This just turned Tomble Burrowell and Tinashi the Wanderer from good to crazy good, imo - at least if you're playing against an overlord that likes his traps, like I do.

Sorry to jump in the thread from nowhere...

But just to be sure I understand :

- For Tomble Ok it's removed and comes back from nowhere the next turn...

- But for Tinashi unless I didn't understand ... she gains nothing.. as it's stays on the map and the OL can always play his card.. no?

Tricky one, I would argue that Tinashi doesn't go 'off the map' but does a movement. I think it is bad writing. The reason I believe Tinashi 'stays on the map' is because she ends her heroic feat in the same turn. So let's make some things clear:)

According to the rules (p. 9) 'moving off the map' is spending a movement point on an entrance/ exit tile. The rules further say that 'some quests allow a figures to move off the map'. Therefore, 'moving off the map' seems to be limited to special quest rules.

So I would argue that when abilities instruct you to 'move off the map' in a context other than spending a movement point on an exit/entrance tile, the rules use poor wording to override normal movement rules and do not refer to a figure actually 'moving off the map'.

Why would you think that it's poor wording, when it's so explicit? There's numerous general rules in the rulebook(s) that are superceded by other more specific rules in quests or on cards. When something conflicts with the general rules, the specific rules always take precedent. There's really no reason to think that the one and only way to leave the map would be by spending a movement point on an entrance/exit tile, when there are explicit mention of being taken off the map through other actions, such as by Heroic Feats.

And sloppy wording or not, that's a discussion on RAI, not RAW. The verdict says: " If you are not moving the figure from one space to another, but placing a figure that was not on the map, that figure is not entering that space."

And both Tomble and Tinashi's Heroic Feats state in no uncertain terms that the figures are removed from the map, while there are other, similar abilities that does not explicitly state that the figures are removed from the map (Such as Summon ). Therefore, the distinction is relevant (by RAW; I still do not see why it was necessary to make one, but that's entirely beside the point). Furthermore, on the topic of RAI, it would have been easy to omit the mention of removing the figures from the map, but it wasn't in either case (and other cases), suggesting the intent was for the distinction to be relevant.

I don't think it is explicit at all, the rulebook could just as easily say something like 'in some cases, like special quests rules and abilities'. There a lot of examples of poor writing from FFG, the fact that there are people who come here to get some rules clarification proves that point, so it is possible we are facing such a case here as well.

It's still explicit , though. We've got the rules text on the cards, which is clear, and we've got a rules clarification which is similarly clear. The fact that this may or may not create doubt as to what the intended rules are is completely irrelevant. There are, as you say, a lot of examples of poor writing from FFG, but this is entirely a discussion as to what are the Rules As Intended, not Rules As Written. We can only speculate at intent - like I said, I think the intent is to make a distinction, or else it would not be worded that way - but ultimately, it's just speculation.

What's then relevant, until clarified further, we can only go on what the rules are as written. And for better or worse, that means that:

• When coming from off the map, you do not count as entering a space.
• Both Tomble and Tinashi are explicitly taken off the map as part of performing their Heroic Feats.

unfortunately, this is a case where no official answer (Errata) exists so we have to interpret what is written the best we can. I have even come across a case where FFG staff have contradicted each other so I fear we must wait until an Errata revelation. In the meanwhile, I will stick to the rule of thumb that you can only 'move of the map' by spending a movement point in an entrance/exit tile or by special quest rules.

Well, it may not be entered into the Errata, and from experience I know that only a small minority of answered questions get into the Errata, but we do have an official answer.

That being said, it would certainly be nice to have a less vague answer. Saying "rule of thumb" works in a roleplaying game, where the GM is supposed to arbitrate. It doesn't work as well in a board game where the players compete with eachother.

So much quoting.

It's still explicit though

Yes, it is. Unfortunately, however, Descent (and to a certain degree, several FFG games) are notorious for ambiguous and sometimes contradictory language. I don't know if you have "The Shadow Rune" campaign, but if you do, I encourage you to read through the special rules in that campaign carefully. It's maddening how many times rules are stated redundantly, explained with thematic text that has no bearing on the rules, or (my least favorite) the same instruction is given multiple ways in different locations.

What I'm getting at is there are some abilities that say "place your figure..." and others that say "remove your figure from the map and place it..." All the rules questions I've asked, the rule book, and other rules questions I've seen lead me to believe that those two phrases mean exactly the same thing. As another example, "move up to your Speed" and "move up to 3 spaces" means exactly the same thing (if your Speed is 3). A Basic 2 overlord card, "Reflective Ward," functions completely differently than its explicit text would suggest.

The core rulebook of Descent and its earlier ability texts were not carefully worded . The game has improved significantly over its lifetime, with the current developers being much more deliberate in their word choices (for which I am very thankful).

The variety of terms and phrases that come up on skill cards, overlord cards, etc is what drove me to create my "glossary of terms" in the first place.

Even if you don't accept what I'm saying, I'd urge you to re-read the reply from Nathan regarding entering spaces. He said very clearly that it's not a perfect litmus test, the distinction he gave was a general rule of thumb. So far, I've found it to be a pretty good way to determine if a space is being entered.

1) Where is the figure before any motion happens?

If the answers to that question is "a space", I've generally found the object to count as entering a space.

If it is "off the map", it almost never is.

If you'd like a counter example for Tinashi, look at the Ettin's "throw" ability. The figure explicitly is "removed and placed", but is very definitely (again, explicitly) entering a space.

Hey guys, I just got a reply from Nathan from FFG regarding this.

" It’s hard to give a umbrella rule for this, but a good rule of thumb is that if the figure was already on the map when it is placed/moved into a new space, that figure is entering that space. If you are not moving the figure from one space to another, but placing a figure that was not on the map, that figure is not entering that space.

To answer your particular questions:

Reinforcements are not entering the space.

Heroes that are standing up or reviving are not entering that space.

Ways of Stone (Geomancer) is entering the empty space."

I was to send the question to FFG when trying to check the original answer I noticed white text on white background (In black and bold in my Quote) .. and after verifying.. we have already the answer !

Ways of the Stone (Geomancer) : "Action: Exhaust this card to remove your figure from the map and place it in an empty space adjacent to a Summoned Stone.

While this card is exhausted, each of your Summoned Stones may add 1 additional gray die to its defense pool."

the text I put in bold talks well about 'remove from map'... but Nathan's answer tells : "is entering the empty space".

so for me it's clear : when Nathan speaks about "placing a figure that was not on the map" he is speaking about a figure not present on the map at all, not there at any time during the turn.

So for Ways of the Stone and Tinashi they clearly don't go in this case, they are on the map at the start of the turn... it's only a sort of 'out of one place' and 'in another one'.

And why this strange wording... I could only guess it's so most players understand that it's not an 'action move' nor 'a traditional move' (understand where you do all the spaces from one point to another) and every space beetween those two are not 'used'..

Perhaps also if they have use only the 'place it in an empty space' people would have used the same rules as for familiars .. where they are indeed different ...

.. but I agree they could have worded it better !

This just turned Tomble Burrowell and Tinashi the Wanderer from good to crazy good, imo - at least if you're playing against an overlord that likes his traps, like I do.

Sorry to jump in the thread from nowhere...

But just to be sure I understand :

- For Tomble Ok it's removed and comes back from nowhere the next turn...

- But for Tinashi unless I didn't understand ... she gains nothing.. as it's stays on the map and the OL can always play his card.. no?

Tricky one, I would argue that Tinashi doesn't go 'off the map' but does a movement. I think it is bad writing. The reason I believe Tinashi 'stays on the map' is because she ends her heroic feat in the same turn. So let's make some things clear:)

According to the rules (p. 9) 'moving off the map' is spending a movement point on an entrance/ exit tile. The rules further say that 'some quests allow a figures to move off the map'. Therefore, 'moving off the map' seems to be limited to special quest rules.

So I would argue that when abilities instruct you to 'move off the map' in a context other than spending a movement point on an exit/entrance tile, the rules use poor wording to override normal movement rules and do not refer to a figure actually 'moving off the map'.

Why would you think that it's poor wording, when it's so explicit? There's numerous general rules in the rulebook(s) that are superceded by other more specific rules in quests or on cards. When something conflicts with the general rules, the specific rules always take precedent. There's really no reason to think that the one and only way to leave the map would be by spending a movement point on an entrance/exit tile, when there are explicit mention of being taken off the map through other actions, such as by Heroic Feats.

And sloppy wording or not, that's a discussion on RAI, not RAW. The verdict says: " If you are not moving the figure from one space to another, but placing a figure that was not on the map, that figure is not entering that space."

And both Tomble and Tinashi's Heroic Feats state in no uncertain terms that the figures are removed from the map, while there are other, similar abilities that does not explicitly state that the figures are removed from the map (Such as Summon ). Therefore, the distinction is relevant (by RAW; I still do not see why it was necessary to make one, but that's entirely beside the point). Furthermore, on the topic of RAI, it would have been easy to omit the mention of removing the figures from the map, but it wasn't in either case (and other cases), suggesting the intent was for the distinction to be relevant.

I don't think it is explicit at all, the rulebook could just as easily say something like 'in some cases, like special quests rules and abilities'. There a lot of examples of poor writing from FFG, the fact that there are people who come here to get some rules clarification proves that point, so it is possible we are facing such a case here as well.

It's still explicit , though. We've got the rules text on the cards, which is clear, and we've got a rules clarification which is similarly clear. The fact that this may or may not create doubt as to what the intended rules are is completely irrelevant. There are, as you say, a lot of examples of poor writing from FFG, but this is entirely a discussion as to what are the Rules As Intended, not Rules As Written. We can only speculate at intent - like I said, I think the intent is to make a distinction, or else it would not be worded that way - but ultimately, it's just speculation.

What's then relevant, until clarified further, we can only go on what the rules are as written. And for better or worse, that means that:

• When coming from off the map, you do not count as entering a space.
• Both Tomble and Tinashi are explicitly taken off the map as part of performing their Heroic Feats.

I'm not saying we have to like it. Again, I still fail to see why this distinction was ever even made, other than to cause confusion as to what constitutes entering a space or not. It seem to cause more strangeness than it solves.

unfortunately, this is a case where no official answer (Errata) exists so we have to interpret what is written the best we can. I have even come across a case where FFG staff have contradicted each other so I fear we must wait until an Errata revelation. In the meanwhile, I will stick to the rule of thumb that you can only 'move of the map' by spending a movement point in an entrance/exit tile or by special quest rules.

Well, it may not be entered into the Errata, and from experience I know that only a small minority of answered questions get into the Errata, but we do have an official answer.

Only Errata is official. Everything else is fan-fiction or game developers just pondering some thoughts. The distinction? being paid by FFG. I have said it again, and again the past months, I will not accept a rules clarification as written in stone unless it appears in the official FAQ/Errata.

Only Errata is official. Everything else is fan-fiction or game developers just pondering some thoughts. The distinction? being paid by FFG. I have said it again, and again the past months, I will not accept a rules clarification as written in stone unless it appears in the official FAQ/Errata.

Of course you are right..

And we have already seen FFG people have opposite answers to the same questions, or more pricisely updates that overrode the initial answer, so these answers are not, effectively, written in stone !

but till (perhaps some day ;-) ) these answers end in the FAQ... it's the best/closest answers we could have to solve the numerous points not covered by the rules/FAQ...

So from my point of view.. better house rule with FFG answers.. than not have a rule at all or house rule by ourselves... but it's just my opinion! :-)

Even if you don't accept what I'm saying, I'd urge you to re-read the reply from Nathan regarding entering spaces. He said very clearly that it's not a perfect litmus test, the distinction he gave was a general rule of thumb. So far, I've found it to be a pretty good way to determine if a space is being entered.

I don't need to re-read it, because I've mentioned several times that it's problematic that it's mentioned as being a "rule of thumb", because it leaves ambiguity in how it's supposed to be interpreted. But with nothing else to go on, again, we can only speculate as to the RAI, while we have RAW to go on. With nothing else to go on and an official answer as to what counts as entering a space, we're left to conclude that if you are moved to a space from outside the map/board, you don't count as entering that space.

And since both Tinashi and Tomble are explicitly taken off the map before being placed in a space, they do not count as entering those spaces, with no additional text to suggest otherwise or additional text clarifying that they do.

I'd absolutely love to see a firmer answer or something disproving that, though. Like I said, not only am I a trap-happy Overlord, but I also think that it's ridiculous that you should be able to occupy a space such as Lava without taking damage at all. It is, however, at best a minor annoyance. I want to reiterate that I think that the best solution would've been to not make a distinction at all; whenever you enter a space, no matter how you entered that space, you count as entering that space, and I don't even see why the distinction between the two states was even relevant to make - other than to specifically allow characters such as Tomble or Tinashi to enter spaces with their abilities unmolested, which in all fairness is a pretty OK rationale.

Even if it does mean that they can jump into lava without taking damage (unless they end their turn there, in which case I'll throw back my head and laugh ).

[...]

If you'd like a counter example for Tinashi, look at the Ettin's "throw" ability. The figure explicitly is "removed and placed", but is very definitely (again, explicitly) entering a space.

The difference is that it is explicitly entering a space, though. Had it not been explicitly stated that it was entering a space, it would not have been entering a space, based solely on the preceding wording of the Throw ability.

Tinashi's ability does not explicitly include the wording that it is entering a space, and thus, based on what we know, she's not entering a space.

Only Errata is official. Everything else is fan-fiction or game developers just pondering some thoughts. The distinction? being paid by FFG. I have said it again, and again the past months, I will not accept a rules clarification as written in stone unless it appears in the official FAQ/Errata.

Well that renders the entire discussion on your part moot, really, since no-one has anything to go on as to what constitutes entering a space or not beyond the official answer given to the question.

But yeah, the distinction is very much that you're being paid by FFG, that's really the only thing that makes things official. It's practically the definition of official. That being said, being printed in the Errata obviously has an even greater weight, on the basis of being published.

other questions :

1.If I attack to a master deep elf with

(1)1 pierce ,4 range and 5 hearts(2 hearts from the weapon's surge) ,

(2)1 pierce ,2 range and 5 hearts(2 hearts from the weapon's surge)

How many heart will I suffer from deep elve's riposte?

Impossible to answer. Riposte does damage depending on the defense results, and you didn't mention what the defensive die result was of the Deep Elf in question. Also, in your example, the only difference between the two attacks is range - range does not matter for the purpose of Riposte.

Assuming the Deep Elf rolls 3 Shields, the result of each of those attacks would be 2 (due to 1 Pierce), meaning that it'd deal 2 damage with Riposte. Or at least that's how I'm reading it.

2.Can a bard use lute when his fatiue tokens equal to stamina?

Strictly speaking, you cannot spend fatigue for skills or movement, when you have fatigue equal to your stamina. Since the Lute is not a skill, nor movement, but an item, I cannot see why you wouldn't be able to use the Lute, and take 1 Damage instead of 1 Fatigue.

I wouldn't be surprised if someone shows up and tells me that that is wrong, though; I suppose one could argue that it is a "skill" to use the ability of an item, but I couldn't find anything in the rulebook nor in the FAQ at a glance.

Had someone asked me while I was away from my books or while in play, I would've said "Of course you can't use Lute!", but looking at it, it seems you can.

Thx for your answer! I forgot say defense roll is 2

another similar quetion：

When Uncontrolled Power be played at a mage , then 2 surge use to suffer 1 fatigue twice ,

Putrid Boils will be counting twice or one time effect ?

I do not think that Uncontrolled Power would constitute "voluntarily" suffering fatigue since the hero is being controlled by the overlord- the hero does not choose to suffer fatigue, the choice is made for him.

Were it his choice, it would trigger twice, as each surge ability is an imsyance of suffering fatigue.