I always forget to correct this ... sorry. Will update in a minute.

Hello Sadgit,

there was a recent discussion about the overlord card "No rest for the wicked" and it's entry in the CRRG. Could you take a look at this?

One thing I just noticed while reading through the CRRG:

On Page 3:

Notably, an ability that causes one or more figures to suffer damage is not considered to be an attack and does not count toward a figure’s attack limitations.

I think this is not worded ideal, because the way this is written one might conclude that Lord Merrick Farrow could use Ignite twice:

Lord Merick Farrow suffers 1 damage to perform an attack that targets all adjacent figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Merick may not perform this action if suffering the damage would defeat him.

I think this would be a better way to formulate this point:

Notably, an ability that causes one or more figures to suffer damage, without performing an attack, does not count toward a figure’s attack limitations.

It would still apply to skills like Throw:

Choose a hero adjacent to this monster. That hero must test strength. If he fails, remove the hero from the map, then place him on any empty space within 3 spaces of his original space. He counts as entering that space. Then the hero suffers 1 damage.

But skills like Ignite , which contain a self harm condition, would not be included.

It's worded slightly vague, but the ", without performing an attack," part is implied in the original wording. I'm not sure it needs to be made clearer than that. There should be no question really about if Ignite counts as an attack, it says to perform one in the very ability.

That said I think your copy of the CRRG is out of date. The newest version , 1.11, does not have the wording you're concerned about.

Well, I think this is not really necessary because Mericks's Ignite already states that he will be performing an attack.

Your suggestion to add " without performing an attack " would be redundant in this case or wouldn't it?

6 hours ago, Proto Persona said:

It's worded slightly vague, but the ", without performing an attack," part is implied in the original wording. I'm not sure it needs to be made clearer than that. There should be no question really about if Ignite counts as an attack, it says to perform one in the very ability.

Which is excatly why I brought this up. I'm not saying, that Ignite doesn't count as an attack, I'm saying that the CRRG entry implies, that the attack limitations do not apply to it.

The issue might sound overly precise, but I think that's the point of the CRRG.

6 hours ago, Proto Persona said:

That said I think your copy of the CRRG is out of date. The newest version , 1.11, does not have the wording you're concerned about.

I copy/pasted it directly from version 1.11. The last bullet point under abilities on page 3.

6 hours ago, Innoxious said:

Well, I think this is not really necessary because Mericks's Ignite already states that he will be performing an attack.

Your suggestion to add " without performing an attack " would be redundant in this case or wouldn't it?

I don't think so. The point is not that Merricks ability doesn't state that it performs an attack. The problem is, that the entry implies that the attack limitation does not apply to Ignite, because a figure (Merrick in this special case) suffers damage. I know it is common sense, that this rule would not apply here, but the point of the CRRG is to have precise ruling that should capture these edge cases.

Also, I'm not saying that my suggestion was the best or only way to fix the sentence, perhaps somebody has a better idea. Even if Sadgit decides to keep the old sentence, I'm fine with it.

You are probably right, maybe my English is not advanced enough to see the problem in the formulation. Essentially, the ruling is pointing out that abilitys one could view as an attack are not declared as attacks if they cause figures to suffer damage as their effect. Merrick's Ignite is an ability that lets him perform an attack at the cost of suffering 1 damage. So it probably could be pointed out that the ruling is referring to the actual effect and not the cost.

I like Delphi's suggestion. It will be included in the next version of the CRRG.

Another thing I stumbled upon a few moments ago:

On page 5 under Agents the following entry is listed:

Quote

• The overlord cannot use an agent in any quest that features the lieutenant version of that agent. Additionally, the overlord cannot use certain agents in specific campaigns (with details given on the Agent card or in the quest description):

– Baron Zachareth - The Shadow Rune (entire campaign) and Heirs of Blood (after the overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Zachareth)
– Eliza Farrow - Heirs of Blood (entire campaign)
– Splig - Heirs of Blood (after the Overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Splig)
– Belthir - Heirs of Blood (after the Overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Bethir)

This list is incomplete and could be extended in the following way:

Quote

• The overlord cannot use an agent in any quest that features the lieutenant , ally or hero version of that agent. Additionally, the overlord cannot use certain agents in specific campaigns (with details given on the Agent card or in the quest description):

– Baron Zachareth - The Shadow Rune (entire campaign) and Heirs of Blood (after the overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Zachareth)
– Eliza Farrow - Heirs of Blood (entire campaign)
– Splig - Heirs of Blood (after the Overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Splig)
– Belthir - Heirs of Blood (after the Overlord sacrificed the lieutenant version of Bethir)
– Queen Ariad - Labyrinth of Ruin (entire campaign)
– Rylan Olliven - Shadow of Nerekhall (entire campaign)
– Tristayne Olliven - Shadow of Nerekhall (entire campaign)
– Gargan Mirklace - Shadow of Nerekhall (entire campaign)

Thanks, will make it into the October version of the CRRG.

Hello Sadgit,

I just noticed something that seems to be contradictory. The question was, whether the reanimate still gets the additional yellow die from "vampiric blood" if the necromancer is knocked out:

Quote

Page 13:

Other figures may benefit from passive abilities of knocked out heroes. These abilities must not require the knocked out hero to “use this card“, “exhaust this card“, pay fatigue, and must not imply the hero to be on the map.

The reanimate is treated as a figure (by his card), and vampiric blood does not fullfil any of the conditions which would make the card unusable.

Yet:

Quote

Page 52:

Vampiric Blood

[..]
The Reanimate does not gain an additional yellow die while the Necromancer is knocked out.

Which one of these statements is correct? I think he still gets the die (I'm pretty sure Zaltyre explained this to me once), but I couldn't find it on the fly. This was also related to the usability of elixir tokens if an apothecary is knocked out or not on the map.

Edit: This is what I found so far:

Clarifications from FFG (which I think are the base for the entry on page 13):

Explanation from Zaltyre on BGG: https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1451754/necromancer-reanimate

Regards,
Delphi

I agree that this is contradictory. I vaguely remember that the Vampiric Blood paragraph in the CRRG is based on a uFAQ, but I cannot find it anymore. It might as well be a typo or an older uFAQ that was revised later on. I am going to change that in the next version.
Thanks for bringing this up.

Thanks for clarifying this. I could imagine that this was an individual ruling which was made before the broader clarification in August 2015, but I also didn't find any sources for the Vampiric Blood rule.

CRRG 1.11, page 47: in the description text for Feral Frenzy there's a typo and it says Freal Frenzy.

Thanks for your continuous support, guys!

CRRG Version 1.12. (10/2018)

modified entry Abilities, last bullet for clarity
corrected entry No Rest for the Wicked
modified entry Agent
corrected entry Vampiric Blood
corrected typo in entry Feral Frenzy

Thanks for the update Sadgit.

Hi Sadgit, I'm wondering if you can add some clarification regarding Pierce to the 'Steps of Combat' section in the CRRG? Specifically, when it occurs...

It seems like something that should at least be mentioned in that section ?

This request is partly driven by my slight confusion over the application of Internal Rot... I could swear I read somewhere that the Pierce effect of Internal Rot can be applied to the attack in which the hexes are placed (ie attack an un-hexed monster, if you roll a surge you're placing two hexes and piercing two), but I now can't find that anywhere... I can find the direct opposite ruling here:

It's possible I have conflated it in my mind with the CRRG entry for the placement of the Shadow Walker's Shadow Soul using Soul Bound:

Quote

The Shadow Soul affects the attack used to place it. It is placed immediately after resolving the last step of an attack that may cause the attack to miss.

If combined with the Otherworldly skill, this would cause a Pierce 1 to be applied to this attack (right?).

The mechanics here seem to be the same: in each case the declared target of the attack would not initially fulfil the conditions for the skill to trigger, however in the case of the Shadow Soul the fact that the declared target gains the required conditions during the course of the attack allows the skill to trigger... Would this not also be applicable to Internal Rot?

Any clarification of these points would be welcome!

It is my understanding that the Pierce 2 from Internal Rot cannot be applied to an attack that hexes a monster for the first time. This is different from the ability of the Shadow Soul.

The triggering condition of Internal Rot is "Each of your attacks [...] targeting a hexed monster]. Targeting happens in step 1 of the attack ("Declare target"). Hexes are applied in step 4 (Enfeebling Hex) or step 3 (Plague Cloud) or outside of an attack (Viral Hex). Thus, Pierce 2 is not applied to monsters without a hex token even if those monsters are hexed in later steps of the attack.

The triggering condition of the Shadow Soul's ability is "Each time a monster [...] suffers [Heart] from an attack ...". Suffering damage happens in step 5 of the attack ("Deal damage"). The Shadow Soul is placed with Soul Bound as soon as the attack is confirmed to not miss, this happens in step 2 (Roll dice), step 3 (Check range) and in rare chases (monsters with Shadow or special quest rules) in step 4 (Spend surges). In all these cases this is before step 5. Thus, the condition is fulfilled when the ability is activated and the Shadow Soul's ability affects the attack in which it is placed.

It always seems so obvious when you say it ?

No idea where I got the idea that Internal Rot applies to the attack which places the hexes, but never mind, I'll forget it now ?

It looks from your explanation like we were playing Otherworldly wrong as well - my understanding now would be that the Pierce from Otherworldly is not applied to the attack which places the Shadow Soul (as it is an affect of the skill card, not an affect of the Shadow Soul, and the skill card triggers when a figure is Targeted). It may be worth adding a note to this affect to the CRRG entry for Soul Bound, or a separate entry for Otherworldly to clarify that the two effects (+1 [Heart] from the Soul and Pierce 1 from Otherworldly) are separate and do not necessarily trigger together.

I would also still request you add something to the CRRG 'Steps of Combat' section about how/when Pierce is applied please

As I see it, the problem is not Pierce itself but the triggering condition "when targeting a monster" etc. This condition might also be relevant for other abilities. I will look into that for the next version of the CRRG. Thanks for bringing it up!

Hi,

Question about "Fire Breath" monster ability: If the line of 4 spaces can be traced in any direction does they have to be in a line of sight of attacker? Lets say dragon is breathing fire on target that is close to the corner of title and then wants to attack figures that are round the corner out of his sight, is it valid?

BTW Love what you did creating CRRG! Great job, it's very useful.

Hi Gleidish,

No, only the Targeted space needs to be in Line-of-Sight (which it is automatically because it's Adjacent). The Fire Breath attack then Affects figures in a further 3 spaces (counting from the Target space), without requiring Line-of-Sight to those spaces.

Hi Sadgit,

Michael Cotton on BGG has found a small error in the CRRG, see this thread.

I've also noticed a couple of small things:

On page 3, the text under the ACTS heading should begin with a capital letter.

In the STAGES section on page 36, during the Upgrade Phase for the Delve I don't think Heroes draw an additional card if the monster tracker is empty - from the Delve section of the RtL rulebook, and also looking at the localization file extracted by Valkyrie, the reward for clearing the monster tracker is that the Heroes get to keep an additional card - so in a two-hero game they get to keep two cards instead of one, and in a three-or four-hero game they get to keep three instead of two. From what we observed playing The Delve over the weekend this certainly appears to be the case with the two-hero game. It's possible that it also adds a card as well, although that isn't mentioned in the documentation.

I'm not completely sure that your figures for 'number of cards drawn' are quite right (perhaps just the base card draw) - we managed a few times to draw 9 cards by completing stages in a few rounds (I'm not exactly sure how many, we weren't specifically paying attention), while searching two search tokens... With a base draw of 7, if we completed in round 3 that's -1, two search tokens is +2, we should end up at 8, unless the monster tracker also adds one to the draw. I think it's unlikely we finished it in round 2... I can do some specific playtesting to check all of this, but I guess if you've done that already and you're confident they are correct then I don't need to bother

Thanks for listing these mistakes. They will be corrected in the next version of the CRRG.
On The Delve: Actually, I have not done testing myself, just included what others have reported in various forums for this mechnanism. There could be well be something wrong in the CRRG here. It would be great if someone could confirm/correct the data.

Hi Sadgit, I have a couple of requests for clarification in the CRRG

1) In the section about Crumbling Terrain (p38) there is no mention of what happens when monsters enter a space containing Crumbling Terrain... From a bit of googling I found a thread on here where it was stated that monsters ignore Crumbling Terrain entirely - please could you add some information to that effect to that section of the CRRG?

2) The section on Engage (p15) states that:

Quote

When engaging, a figure performs a move action and moves toward the target, stopping when it is adjacent or when it runs out of movement points.

We've been playing that to the letter, so that monsters with the Reach ability still move to an adjacent square. Is that correct? Or should an Engage instruction cause monsters with Reach to stop 2 squares away from the target? Whichever way is correct, that could probably do with being added to this entry in the CRRG

Haven't yet got round to checking the numbers of cards in the Delve, I'll do that at some point