Corbon said:

On the vanilla hand, damage laps over and the effect tokens stay, on the other, lingering effects (like burn and web) are removed and the damage doesnt lap around. That's a huge seachange in how undying works.

Corbon said:

This, I feel, is a decidedly stupid rule. It's a very transparent and *extremely* clumsy attempt to paper over bad map-design. For a start, what exactly does "invulnerable" mean? I might argue as an Overlord here than "the Creature" is *not* invulnerable. It always comes back when killed, yes, but it can certainly take damage and die, and is therefore not invulnerable. What if all the heroes have nothing but melee weapons and no Reach, and the monster has Ghost? What if they *do* have Ranged weapons, but deliberately discard them to be allowed to walk through? What if it just has more armour than the heroes can possibly deal in damage?

Even worse, what does "blocks a path" mean? Blocks all routes to *any* area of the map? Even just a few spaces in a corner? What if the path is only "blocked" if you take other monsters (non invulnerable ones) into account? Rubble obstacles? Rolling boulders? Crushing walls (yes I know currently there is no way for a crushing wall to be on a map at the same time as an invulnerable monster, but that doesn't mean there never will be)? To what extent are the heroes allowed to manipulate the situation to ensure that an invulnerable monster *does* block a path so that they can move through it (telekinensis, for a start)? What happens if either a large monster's invulnerability or its "blocking" changes while a hero is in the process of moving through it?

In the example I gave for "The Creature", there is only a 2x2 corridor to move to the area with the switches, since "The Creature" is also a 2x2 monster, he would be invulnerable since his undying roll is always successful, per the scenario rules.

This, to me, is an example of really bad design.

YellowPebble said:

I have no argument with most of what you say here. Yes, it is a decidedly stupid rule, transparently a clumsy attempt to paper over bad design. Nonetheless, it is what we have been given, and does have the (mixed) blessing of simplicity.

As to your invulnerable argument for this particular case, you are wrong. If a creature does not stay dead it is not considered to have died (see undying). So if it automatically comes back, without possibility of failure, then it is not killable, which meets a certain definition of invulnerability (if not all definitions) and given the context and the way the game works, the most obviously sensible definition.

Sure, ******* rules-wannabe-lawyers will have a field day, but anyone with an ounce of sense and an ounce of rules-lawyering capability will be able to use this pathetic excuse for a rule satisfactorily.

It might also be worh noting that this is an Advanced campiagn rule, not a vanilla rule. The advanced campaign is considerably different in style and does have clearer (if not necessarily completely clear) required 'paths' for the heroes.

I took a look this level. It is Rumor #3 "The Creature"

Now, ignoring the fact that the OL might reveal area 2 by shuffling his deck (and the heroes aren't forced to flee) Proper hero tactics would not allow the creature to even get to the point of blocking the path. They would ready themselves next to the door...and have a whole round of every hero taking a turn before opening the door to area 2. If the party has at least one "runner" then one of the encounter markers can be tagged.

I don't know about the rest of you, but even an Undying monster isn't that bad. I have access to AoD and the copper level weapon that ignores undying, so maybe my tactics are different then those of you who don't own the AoD expansion.

This level is not impossible though. That is just my assessment of looking at the map. If the heroes do get fracked and the creature stands to block the path, then the level is a wash. Pack up...and move on.

Jonny WS said:

I think the level was only considered 'impossible' is you had already screwed up by being slow and the creature woke up and got to a position where you couldn't kill it and couldn't get past it.

The point is, according to the rules (FAQ) you do not have to pack up and move on just because a creature is impassable if it is unkillable.

You should not have to rely on having just the right equipment (anti-undying) to continue. A couple of key treasures can solve most problems, but they may not be available yet, or at all.

In fact, if you have the right expansion a shop weapon with knockback would solve the exact problem that this FAQ rule answered without needing the rule at all, so even having the right shop weapon is not good enough to cancel the 'invulnerable and blocking' requirements.

I think invulnerable would be better written as "can suffer an infinite number of wounds and not die" and blocking as "occupies spaces so that there are no spaces available that can normally be moved through which a hero can use to continue a path required to finish this level" - not necessarily 'win' this level, but definitely 'finish' it.

I don't think a monster having more armour than the heroes can possibly penetrate should count. Such a monster can be killed, just not by the heroes right now because they have obviously done something badly wrong to be so weak.
(As an aside, I don't believe such a thing exists, within reason. Even using only an axe, a hero with 3 fatigue and no melee dice (the worst possible combo) can roll as much as 4+3+5(power pot)+2(fatigue) = 14 damage. I've never heard of a monster with more than 13 armour, at least not without being at a very high level in the advanced campaign in which case the heroe should have better equipment, more trait dice and probably better fatigue...)

I don't believe a monster with ghost faced by a hero party with only non-reach melee weapons should count. Again, the party must be deliberately hamstringing themselves to be completely unable to damage such a monster.
There is a difference between screwing yourself by taking bad options and being screwed because you require options that have never been presented.

But these are IMO basic common sense declarations, not rules based 'rulings'.

YellowPebble said:

I don't disagree with your assessment, but if you keep in mind the purpose of the rule, it's pretty easy to tell when it applies or doesn't apply. The purpose of this rule is to prevent the OL from blocking any possibility of the heroes' progress with a creature that cannot possibly be defeated or forced to move. The rule USED to be that "the OL is not allowed to put such creatures in such positions" but apparently that was too much trouble for some people, so they simplified it even further.

If the heroes have no way of killing a creature at all, then it is invulnerable. Note that having a small chance of doing a little damage is still okay, as long as there's a possibility of killing it. As others have said, "killing" has been previously defined as "being removed from the board" so a creature who can immediately ressurect without fail is still invulnerable, even though it technically does take damage.

"Blocking a path" is sloppy wording, but the intention is "blocking the only available path to the goal." If the heroes are unable to reach the exit/encounter/whatever that they need in order to make progress, then the path is being blocked for the purposes of this rule. If the heroes have another route they can use to get to the goal, then "the path" is not "blocked."

Of course, this entire rule - sloppy wording and all - will never come up in game as long as the OL isn't a douchebag. It's really only here as an attempt to level the playing field against OLs who refuse to play fairly. And as such, it will always fail, because douchebags will always look for new ways to be douchebags, no matter how well written the rules are. Seriously, I've known such players to start redefining the English language to suit their needs when they couldn't find a more obvious loophole. The moral of the story is "don't be a douchebag."

Steve-O said:

Bull. Blocking the heroes' progress with the toughest monster available is a fair and valid strategy...until the game designers hand you a situation in which it works too well, and then the OL is suddenly an unfair douchebag for trying?

The rules instruct the overlord to try to win the game (unlike, say, a referee in another game). Blocking the heroes with an invulnerable monster, if it works, is pretty obviously the most effective way to do that. An overlord who does NOT take the opportunity to block the heroes with an invulnerable monster is not following the rules.

If following the rules leads to an unsatisfactory outcome, the game is badly designed. Bad game design is NEVER the player's fault, unless he also happens to be the game designer. Expecting players who went ought and bought a product (presumably because they couldn't or didn't want to build their own) to repair defects in that product that the original creators (who profit from the sale) are unwilling or unable to? That's being an unfair douchebag.

If you're designing the game, giving the overlord an invulnerable monster that can block the heroes is about as smart as giving the heroes an item with +100 armor. The danger is blindingly obvious, and taking steps to limit its abuse is not hard. If you're too lazy to do something vaguely clever and thematic like the crystal naga in JitD quest 3 "Problems of Life and Death," you can always do the one-size-fits-all solution of making the monster not block movement, like they did with Zyla (to prevent her from using Ghost to wall off melee monsters)...and if you write it into the stat block of the named monster, then there's no question about when it applies and no stupid tactical singularities where doing something half-assed is actually more effective than doing it fully. You might still end up with weird interactions with specific cards that can cause problems if you're not careful, and having this rule as a backup in case things go horribly wrong might be reasonable, but covering the basics is brain-dead simple.

They clearly know this (given the examples above where they actually did it). The fact that they didn't bother to do it in many quests/dungeons/etc. is inexcusable. And not the player's fault.

Now, yes, some players in some cases might be capable of fixing designers' mistakes on the fly. They can (and should) go ahead and do that, if they're sure. But saying that players who don't are douchebags is like saying that someone is a douchebag for not dodging when you drove your car onto the sidewalk: vile and offensive.

Jonny WS said:

The overlord (me) started the level with only 6 cards left in his deck, and two "Hordes of Things" power cards in play. The heroes had three turns before area 2 was going to be revealed, and both area 1 and 2 are so overly infested with monsters (placed properly to guard the levers) that a "runner" isnt going to be able to get to a single lever.

lol it's always said to be inbalanced when the heros lose. But as long as it's a drawn out battle then I'm happy.

Fizz said:

Thats fine. The heroes were going to lose anyway in that instance. And, should any of the hero players see that Rumor again, they will remember what happened and do their best to not let it happen again.

Just out of curiosity, what expansions do you own? What level was the campaign at?

Jonny WS said:

All 3 expansions are in play (WoD, AoD, ToI), and the campaign was in copper level

I honestly just think your players aren't playing well enough together. If you have one "Cowboy" in the group they can spell disaster for everyone else. They should also be just thoroughly abusing guard at all choke points. It's a great way to force the OL's hand and make him show you what he has planned for the group.