If a party is taking a training action for the week at a city with a shipyard, can each player that goes to the shipyard that week buy a ship upgrade? Or are they restricted to 1 ship upgrade per week. The rules seem to allow multiple upgrades, as long each player is in the shipyard for the week. Otherwise to buy 3 canons would take 3 weeks in the shipyard, and that doesn't seem right.

I know that the ship can be repaired as well.

Seems to me if 4 heroes spend their game week action training in the shipyard, they may purchase up to 4 upgrades / cannons.

Now that the new FAQ is out, the Shipyard actually works a little strange.

A single hero can purchase one ship upgrade OR one cannon per game week. Even if the other heroes are in different buildings , they still have to pay the XP to buy the upgrade.

Now, if all four heroes went to the shipyard, the could indeed buy four ship upgrades in one week, again all party members paying the XP for each upgrade , or each one can buy a cannon.

Big Remy said:

I'll just point out here that the new FAQ is quite clearly wrong . Unfortunately the question is misleading as it implies that ship upgrades are similar to Tamalir upgrades. I am convinced that the person answering the question didn't actually have any idea what they were talking about and just used the tamalir upgrade implication to infer the answer they came up with.

If the question didn't have a misleading implication in it, it would be possible to accept an illogical and stupid about-face from the RAW. As it is however, that is the only FAQ ruling I really cannot accept (even when they screwed up the sorcery ruling last time I could accept it.)

Corbon said:

I will have to disagree with you. I never, ever understood why people choose to ignore the RtL rules like they never existed when it came to SoB's rules even though the Sea of Blood rules mention the Road to Legend ones and point out the difference between them at points. I agree with the FAQ ruling completely and it was playing it that way before the FAQ ever came out because I assumed it would be FAQed. I cannot see any reason why the FAQ should be ignored in this manner, besides if I started to question the FAQ on this ruling, I would question several of the other rulings it has and then that could lead me down a very slippery slope....

Still, that is the nice thing about board gaming, everybody gets to do it their own way , so I can understand why some people might be inclined to play that way, even though I disagree with where they are coming from.

*Edit* Incidentally Corbon, what Sorcery ruling are you reffering to, and did they fix it since then?

Kartigan said:

There was a very long, very intense, discussion over how ironskin interacted with sorcery. Lets not get into it again, except to say that it is not as simple as it might first appear and there are multiple possibilities of how the interaction could work if you don't look too deeply.
Anyway, about the only thing generally agreed by everyone was that Ironskin only helped the owner of Ironskin. Even in an AoE attack Ironskin could not assist other victims.

Then the previous FAQ came out with this
Sorcery may not add damage to any attack that includes a figure with Ironskin. It may add range to the attack, but not Sorcery. Yes, Laurel can get around this. The damage immunity granted by Ironskin does extend to all figures affected by an attack that includes a model with Ironskin.
Aside from the obvious error in the second sentence (sorcery instead of damage one assumes) the last sentence directly contradicts the only thing everyone agreed on. The first half of that last sentence does appear to be worded as though it intended to have a 'not' in there, but the second half woulod then be awkwardly worded. Anyway, this caused general disbelief and amusement.
It does make a sort of sense though, because it keeps 'the attack' the same for everyone. I still think it should be wrong though - Ironskin, as an individual defence, should affect the figure that owns it alone, changing the attack values at the same time that armour is (individually) applied rather than affecting 'Total Damage'. That however, would involve a form of memory requirement so I can understand the route FFG opted for. Wrong or not though, it is there in black and white and makes sense of some sort.

Edit: It has been fixed in that 'damage' has replaced 'sorcery' in sentence 2 as expected. However the immunity (damage cannot be added) still extends to all figures affected by the attack whether or not they have ironskin.

Regarding your assertion that RtL rules should apply to SoB, I'm sorry but that is totally illogical.
1. You do not require RtL to play SoB. You may play SoB perfectly adequately without ever having heard of RtL. The biggest general complaint about Descent is the fact that there is far too little interaction between the expansions.
2. It is stated (I believe) policy from FFG that their expansions may be played completely independently with nothing more than the base set . See the general complaint in 1. above!
3. The only mentions of RtL in the SoB rules are comparisons reminding the reader that they differ ( "unlike Road to Legend...") and the small section at the back explaining how to use components from RtL with SoB. No rules are ever ported from RtL into SoB in the SoB rulebook.

I see what you mean about the Sorcery thing, that is rather wierd, but I guess they are opting for "simplicity" over "logical" kind of like how 1 dodging figure re-rolls the whole AoE attack for everyone.

I also did not mean to sound like all RtL rules should apply to SoB, but it seems wierd to me when they point out differences between the two in the rulebook, yet fail to mention a major change like only 1 hero pays for upgrades (major in a mechanical sense, not a game play or balance one). Also since the FAQ says that how can you think they meant anything other than that? And as I stated earlier if you don't believe the FAQ's answers, why do you use any of it? Why not just make your own rules calls and do what suits your group best? Goodness knows what you could come up with would doubtless be better than FFG more often than not. I have a hard time picking and choosing what rules to accept from the FAQ, otherwise, why would I want to use it at all?

Kartigan said:

You clearly haven't read the discussion on this (and I thought you participated!)

It is not a major change for one hero to pay for upgrades. It is the standard practice !
Tamalir upgrades are a major, and explicit, exception to standard practice. All other upgrades are paid for individually. All.
Ship upgrades are not Tamalir upgrades and have almost no relationship to them. They are much closer related to individual hero upgrades or RtL party upgrades, neither of which are paid for by the party.
The reason I think this FAQ answer is complete bollocks is because the question contains misinformation which directly applies to the answer given - in other words I believe that the answer has lazily used incorrect implied information from the question rather than the actual rules. The question implies that ship upgrades are like Tamalir upgrades when they are completely different.
If the question was something like "When a hero spends a train week action at the Shipyard to upgrade the Revenge, who pays the costs (XP and/or cash)?" then I wouldn't like the answer and think it is a complete turnaround, but I wouldn't have clear reason to doubt the veracity of the answer or the competence of the answerer. Much like the Sorcery answer, I would use it happily, even while disagreeing with it.

Incidentally this is one of many reasons why questions are best debated in the forum and 'refined', or even answered, before sending to FFG. Because a badly worded question is worse than no question at all, especially when FFG answering time is such a limited resource.

Corbon said:

RtL Party upgrades are 100% paid for by the party. Gold is a party resource. Every hero pays equally when you you buy an enchanted boat.

To look at things another way, all upgrades that effect more than 1 hero are paid for by all heroes. All.

Ship upgrades and cannons also give benefits to all heroes, rather than just 1 hero like a skill, die, or trait upgrade. Therefor it is to be expected that they are a party expense.

Lol, well I did participate, but clearly I've missed whatever point you were trying to get across or gleaned from that conversation.

I suppose I read far too much into the FFG previews where they compared ship upgrades to tamalir upgrades, and I just drew a connection between them (and therefore thought it was a major change to have only 1 hero pay). I do agree with you that a poorly worded question is worse than no question at all, and I appreciate all the thoughtful, careful questions that are sent in by people (speaking of which, we really need to discuss and get some clarification on tentacles). I personally still cannot choose to go against a FAQ ruling like that. I can see why you would want to, and I see the validity of your argument that the question was weighted.

All in all, I see the validity of your arguments as to why only 1 hero should pay the XP cost for the Revenge upgrade. But now that it has been FAQed, I can't see any way I'll be able to convince my group to go against it, or even that I would want to go against it. But I do think you have a valid point of view if you choose not to, even if I disagree with you. In the future people will need to be more careful about sending in questions so there isn't still debate after the answer has come out.

Badend said:

Not true.
Only one hero had to pay the time, the opportunity cost, the turn spent at the market (be it a dungeon turn or a visit turn or a train turn).

Stuff with a cash cost is not paid for by the party just because cash comes from the party treasury. It is paid for by a specific party member who is required to do a specific thing at the cost of not doing other things.

A cannon upgrade no more or less benefits a melee hero than a Rune weapon treasure, or even another hero getting a new skill. In fact, it benefits the melee hero considerably less than the mage training the Blessing skill, or another hero training to be Captain.
A ship upgrade no more or less benefits any hero than a RtL party upgrade such as Staff of the Wild - we disagree on whether that is paid for individually or not though.
Regardless, the argument that because the benefit is for all it must be paid for by all has been made before and is as wrong this time as it was before. A number of skills disprove this point entirely. Any skill with a familiar benefits the whole party equally, as does Captain. Ran's Mark actively punishes the owner to the direct benefit of everyone else in the party! Yet these skills are clearly paid for by the individual, despite the disadvantage s that they a) cost a week train action, b)cost personal XP and c) make all your other skills more expensive.

Anyway, apart from continuing the discussion due to enjoying a friendly point and counterpoint argument...
I do expect most people will play this FAQ answer as it is written. We maybe will ourselves (I've explained the case and FAQ answer to the other 4 people I play with (I am a hero in that campaign) and await their comments over the next few weeks before we get together again - in our case the OL is completely unbiased as he is running a hero party against me in a second campaign - and I benefit equally whatever we decide since I am hero in one campaign and OL in the other).
But that doesn't mean that the FAQ ruling isn't a genuine mistake and can't/won't/shouldn't be changed.