Since we are all warmed up for the topic, let me throw in some REALLY DIFFICULT ones:

1) If someone uses Telekinesis and puts a large monster partially onto a pit, can the hero choose for the monster to be IN the pit and take 1 damage? According to actual rules, the owner always decides. This means that monsters partially pushed or knocked back into pits or lava partially, can opt not to be affected. Does anyone here feel that this is wrong and that as long as a monster was pushed into touching a lava space, it should take the damage? (Especially if the lava space is only 1 space, then it would be completely impossible to hurt the monster at all if it can choose the tile its on.)

I know the rules state that in such cases, the Overlord still gets to choose the tiles. Just felt that if the heroes were the ones who moved the monster, they should be the ones who get to choose. What do you guys think?

2) If an Ogre is partially in a pit, and it chooses to be IN the pit, will it take 1 damage? (since all pits deal 1 damage to anyone who goes in) And more importantly, if in the Ogre's next turn, it decides to be OUT of the pit, but without actually moving, should it pay the 2 movements required? I would think yes, but just curious to know what you guys feel.

I think it makes sense that the OL gets to choose whether or not the ogre is in the pit, even if the players move him via telekinesis or knockback. If you really want that ogre to suffer the 1 additional damage, make sure you throw him into a giant pit. More of a gut reaction that it'd be silly for the players to toss ogres into a 1x1 pit that he can ignore when moving, and the fact that the rules appear to indicate that the OL always chooses. There is plenty of silliness to go around, though.

I would honestly say that while I like the "changing what you're affected by without moving by paying the movement cost" thing, I think it's probably a house rule as opposed to the, uh, "real" rule. I'd say that you suffer damage whenever you decide to be in the pit, though, by whatever, means.

Can monsters jump over pits?

Yes they can, for 3 movement points.

Wanderer999 said:

I think that's about right. A large figure is, well, large and while a power like Telekinesis can move him over a pit or lava, it can't force him to fall in. The ogre has enough reach to spread out and avoid falling in (as long as there is safe terrain under his base somewhere.) If you want to make sure he takes damage you'll need to find a place where his entire base is covered by unfavourable terrain. This is just a natural advantage of large figures being so large, works for me.

The heroes don't always get what they want in this game.

Wanderer999 said:

I'm inclined to say yes on both of those points. The movement thing is controversial, but that's how I would play it. The damage is definitely an effect of the pit, so if he chooses to be affected he takes the damage. (He will not take damage again if he chooses to stay in the pit, of course.)

Cymbaline said:

It is certainly ambiguous to say the least, whether or not added movement costs are considered an effect of the terrain type. I think they are but I certainly won't berate people for taking a different tack on the subject. Frankly, the more discussions like this I have, the more inclined I am to just throw out the rulebook and rewrite the mechanics from scratch.

Cymbaline said:

As far as I know the rules for jumping pits are for all figures, not just heroes. I've certainly allowed them to in the past and intend to continue doing so.

Concerning large monsters and pits: I do not think that the OL may choose whether a large monster is affected by a pit if it is only partially in it.

JitD rules, p. 15: "Large monsters are not affected by pits unless they move entirely into one."

JitD rules, p. 16: "Pit markers do not block line of sight, but if a hero or monster moves so that the figure is only occupying pit spaces, the figure falls into the pit."

The FAQ entry (p. 2) seems to contradict these rules by stating that "The overlord may choose to have a monster affected by any terrain it partially occupies." But I suggest to take into account that the FAQ distinguish quite clearly between hazardous and beneficial terrain types:

"When large monsters move, they can sometimes find themselves moving across hazardous terrain (lava, scything blades) twice as often as other figures. Further, it can often be confusing whether or not beneficial terrain (trees, elevated terrain) should affect a creature only partly standing on it."

There is hardly any situation imaginable in which the OL would benefit from the (usually bad) effects of hazardous terrain on one of his monsters. So why would he ever choose to have a large monster affected by such terrain types? The FAQ ruling makes sense only with respect to beneficial terrains such as trees, e.g. giving large monsters the chance to benefit even from small trees. Therefore I suggest to read the FAQ entry like this: ""The overlord may choose to have a monster affected by any beneficial terrain it partially occupies."

Whoever wants to agree with that would have to choose in a second step whether pits count as beneficial terrain or not. I say they do not. Of course there are some (rare) situations in which monsters benefit from cowering in a pit (protects them from boulders and crushing walls-anything else?). But normally pits are just annoying, and no large monster would voluntarily fall in a pit if it does not have to, that is if it is not covering a pit with its entire base.

This interpretation of 1) the FAQ and 2) the character of pits may smell like houseruling but has the advantage of leaving the base game pit ruling quoted above in effect and preventing a dragon from hiding in a tiny pit (or even in two different pits).

PS: There was one user wondering whether there is a difference between "obstacles" and "terrain". I thought so, too, but I checked some of the rulebooks and the FAQ and obviously there is none. "Terrain" and "obstacles" are used synonymously. The wording does not provide any hint in this case.

Steve-O said:

For. Serious.

kalev: Huh, good find. Well, that throws a wrench into the above conversation. I guess monsters not being in pits unless they're entirely in there does make it simpler, though, and also makes some sense.

kalev said:

I agree that there are few if any reasons why the OL would voluntarily choose to have a large figure be affected by hazardous terrain, but there are a few. You yourself have already mentioned the benefits of hiding in a pit (escaping boulders and crushing walls.) Just because it's a rare occurrence doesn't invalidate it as part of the FAQ ruling. The FAQ ruling was made after the rule in the book was printed, as such it is a clarification and expansion of that rule (post-FAQ large monsters may choose to be affected by small pits rather than unilaterally not being affected - it may not happen often in practice, but it is now an option available to the OL.) A large monster entirely contained in a particular type of hazardous terrain is still forced to be affected by it.

You can read the FAQ however you like, that doesn't change the fact that you're making a house rule. You might choose to play it this way, but that's still not what the real rules say. That said, you can also play the game however you like, so if you want to house rule this, more power to you. As far as preventing illogical scenarios like a dragon hiding in two different pits, I've long since given up on trying to make Descent make sense. This FAQ ruling is just the tip of the iceberg as far as illogical scenarios go.

kalev said:

I'm pretty sure there are things classified as "obstacles" that are not classified as "terrain." I suppose it's also worth asking whether empty spaces are still considered terrain.

Knowing FFG's editing as of this game's printing, I wouldn't be surprised if they never even mentioned it, but if a large monster must choose to be affected by at least one type of terrain he's standing on, then ruling normal spaces out as terrain would make it impossible for the monster to choose those spaces as the ones he's affected by. An ogre standing on three empty spaces and one pit space would then be forced to pick the pit space as the one he gets affected by.

If empty spaces are considered terrain, then there's at least one example of a terrain type which is not an obstacle. Granted most terrain types are obstacles and at least a sizable number of obstacles are terrain types, but I don't think they're entirely equal.

kalev said:

Ahh, No - well, not quite.

Obstacles are clearly defined (or clearly specified, to be more precise) and are a subset of props.
Terrain is completely undefined . Although it does seem to be used as a synonym for obstacle, it probably also includes additional non-obstacle things like Summoning Circles and boulder ramps and probably also some, or all, Traps such as Boulders, Scything Blades, Dart Fields and Crushing Walls. We simply don't know. It is possible, though I think unlikely, for terrain to also include other props like coinpiles and chests. Again, we simply don't know.

We also have 'elevated terrain' which can be normal empty spaces. Which might mean normal empty spaces are included in 'terrain' or might mean that 'elevated terrain' isn't terrain at all. It's a mess.

One thing we do know (well, we don't, but we suspect it I guess ), is that there are some thing which are definitively not obstacles which are probably included when the word 'terrain' is used.

Steve-O said:

Yes, as I said, it is just an interpretation of how to solve the contradiction between JitD and FAQ rules. I do not claim that it is the "correct" approach. What still makes me like to think that I might be right here is the fact that the JitD rulebook has not been reedited in this matter. There have been other changes of the core rules in the past that have found their way into reeditions, afaik. Not playing Descent long enough to be sure about this, though. So we still have the double entry in the JitD rulebook which must count somehow . Or is this really but wishful thinking?

Another point is that scenarios in which boulders and crushing walls appear (AoD and WoD quests mostly) were designed before there was the FAQ entry in question, I assume (since it mentions trees, which are a RtL feature). Doesn't applying the FAQ ruling strictly to those scenarios and ignoring the base game rules here perhaps change their balance distinctly in favour of the OL? I have neither played an AoD nor a WoD quest so far, so I am just guessing.

Steve-O said:

Yes, you are right. I assume that obstacles which block movement are never called "terrain". But lava, pits and other stuff that can be entered is listed among "obstacles" in the rulebooks and referred to as "terrain" at the same time in the FAQ.

Steve-O said:

I do not get this consideration and it causes me headaches, to be honest. If empty spaces were considered terrain why would that ogre in your example be forced to choose the pit as the one affecting terrain type? Anyway, why making things more complecated as they already are? After all I would prefer to interpret the rules in the simplest possible way. Declaring empty spaces to be terrain does certainly rather create problems insted of solving some.

@corbon

Ah, thank you for this clarification.

Steve-O said:

Given the quality of the writing & editing in the rules/FAQ, you could probably say this about pretty much anything in the game...

Quite frankly, I'm amazed by how often people on these forums claim to have the one and only one "correct" reading of a rule. Such as:
Corbon said:
The rule is defined, you are just choosing to ignore it.

The rule is really not defined. I understand that you must choose to define what was written in some way when you're actually playing the game, but I'm on these forums for academic discussion because I think it's interesting to consider different "interpretations" of what's actually written in the rulebook and the ramifications for actual gameplay. (I'm not talking about "house-rules"; I'm just talking about poorly written rules having many possible meanings.) On the forums, I have no problem accepting a rule as totally ambiguous.

Corbon said:
The rule says "(you) may choose". That's singular language. It doesn't say make a bunch of choices. ... To make more than one choice you have to add something to the basic rule. To make only one choice you follow the rule exactly as it says, no more, no less.

By this reasoning, I could say that you are choosing once for a particular monster/terrain combo, and you have to remember that choice and apply it every time that monster is on that space. Choosing once simply is not practical. You must be able to choose more than once, and the rule as written does not say anything about when a choice could be re-made.

Corbon said:
It is a pathetic argument that claims that because you can do something using a special ability, you should be able to do it in general. Indeed, if anything, the reverse applies!

No, my argument was actually that special case A (soar) allows something to be done, so special case B (large figure) could also allow that to be done. The point is that the "something" actually exists within the game mechanics, so it might be possible in a special case. I'm not making an argument that a special ability effect should be free and available to everyone.

Corbon said:
As an aside, I'd hate to have you 'judge' anything on fairness since you are basically saying "this guy has a disadvantage so we'll give him a freebie" and completely ignoring the merits of the actual case, so to speak.

When I talk about 'fairness', I'm thinking in terms of game balance. And I don't just mean hero vs. OL balance; I also mean large monster vs small monster balance, etc. As such, whether something is "rules legal" is not even relevant. (Though someone could also use the word "fair" to mean "legal by RaW", so I understand there could be confusion.)

Also, one more general point. Just because I argue in favor of an interpretation being valid and reasonable, don't think that always means I actually play that way myself. As I said above, I think of the forums as a place for academic discussion, and I enjoy considering different ways of reading the rules.

kalev said:

As far as I know the rulebook has never been altered. Of course, I have one of the earlier copies of the game and I don't exactly track new print runs and peek at their rulebooks to see if they're different, but I also haven't heard of any reprinting being updated in past forum discussions either. From what I can tell, FFG leaves the rulebook alone in reprintings and just updates the FAQ with clarifications and errata as issues are brought forward.

In general, if the FAQ contradicts the printed rules, I think it should be taken as a correction. Barring obvious typos, which have also been known to happen, of course. For the record, I don't always agree with what gets written in the FAQ either. At the end of the day these rules are just too expansive and twisted to keep track of everything that's going on. I just play the game, my group and I are pretty good about avoiding corner cases that cause my head to explode. =)