mahkra said:

The conclusion I would draw is that they copy-pasted rules from other sources. Scything Blades and Dart Fields have clarifications that they cannot be jumped in the original rules (according to your summary), and Water has such a clarification in the FAQ (remember the bloodsquids?). So they duplicated the clarifications for props that already had them, and added no new information to anything else.

Antistone said:

But they only copy-pasted the restrictions . Lava and mud specifically include allowances in the WoD rulebook, but those were not copy-pasted into RtL. Since restrictions were deemed necessary clarifications but allowances were not, I would think that means that the default behavior is to allow jumping.

mahkra said:

Ah, that makes more sense.

I still think that's a dangerous precedent and the writers are incompetent if that was their actual thought process, but your conclusion makes sense, too.

svarun said:

SoB pg38
Water ( In Dungeon )
Block Movement? Yes
Block Line of Sight? No
Water cannot be jumped.

Water (Shallow)
Block Movement? Yes
Block Line of Sight? No
It costs two movement points to enter a shallow water space. Figures in shallow water cannot jump.

Water (Deep)
Block Movement? Yes
Block Line of Sight? No
It costs two movement points to enter a deep water space. In addition, heroes entering a deep water space must spend one fatigue, plus one additional fatigue for every point of armor (including both natural and worn armor, rounded down) they have. For every point of fatigue a hero cannot or will not pay, he loses one wound (ignoring armor). Figures in deep water cannot jump.

Water (shallow) and Water (deep) are new 'terrain' in SoB. You don't carry across rules from different terrain (water (in dungeon)) in other rulesets, especially when the same older terrain is explicitly referenced with a restriction and the new terrain is not referenced with that restriction but has a different, similar restriction.

You can't jump water in the dungeon, but you can jump shallow or deep water on the SoB map. You can't jump from water, but the description I gave specified from the sandbar. Not that it makes any difference, because as I said, you can wade ashore from the sandbar for the same cost.

I am sorry you are getting pissed and that describing 'ordinary' gameplay insults you. I only have your statements to go by when assessing your arguments. For example, you said that if/when you went for the glyph "at least 1 hero dies" or something similar. "At least 1" implies sometimes more than 1 dies, which implies you have more than one hero running. I'm sorry if that isn't actually how you play, but I'm not a mind reader.

As for lots of people complaining about SoB? Well, lots of people complained about RtL when it first came out too. It did need a few adaptions (the really significant ones being only 1 CB and the removal of Telekinesis and Bear Tattoo), but in general once people worked it out it is a very tight game both tactically and strategically.
I too, think SoB is probably at least semi-broken, largely with respect to the Lts only retreating one trail and the encounters simply not working very well. But I don't think it has been played enough yet, and I am sure that people haven't worked out the best tactics and strategies yet. It is a different game from RtL and won't necessarily reward the same strategies.

Just curious, would house ruling that the Lts. must retreat back to their starting locations fix the problems with them?

oshfarms said:

I don't know. I haven't played enough and haven't analysed any Lts beyond the siren so far (my campaigns have used Avatars that don;t have other copper Lts and haven't gotten into Silver yet).
I suspect it would help considerably, because I don't think that the map is as effectively 'large' as RtL (because we are only talking waterways anyway) and because some Lts can use the map shortcut anyway.

I think that this channge to Lts was an overreaction from RtL. Removing Treachery from Lt fights made them infinitely less dangerous, so that was a fairly decent nerf anyway.
The thing in RtL was that some Avatars were so far out of the way that it took ages to get their Lts back into action. Others, OTOH were much closer to the 'action' and it made the different Avatar's somewhat imbalanced in that particular area. SOmetimes that was offset by other strengths, sometimes it wasn;t. There is a substantial pecking order in RtL Avatars, although individual places might change a little (or a lot if the heroes are have, err... inefficient playstyles).

I'll start straight out and say that I don't yet own SoB. But one of the main reasons for this is because of these balance issues people are talking about so I'm very interested in getting to the bottom of it.

So, in all all of these Overlord victories we keep reading about, how many weeks does it actually take for the Lieutenants to win it for the Overlord? What I'm wondering is whether the impossibility of killing Lieutenants or even driving them home is deliberate. Given that the heroes have complete control of the campaign pace until the Overlord can afford the Siren they should have quite a few weeks until things start hotting up. After that, if heroes start playing full dungeons, especially with the added incentive of the Map Pieces, couldn't they reach the Final Battle before the LIeutenants have TIME to win it for the Overlord? Once speed becomes an issue, the heroes would have to rely on sailing much more (attacking every island they can on the way even if they are difficult) than at the start to travel quickly and to strike only when convenient against Sieging Lieutenants as targets of opportunity to delay the inevitable by a few more weeks rather than chasing them across the board.

I have no idea if this is correct or not, but wonder if anyone has looked into this. Could we just be using RtL strategy (taking our time/skimming 1 level dungeons/trying to chase off Lieutenants) that no longer works in an updated campaign?

inle_badger said:

You might be right. We finished all dungeons except the first, making "time" progress in increments of 50 Conquest per dungeon, so that after only 5 weeks, we are at a total of 128 (62-66) Conquest. I don't think our OL will be able to raze anything during Copper, as he hasn't even reached a city with a Lieutenant yet.

Still, we might not fare better in the end than previous hero parties, as it seems SoB is a really tough nut to crack. We'll see in a few months how it turns out...

Mr. Badger,

Unfortunately, in my opinion, the original poster is almost completely right. Your suggestion of just going in dungeons to rack up the conquest total does not work, and here's why.

Point 1: Once the OL has so much as 2 lieutenants on the board, his win is provably 'on the clock,' so long as the lieutenants cannot be killed and always flee on the first round of battle. A simple examination of the board reveals cycles in which the OL is guaranteed siege rolls even if the heroes spend every single turn racing back and forth protecting cities. Therefore, given infinite time, the OL is GUARANTEED to win the map-board game.

Point 2: There is only roughly 18 conquest available to the Heroes in each dungeon; the OL makes another 1 per turn automatically and a bit more once cities start to burn. Let's say 20 per dungeon then. It therefore requires 30 dungeons for the heroes to trigger the end game; there are barely that many on the board, and they certainly cannot all be accessed in 30 turns.

Now, since the OL's win on the clock is guaranteed and there is barely enough CT in the game for the Heroes to trigger end game on their own, the OL has NO INCENTIVE to gain any CT past the first 20 or so that he needs to summon his lieutenants. Therefore, he simply DOES NOT KILL the heroes during any of the dungeons and waits for the clock to give him the win.

Ok, you might say. Well if the Overlord is going to be cheesy, we can be too. The Heroes can just kill each other to feed the OL the necessary CT to trigger end game. But if we're reduced to that, then the entire game is an exercise in futility - the OL doesn't WANT the stuff he's supposed to have to play hard to get (player kills). This is the very definition of a broken game.

Note that it really seems like the REAL problem here is the dual purpose of CT as both 'points' and 'game clock.' This overloading of purpose has always been problematic, even in RtL, but here it just breaks down completely. The simplest thing is just slap a turn-based time limit on the game like most other games. This isn't guaranteed to fix all the problems, but it is at least a good start. I am still contemplating this matter myself and trying to figure out what the best fix is.

The_Immortal said:

Here's a very simple house rule to fix this problem: "The Overlord cannot win before the final fight if s/he is not leading in Conquest points."

That rule could at least give heroes the possibility to reach the final fight, because maybe a really good team of heroes can lead in Conquest throughout the campaign. And it would prevent the cheesiness described above.

Maybe such a rule (or a similar one) is necessary.

If an OL in my party would refuse to kill heroes so he would win the game we would just kick him out. Come on that is no valid argument. This is the very definition of a broken party.

Also I do not agree with your 18 CT per dungeon as there are often more than one Leader or more than one glyph or other stuff.

Hinni said:

It is a valid argument because the OL doesn't need to break any rules to do it.
Yes, I agree, anyone playing the game that way wouldn't be welcome in my group - there is laying by the rules and there is taking the mickey, but it is still a valid argument because you can't make decisions based on values judgements, only on rules judgements.
On our last session (last thursday) the heroes saw off an assault by the Siren without loss and went through the first level of the dungeon at Solace Mountains without losing a hero (narrowly). The OL was trying, but didn't get a good draw (spawned once, but it was Kobolds) and didn't get lucky generally (no critical misses by heroes or max damage hits by OL etc) and on the first level, it simply wasn't enough. In this case there was no difference in end result between trying and not trying!

The actual definitive CT level available isn't really material. If the OL isn't killing the heroes then it will take approximately twice as many dungeons to finish the campaign as it should.

As pointed out above it's also by the rules for the heroes to kill each other so they could even counter it easily by a tactic which is equally cheesy. But both tactics just suck. Nobody would ever want to do it anyways.

"Mwahahaha. I am the emissary of darkness, cower before me mortals!"

"No! Never!"

"What, you dare defy me, I who have subdued the powers of light and dark, I who wield the Sword of Corbalis, I who have walked in the Vale of Traxis and spoken with the death warith of Jumrumja. Who dares defy me?"

"Pico! And his lovable sidekick, Ronan of the Wild. We laugh at your patehtic attempts to conquer Torue Albus."

"Then my laughter shall be then last thing you hear shall die.... Dominus Excelsis Mortis .... Oh bugger, what now?"

"Problems?"

"It's my crystal ball. **** things on the blink. Been meaning to have it fixed for weeks. Just hold on, I'll be back to eviscerate you in a half a mo.... Castle of Eternal Midnight 4621... What?.... What do you mean don't kill them?.... Listen you briny tart, get off your damned seashell and... No, I haven't heard of the race relations act... What do you mean we don't want the Conquest Points... Uh-huh.... I see... Killing them would only play into their hands.... "

"Call yourself an Avatar of Malevolence."

"Shut it you!.... But I'm an Evil Overlord, it's in the job description!... Well what the hell am I meant to do with them?... Hmm.. Yes, but... Oh..."

"Finished?"

"Yes, where were we?"

" Dominus Excelsis Mortis . You were about to tell me your evil masterplan before frying me with lightning."

"Erm, yes. Dreadfully sorry about this, there's been a change of plan. Look there's a jail cell downstairs with a particular dim-witted guard. Third door on the left. You can't miss it. You can let yourself in."

"Erm, I don't mean to be rude here, but weren't we meant to fighting to the death in a dramatic and exciting conclusion. Harry Gregson Williams has composed a score especially for us."

"Yes, I'm sorry about that, but somethings come up. Of course, I could kill you in a hearbeat, but I've got bigger fish than you to fry."

"Really? I thought we were your arch-nemesis."

"So did I, but it turns out I was wrong all along. Now I need to face my greatest enemy yet - the rules lawyers on the FFG forums."

Nice.

Hinni said:

True. But what about if, during the middle of the Gold age, the OL notices he needs just 4 or 5 more weeks to win (during the endgame, you can make such kind of calculations)? Wouldn't he be tempted not to give his best? What if the heroes start noticing that their OL attacks their most heavily armored tank more than usual, or that he doesn't seem to mind when the heroes escape unscathed? Or, the other way round, what if the heroes notice that they need to die more often to reach the endgame? Wouldn't they play at least a little more carelessly, even if only subconsciously?

I think that a game conception that rewards bad play done on purpose, countered only by even worse play, should be avoided. An endgame where both sides are rewarded for playing badly should be avoided.

Some rule needs to be implemented to prevent this.

Ispher said:

Here's a proposal: "Whenever heroes end a dungeon or island level without dying, remove 10 Conquest from the total needed to end the campaign."

That would motivate both sides to play as well as possible until the end (well the OL would try to kill at least one hero per level, which isn't that easy during Gold age anyway), as well as giving the OL less time to siege cities. Two problems solved with one shot.

If the heroes do 10 dungeon levels without dying during the campaign for instance (a very respectable feat), the campaign would end at 500 Conquest. Of course it would also give heroes a little less time to find gold items, but I don't think that would be a major problem.

Would not work as one of the heroes could just die once for 2CT.

The_Immortal said:

This game, more than any other I've played, has a particular way of bringing out the cheese. It never ceases to amaze me what mind-bogglingly twinkish tactics can be brought forth to ruin the entire game. I'm aware you are only pointing it out and not saying you would actually use such a tactic, neither would I. I know the rules for Descent are a mess sometimes, but at times like this it seems like they're pathetically easy to break. That makes me a sad panda. =(

It also makes me sad that people, including FFG staff, are compelled to sit down and make new rules to plug these ridiculous holes. It makes me even more sad that such preventive measures really are necessary.

Hinni said:

It would work a little in the sense that each side would give its best in combat until one hero is killed, so combats would be meaningful once again, which is already way better than the current situation. And it is not like the OL is able to kill a hero whenever he wants: in some levels, heroes will succeed without a loss, thus reducing siege time. Protect your 2CT hero better. Give him a cursed item.

It might not be the miraculous cure we are looking for, but it would help. Now what if we add (or use instead): "For every successfully completed dungeon, remove 20 Conquest from the total needed to end the campaign."?

Or: "For every Treasure the hero party finds with a Treasure Map, remove 50 Conquest from the total needed to end the campaign."?

During Gold age, dungeon combats are often a little less interesting anyway, so if that age is shorter, I don't think players would lose much in terms of game fun. In any case, heroes should have a way to make time progress faster if they are playing well.

Other possible solutions:

- Using XPs to rebuild cities (like 20 per player - 80 total - to rebuild a razed city?)

- Sending Lieutenants back to the OL's keep if they are defeated (already suggested; simple and like RtL rules)

- ...

But why do we need to do FFG's work?

One possible solution is to make a house rule that Lieutenants cannot retreat from an encounter when on a city space. Sort of takes into account the city defenses as well as the heroes preventing the monster from escaping. The only way for the lieutenant to leave is to kill all the heroes or if the heroes flee the encounter. I use this rule myself.

It won't prevent the overlord from going after cities, but will make him think twice before commiting his lieutenants since they can't just run away and do it all over again.

More grist for the "islands are too hard" mill.

We did another one last night. Burning Sea/Bay.

See this thread

I think this level needs FAQing for special reasons (2x reasonably fast swimming bosses with shadowcloak can just run to sea and be practically invulnerable).

However we completed it (OL didn't catch on to the above tactic until midway through) and although it took a long time (we have a slow party apart from Astarra, and 2 fast bosses with Web and Shadowcloak are a major issue for us), leaving eth OL with 38 threat and 8 cards for teh remainder of the dungeon, we still 'won' the level 7-4. (A very Phyrric victory!)

The one with the mist that restricts line of sight (screwed with Thorn) and the Skelly-boss did something similar to my players. They didn't loose that much, but it took ages and gave me masses of threat, and Evil Genious.

I guess I don't see the problem. If a level is unbeatable because of its setup, the heroes can flee. There's a risk to going into a dungeon, and nothing forcing the heroes to do it. If there's one thing SoB has that's different from RtL, it's that there doesn't have to be a lieutenant present to make the heroes run away.

It's only a problem if every level is unbeatable. Burning Bay isn't even on the way to somewhere (it's only got one trail touching it). If you're forced to flee you're only using one week unless for some reason you didn't make Garrot your home port. You might lose a rumor at worst.

James McMurray said:

No, if a level is unbeatable because of it's setup it gets FAQed. Remember the invulnerable Beastman?

The islands, especially, are really stupid to have 'unbeatable' levels because you know what level you are going to and its the top one of three.
Not that it is unbeatable, just that the OL can make it unbeatable in many circumstances.