Hey guys,

I feel a litte bit ashamed, but after several rounds of Descent I found another question regarding the heroes order of play as I re-read the rulebook for the n-th time.

Do all heroes have to agree to an order of play BEFORE the first hero starts his turn and is this order fixed for the current round? Or do they decide which hero acts next, after every hero turn (so they could see what happened in his turn and can react).

As you may see ... I am asking this question from a (beaten up) Overlord point of view.

Thanks for your help,

SlimShady

Ok ... Just ignore my question... Perhaps I should have read the official FAQ before posting. That would have answered it.

No problem, glad you got your answer.

Which is?

Heroes can decide whenever they want?

Which is?

Heroes can decide whenever they want?

Yes- hero a can go, and then heroes b,c, and d can decide who goes next, etc. They do not need to follow any particular order, just like the OL doesn't need to follow any particular order with his monster groups- just as long as the turns/ activations don't overlap, there is no issue.

Is kinda important to know that, as on the hero's turn, in order to be effective, certain heroes need to take their turns before others given the current situation.

Is kinda important to know that, as on the hero's turn, in order to be effective, certain heroes need to take their turns before others given the current situation.

One of the reasons "Shadow of Doubt" can be such a fun card to play.

Is kinda important to know that, as on the hero's turn, in order to be effective, certain heroes need to take their turns before others given the current situation.

One of the reasons "Shadow of Doubt" can be such a fun card to play.

I understand the "fun" and "annoyance" factor of Shadow of Doubt. What I have yet to understand is the strategic importance of the card.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the theory of controlling the heroes and being able to pick one that is forced to go after all the other heroes on the next turn.

What I haven't been able to find, however, is a situation where this makes a true, strategic difference. My heroes (and I assume this is mostly true for you Zaltyre given our past conversations and the length of time we have both been playing) are very adept at adjusting their strategies, and making the most of a potentially bad situation.

So, despite the fact that I can choose and force one hero to go last, it virtually never makes a true impact, as my heroes adjust accordingly, plan their turns accordingly, and I get very little value out of it, other than just messing with them. Which, of course, is always good.

Now, if the card allowed me to pick the order of the ENTIRE hero turn next turn, I could see some very good possibilities indeed.

So, if you have found some good opportunities for the card that have caused real havoc or have run into real strategic impact, I would love to hear about it.

After all, I am always willing to learn and expand my horizons when it comes to being a truly EVIL OL !!!

Simply put, I would have won "Shadow of Nerekhall" if I had this card.

All heroes had fallen to corruption but one, and the remaining hero had a corruption level of 3. Next turn, his level would have gone to 4, and I would almost certainly have won.

Syndrael was the ONLY hero in range of Mirklace, and had 2 health left. Because of his Aura, she couldn't attack him since she would be defeated.

Mok the bard was stunned (I really, really shoild have immobilized him). Anyway

, he was able to get to Syndrael, heal her 1 wound, and she moved up and killed Mirklace.

IF I had played shadow of doubt and forced Mok to go last, that would not have been possible.

How did he get to her when he was Stunned? He has to spend an Action to clear it.

Nevermind.... Been playing it wrong. It's the little things. Makes me glad I read the forums.

How did he get to her when he was Stunned? He has to spend an Action to clear it.

Nevermind.... Been playing it wrong. It's the little things. Makes me glad I read the forums.

He did take an action to clear it- but because he's the bard his healing works within 3 spaces, and doesn't take an action- that's why I should have immobilized him- he would have been to far away to heal her.

Simply put, I would have won "Shadow of Nerekhall" if I had this card.

All heroes had fallen to corruption but one, and the remaining hero had a corruption level of 3. Next turn, his level would have gone to 4, and I would almost certainly have won.

Syndrael was the ONLY hero in range of Mirklace, and had 2 health left. Because of his Aura, she couldn't attack him since she would be defeated.

Mok the bard was stunned (I really, really shoild have immobilized him). Anyway

, he was able to get to Syndrael, heal her 1 wound, and she moved up and killed Mirklace.

IF I had played shadow of doubt and forced Mok to go last, that would not have been possible.

Interesting scenario. I had thought of one occurrence when it would have been good for me. Actually had 3 heroes knocked down, with one remaining in good health. I suppose if I could have made that hero go last, none of the others would have been able to do anything other than stand up. Would have been great for me !

How did he get to her when he was Stunned? He has to spend an Action to clear it.

Nevermind.... Been playing it wrong. It's the little things. Makes me glad I read the forums.

He did take an action to clear it- but because he's the bard his healing works within 3 spaces, and doesn't take an action- that's why I should have immobilized him- he would have been to far away to heal her.

Yes. Your post just helped me realize I've been playing Stun the wrong way.

Yes. Your post just helped me realize I've been playing Stun the wrong way.

Just out of curiosity, how were you playing it?

Is kinda important to know that, as on the hero's turn, in order to be effective, certain heroes need to take their turns before others given the current situation.

One of the reasons "Shadow of Doubt" can be such a fun card to play.

I understand the "fun" and "annoyance" factor of Shadow of Doubt. What I have yet to understand is the strategic importance of the card.

Don't get me wrong, I understand the theory of controlling the heroes and being able to pick one that is forced to go after all the other heroes on the next turn.

What I haven't been able to find, however, is a situation where this makes a true, strategic difference. My heroes (and I assume this is mostly true for you Zaltyre given our past conversations and the length of time we have both been playing) are very adept at adjusting their strategies, and making the most of a potentially bad situation.

So, despite the fact that I can choose and force one hero to go last, it virtually never makes a true impact, as my heroes adjust accordingly, plan their turns accordingly, and I get very little value out of it, other than just messing with them. Which, of course, is always good.

Now, if the card allowed me to pick the order of the ENTIRE hero turn next turn, I could see some very good possibilities indeed.

So, if you have found some good opportunities for the card that have caused real havoc or have run into real strategic impact, I would love to hear about it.

After all, I am always willing to learn and expand my horizons when it comes to being a truly EVIL OL !!!

It doesn't make a strategic difference, it does however sometimes make a significant tactical one.

Yes. Your post just helped me realize I've been playing Stun the wrong way.

Just out of curiosity, how were you playing it?

I read it as it being the only Action anyone could perform that turn. So basically discard stun, end turn. Now I realize it was just saying that discarding Stun is the only action anything can perform before doing any other actions.

Yes. Your post just helped me realize I've been playing Stun the wrong way.

Just out of curiosity, how were you playing it?

I read it as it being the only Action anyone could perform that turn. So basically discard stun, end turn. Now I realize it was just saying that discarding Stun is the only action anything can perform before doing any other actions.

I red the card like that the first time but then I wonder why an OL would choose a immobilize over stun... This made me re-read both cards to make sure I did not miss something

Yes. Your post just helped me realize I've been playing Stun the wrong way.

Just out of curiosity, how were you playing it?

I read it as it being the only Action anyone could perform that turn. So basically discard stun, end turn. Now I realize it was just saying that discarding Stun is the only action anything can perform before doing any other actions.

I red the card like that the first time but then I wonder why an OL would choose a immobilize over stun... This made me re-read both cards to make sure I did not miss something

I read it that way as well too at first, because I understood there was no particular reason that one condition shouldn't be better than another. It's simply poorly written. It should instead say "The character cannot take any other action until he spends one action ending the stun." It could also say "The character loses his next action."

While I can see how it is interpreted that way sometimes by mistake, I think as-written it's pretty precise if you look at it.

While you have the card, the only action you can perform is the action on the card. So you perform the action, and discard the card. You've still only used one action, and now with the card gone you are free to use the other action however you want

Again, I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but I think it does mean exactly what it says, when read carefully.

Just my opinion, anyway. I think it's written perfectly for what it actually does!

While I can see how it is interpreted that way sometimes by mistake, I think as-written it's pretty precise if you look at it.

While you have the card, the only action you can perform is the action on the card. So you perform the action, and discard the card. You've still only used one action, and now with the card gone you are free to use the other action however you want

Again, I can see how it could be misinterpreted, but I think it does mean exactly what it says, when read carefully.

Just my opinion, anyway. I think it's written perfectly for what it actually does!

It is true that the card explain the rule exactly has it is but so far we are 3 out of 4 that misinterpret the card after the first read.

This usually mean that it should have been written differently to ease comprehension.

I'm not sure I agree that 3 people misinterpreting it means anything - the sample size is far too small to draw any viable conclusions.

But no matter how they word it, people will misinterpret it in one way or another. I don't think there's a ruleset in existence for a game with any degree of complexity that doesn't have rules questions of some kind, even when the rule is clear when read carefully. Often, rules questions come up because people second-guess the literal reading and wonder if it really meant something else (which is fair, because there are many cases where a rule does NOT mean what it says literally, and unfortunately FFG has a past reputation for that at times, although I think in more recent games this has diminished significantly).

True, this is why I only stated that in the current discussion 3 out of 4 had misinterpret the card on first read. (this is only a fact)

My intention was not to generalize only to state that fact and add that when people misinterpret a sentence, it may mean that it should have been written differently.

I completely agree with you that in this case the card says literally what the rule is.

To be honest, me and my group also misinterpreted it the first few times. Only after a hero just kept stunning Splig round after round we all figured that that didn't seem like something that should be possible.