structured differently- like I said, this is just a starting point, and it's more from a functional rules perspective. Thanks for the input.

I really love this document. Excellent work. Hopefully FFG starts paying attention and using their terms consistently in a way that coincides with prior rulings...

There are plenty of questions which arose for me reading through this. One in particular however relates to the Tripwire card.

According to your definition, a "Move Action" is simply the act of adding movement points equal to your speed to the "Movement Pool". A consequence of this is that a figure may say, "I'm performing a move action", without actually moving their figure. This is similar to how characters like Brother Glyr start with 2 MP at the beginning of their activations through their Heroic Ability.

Additionally, the act of "performing a Move Action" persists only until the figure interrupts the action with another action, or ends its activation.

Let me quote the Tripwire card here for convenience:

Play this card when a hero enters an empty space during a move action. He tests Observation. If he fails, he must end his move action (he can still suffer fatigue to move further, or perform a second move action if this was his first action).

Problem #1:

By the given definitions, the Tripwire doesn't work. Say a Hero declares a Move Action, then moves one space. He is then hit by a Tripwire and fails the test. The card says his move action ends, but this means nothing, as he already received the MP. Since the act of spending MP does not require a move action to be in progress, the hero is free to continue moving as if he was never hit by any trap.

Problem #2:

Lets say we have bypassed problem #1 somehow. For example, lets say that Tripwire not only ends the move action, but removes all MP from the user's pool. In this case, an exploit remains.

Here is one example:

A hero wants to move up to his speed, but suspects the Overlord has a Tripwire. So during his activation he first performs a Move Action to add MP up to his speed. Note he hasn't actually left his square yet. Now he wants to end the state he's suffering from called "performing a move action", so he interrupts his move action by performing a Rest action. Since interrupting a move action with a different action ends the Move Action, he is now no longer "performing a move action", but still has unspent MP.

The hero then happily moves up to his speed, and the Overlord is no longer allowed to play the Tripwire, as it requires that the hero move into an empty space "during a move action".

Any thoughts on these? To my knowledge, this card has not been updated by official errata, nor discussed in the unofficial BGG FAQ.

#1) I'm pretty sure (though honestly, I've never seen this spelled out in a ruling) that Tripwire takes away the remaining MP granted by that move action. So, let's say a hero's speed is 4, and he moves 2 spaces after taking a move action, and then the OL plays Tripwire. If he fails he must end his move action. This means 2 things:

1) That hero can't trade items or do anything else that is done "during a move action," because he's no longer performing a move action- this I'm sure about.

2) I think (again, I need to find this in writing somewhere) that those remaining 2 MP gained from the move action would be lost. To me, this is implied by the clarification that the hero can suffer fatigue to "move further"- there would be no need for that sentence if the hero could move out the rest of his movement action. I don't see any indication that Tripwire zeroes the entire MP pool- though maybe it does.

#2) Interrupting the move action doesn't end it. I didn't clarify that point well enough. If a hero "interrupts" a move action by performing a rest action, once the rest action is complete (and it doesn't actually take any time since nothing happens with the rest action until the end of the hero's turn) the move action resumes. I should word the bit about "a move action ending if another action is performed" bit better. How about:

Move action: Increases the MP in a figure's MP pool by an amount equal to its Speed. Once performed, a move action is considered to be “in progress” (except while interrupted) until all of the MP gained by it are spent and the figure performs another action, or the figure’s activation ends, whichever comes first.

I agree, that your definition probably describes move action as clearly as it gets. With this definition in relation with the wording on the tripwire card, tripwire does indeed remove all stored movement points no matter the origin. It does not prevent the targeted hero from gaining additional movement points through skills, fatigue or this nasty treasure hunter compass.

I found a ruling in the Descent 1.4 FAQ which lends credence to what Zaltyre and Funkfried are saying and could form the basis for another new term definition.

Q: Can a figure interrupt its move action to perform another move action,
and if so, how are the spaces moved through during the first and second move
action differentiated (and what happens if a card instructs you to “end your
move action”)? How do the players differentiate between spaces that were
moved through due to an action and spaces that were moved through due to
suffering fatigue?
A: When a figure performs a move action, that figure receives a number
of movement points equal to his Speed. A figure can interrupt its move
action to perform an additional move action, which gives that figure
additional movement points. There is no need to differentiate the two
move actions because they are both move actions. If a card instructs you
to end your move action and that figure performed two move actions,
then both actions end and that figure loses all unspent movement points.
However, if a hero player wishes to suffer fatigue to gain movement
points in the middle of a move action, he must declare exactly when he is
suffering the fatigue within the move action and which spaces he moves
into with those additional movement points.

This seems to me like information which can be added to the glossary of terms. In other words, the term "ending a move action" also includes emptying out ALL unspent movement points, regardless of their origin.

This brings me to:

Problem #3:

Lets say that its Brother Glyr's turn. Brother Glyr starts out with 2 MP in his movement pool at the start of his turn. Brother Glyr then performs a Move Action, adding 2 additional MP to his movement. He then moves 3 squares. On the 3rd square, the Overlord decides to Tripwire him. Can he do so? Technically, Brother Glyr could argue that he spent the first 2 movement points as his "move action movement points". Once he spent all of his "move action movement points", his move action has already ended, and the third movement was now done outside of a move action.

However, this seems very clumsy, as the hero has to keep track of exactly what the origin of his points are and exactly which points he is spending with each square of his movement.

I would propose the following: Since ending a move action empties out all movement points, it would seem to me that once MP is added to your pool, there is no distinction between whether it comes from hero abilities, move actions, stamina, Elven Boots, etc. etc.

Thus I would say the following would clear up any remaining confusion: "If during a hero's activation a move action is performed to add movement points to the movement pool, then the hero is considered to be 'performing a move action' until his movement pool reaches 0 , or his activation ends."

I think this is the least complicated way to do it without having to go into detail about tracking MP origins, which sucks.

Finally, one thing which can be added as per a different FAQ ruling is that if movement points are given to you outside of your turn (e.g. First Strike + Running Shot) then you must spend them immediately upon earning them. The moment the turn of the other player resumes, the movement pool is emptied again.

Thus I would say the following would clear up any remaining confusion: "If during a hero's activation a move action is performed to add movement points to the movement pool, then the hero is considered to be 'performing a move action' until his movement pool reaches 0 , or his activation ends."

Finally, one thing which can be added as per a different FAQ ruling is that if movement points are given to you outside of your turn (e.g. First Strike + Running Shot) then you must spend them immediately upon earning them. The moment the turn of the other player resumes, the movement pool is emptied again.

Sounds easy to grasp. I would support that formulation.

Thus I would say the following would clear up any remaining confusion: "If during a hero's activation a move action is performed to add movement points to the movement pool, then the hero is considered to be 'performing a move action' until his movement pool reaches 0 , or his activation ends."

Finally, one thing which can be added as per a different FAQ ruling is that if movement points are given to you outside of your turn (e.g. First Strike + Running Shot) then you must spend them immediately upon earning them. The moment the turn of the other player resumes, the movement pool is emptied again.

Sounds easy to grasp. I would support that formulation.

Yes- that may definitely become a house rule. As I understand it, Steve-o has already come up with a very nicely streamlined MP system.

Regarding the FAQ and RAW, though, it's true- Tripwire does seem to zero the movement pool, just like Immobilized, the difference being you can still get new MP after being Tripwired. Also, regarding Brother Glyr, (again, RAW,) he would have to specify which spaces he moved into using those starting MP (just like if he had gained them from fatigue.) Sure, it's a little complex to keep track of which MP are spent on what, but honestly a hero almost never has more than 10 MP, and usually no more than 4 or 5- so it's not that bad.

It's very definitely in the unofficial FAQ somewhere that MP gained outside your turn must be spent immediately, or they go away- that is, your MP pool always remains empty when it's not your turn- nothing can be stored.

Just an update, version 1.1 has posted to BGG (see first post for link.) This includes a few term clarifications, as well as a new section: Object Classifications.

Just an update, version 1.1 has posted to BGG (see first post for link.) This includes a few term clarifications, as well as a new section: Object Classifications.

Wow ... you are making great progress. I appreciate your willingness to accept feedback, and incorporate it into the document as appropriate.

One more comment. I just read v1.1. My only feedback at the moment (pending another re-read), specifically concerns the "Ally" section. I think it may be prudent to mention in some manor that hero allies can be corrupted, and thus end up under the control of the OL. Obviously, this changes things as to what is a friendly figure, an enemy figure, etc.

Just an update, version 1.1 has posted to BGG (see first post for link.) This includes a few term clarifications, as well as a new section: Object Classifications.

Wow ... you are making great progress. I appreciate your willingness to accept feedback, and incorporate it into the document as appropriate.

One more comment. I just read v1.1. My only feedback at the moment (pending another re-read), specifically concerns the "Ally" section. I think it may be prudent to mention in some manor that hero allies can be corrupted, and thus end up under the control of the OL. Obviously, this changes things as to what is a friendly figure, an enemy figure, etc.

Valid point - I didn't think of it since once an ally becomes corrupted (such as in Fountain of Insight) it ceases to be an ally, and becomes a lieutenant. Could definitely put that in v 1.2. Also, I realized I forgot a punctuation mark. Damage dealt.

EDIT: The thing about the ally might not be true until encounter 2. I haven't recently read that quest.

I am less concerned about the timing of when the corruption occurs versus the fact that it CAN occur. As currently written, the implication is that an Ally is always on the Heroes side.

Version 1.2 is up on BGG, including an object classification chart to go with the definitions for the more visual thinkers.

EDIT: Had brain malfunction. Was thinking of D1e, not D2e. Nothing to see here.

Version 2.0 has posted on BGG! I've updated several of the terms, and changed some things, including the layout of the document in general, hopefully making it easier to read.

I have also added a Counting Spaces example, which shows how to count spaces through terrain, monsters, etc.

Enjoy!

Zaltyre, I cannot download your latest file, V_2_0.pdf from BGG. I get an Adobe error "The file is damaged and could not be repaired." I can successfully load V_1_2.pdf. I have Adobe Reader 8.3.1, which I think is the latest version. Anyone else have trouble, or is it just me?

Zaltyre, I cannot download your latest file, V_2_0.pdf from BGG. I get an Adobe error "The file is damaged and could not be repaired." I can successfully load V_1_2.pdf. I have Adobe Reader 8.3.1, which I think is the latest version. Anyone else have trouble, or is it just me?

There's been 70something downloads of the latest version so far, and I haven't heard any other complaints. It may just be you, but thank you for letting me know. I'll PM you the glossary.

2.0 download worked for me

Zaltyre, I cannot download your latest file, V_2_0.pdf from BGG. I get an Adobe error "The file is damaged and could not be repaired." I can successfully load V_1_2.pdf. I have Adobe Reader 8.3.1, which I think is the latest version. Anyone else have trouble, or is it just me?

Perhaps you are running a different OS than I am (64-bit Win 7), but the current version for Win and MAC OS is XI 11.0.10.

As any2cards is suggesting,

you should upgrade Adobe Reader to version 11.0.10 (latest).

Let us know if it helped!