The card reads:

Leaders

. . . Blaze is a Master Hellhound with 8 extra wounds, 2 extra armor, and an extra Aura 1. Any hero hit by Blaze's attack suffers two burn tokens instead of one.

Clearly, this is a misprint since no hellhound, at any campaign level, has burn. I even checked Vanilla. Do you guys ignore the burn aspect, or do you say that the heroes get a burn token? It reads as if the developers intended master hellhounds to have burn. I played it as if they received one Burn token. Since it's Fire and Ice and the other leader deals Frost, I decided that they should get burned! I am curious how everyone else plays.

One other thing. The Special rules concerning this level indicate that a hero has to roll a red die when it ends his/her movement on the ice area of the map. The hero then moves a number of spaces in the same direction he/she was traveling equal to the rolled range. How do you guys play the diagonal movement into a wall? For instance, there is a glyph around a corner and right next to it is a pit. I have played it that eventhough I end on the glyph and end up moving diagonally because of a die roll, I hit the wall and stay on the glyph, as opposed to hitting the wall and sliding into the pit..

WW
WGPW
WEEEEW

W - wall

E - empty space

G - glyph

P - pit

We played the same way as you in both cases.

Except that I avoided the ice problem by coming in at 90 degrees instead of diagonal. Only because I had enough movement to do so. We already discussed it and decided to stop when hitting the wall regardless though.

Blaze still deals 2 burn tokens. I don't think the text meant to imply that Master Hellhounds normally deal 1 burn token. Rather, the Burn ability itself (which Blaze has) normally is the thing that only deals 1 token. With Blaze, they wanted it to deal 2, above and beyond the normal capabilities of Burn.

Karui_Kage said:

+1

Karui_Kage said:

Except that Blaze does not actually have Burn ability. If he did, then it would be clear.

There is some evidence that Hellhounds did originally have Burn in a pre-release rules edition. They do not now, and Blaze is not listed as having Burn.

So, it seems the sentence in question is adding an extra Burn token (effectively Burn1 becomes Burn 2). SInce the Burn 1 does not exist (effectively Burn 0) adding an extra Burn token gives you Burn 1.
That is above and beyond the normal Burn capability of Blaze (or any other Master Hellhound).

In the event of him missing Burn from his abilities, I would still rule in favor of the two Burn tokens. I think it is easier to believe that the error is in leaving "Burn" off of his special abilities, instead of the error being the entire sentence that he gets two burn tokens instead of one.

Also, this is Road to Legend, not some earlier version. I'm sure by the time they wrote it they knew that Hell Hounds lacked Burn, and this was intended to give it back (with the 2 burn tokens) specifically to Blaze.

Karui_Kage said:

If they merely left Burn off his special abilities then all they didn't need the sentence at all. By the time RtL came around it was a well established precedent that abilities that could stack (including Burn) would simply get a number. Burn 2 would have been sufficient to add to the abilities and the sentence would have been entirely unnecessary.

Thus, I am equally sure the writer was not only looking at an older version of Hellhounds that had burn, but was still mentally in that version as well.
It is by now a well established precedent that Burn (with 2 burn tokens) would simply be called Burn 2 . That would have been much easier to write as well, but when Descent was first released abilities such as Burn didn't clearly (or often have much ability to) stack. Pierce was practically unique I think.

And if you think that the writer was automatically up to date with current rules just becuase he was working on RtL then I have a couple of dozen bridges to sell you!

I would disagree that there was a precedent set for all abilities. Some abilities sure, like Aura and Fear, but others like Burn only ever added one token.

In any case, my point is just that they felt the need to write out a sentence explaining that Blaze should give 2 burn tokens instead of 1. Regardless of whether or not Blaze got 1 as written on his abilities, they still obviously intended for him to give 2 out.