Hello all;

Remy and I worked on the last FAQ update and it was kind of a hellish process, given the amount of work required, the craptastic nature of the forum software as an editing tool, and how easy it was to annoy those we considered our best contributors. I've learned of a way to share it with the world at large while controlling editing rights using google docs; here are the links to the living documents from the last effort.

FAQ List: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfb7n66m_4fs4rk9d7
Edit notes for the FAQ from FFG: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfb7n66m_8dvddggdr
Answered FAQ List: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfb7n66m_5gtgn43c9
GLoAQ from the forums: https://docs.google.com/View?id=dfb7n66m_7gh9rc7ff

This should accommodate some of the more intelligent requests we received, like highlighting edits to user-submitted questions, adding edit notes when changing the wording of questions, and allowing more people to edit the lists. We haven't touched these since the final version of the FAQ came out, so they're all out of date and need work (which I won't have time to do this month seeing as I have to plan a wedding reception for two whole goddamn families).

As for editing rights, go ahead and PM me with your email after you've requested editing rights via Google docs (follow the link at the bottom of the page, "Edit this page (if you have permission)") so I can add you to the list. I'm going to err on the side of caution in terms of allowing people to edit this thing, so while anyone can read the docs and post change requests here, only a select few will be allowed to edit., mostly because too many editors leads to chaos, fear, the dark side, etc. Again, this is only for edit access: feel free to post new questions and commentary about the current state of the list, and your humble team of editors will get on that (or tell you why you're wrong).

Descent content output has slowed to a crawl, so this is a good opportunity to try to work through the many issues present in the FAQ, but I'm too busy to do much work on that front (and I think Remy is, too). A few more hands should offer enough momentum to get another solid update out by the end of the year.

Is the purpose to have like a central place for items we want FFG to give us a new FAQ about?

Or a place to centralize community discussions - and verdicts the community made on a particular discussion?

One purpose is to have a central place for items for a new FAQ.

The other purpose is to have a central place for posting corrections to the current FAQ, to be corrected on a new FAQ.

Thundercles said:

Are these corrections from players discussions? Or from FFG?

It is my understanding that FFG released the latest FAQ that is hosted on this site... correct?

That members from the forums have harvested questions that could not be answered and that what we have is essentially answers from FFG in the hosted file on this site... right? (I am aware that there is still a lot that is still muddy and unanswered...)

But yeah... essentially - who is making the FAQ? Will it be FFG? Or community?

SoylentGreen said:

The answer is, FFG make the FAQ, but the community does most of the legwork.

A long standing issue with the FAQ in the past has been that often the answers are vague, contradictory (sometime directly!) and sometimes outright wrong. They also habitually answer the exact question asked and not the underlying principle, which means that it can be difficult to apply one answer to a principle rather than a unique case. Sometimes (like the RtL glyph use) a question really needs a full explanation rather than a short one-phrase answer, but a full explanation is all too rare.

So my understanding of the last process, is that the community put a lot of effort (some people in particular a huge amount of effort, Big Remy, and I think Thundercles) into building a series of thoroughly 'assessed' questions (and potential answers to them in many cases) for FFG. I think FFG provide the final answer, but the ideal is that the community thoroughly vet the questions (wording is important), do any appropriate research, and provide with each question the relevant rules, situations and several possible answers. That leaves a lot less work for FFG staff to do and gives them a better chance of properly understanding the questions before they answer. It also means that we can try to avoid having misleading questions, and try to phrase questions (and even phrase answers) so that the results provide deeper answers that can cover multiple situations, rather than one-off answers that can't be readily applied to situations that are only slightly different to the exact question asked.

Some things still slip through the usual 'public' (rather than 'community') process and we still got some outright idiotic questions/answers in the last FAQ, though far fewer than usual.

As an example of the difference this process can make:
'Public' question:
Q: Ship Upgrades and the Shipyard: For ship upgrades such as Elven Sails that have a experience cost, is this experience cost paid by the entire party (similar to the Tamalir upgrades in Road to Legend) or does only the hero who purchased the upgrade pay the experience cost?
A: Upgrades are paid for by the party.
This is a bad question (and a bad answer).
For the question, there is no connection with Tamalir upgrades at all and inserting the Tamalir upgrade is a misleading reference (which appears to have mislead). The only remote similarity is the placement of the XP cost symbol on the card. Tamalir upgrades do not take up time (thematically they involve the whole party meeting the town elders for a single meeting) but merely require the party to end their game week in Tamalir. Ship upgrades require a specific hero take an entire training week action spent at the shipyards, while other heroes may train elsewhere at the same time.
It is a bad answer for multiple reasons.
First, it doesn't clearly specify the XP, just generally says 'paid for'. The cash portion is always paid for by the party, so the answer isn't really all that useful. If taken literally it indicates that even, for example, trait upgrades should be paid for by the whole party. Even though we know that it doesn't intend this, trait upgrades have a cash cost, an XP cost, and take a specific hero an entire week training at a specific location. Exactly like Ship upgrades! Upgrades are paid for by the whole party... umm, thanks, but NOT HELPFUL!
Second, it goes directly contrary to everything we can find in the rules and doesn't say why, or acknowledge that this is a rule change . RtL has a type of upgrade and mechanism where the whole party pays an XP cost (Tamalir upgrades). SoB contains nothing like that anywhere. There is no connection between RtL and SoB (even though there are some references to things they changed). SoB stands alone, with the base set (and can accommodate the other vanilla expansions and the RtL dungeon levels). RtL rules have no bearing on or relevance to SoB . So where is this new 'whole party pays XP for an upgrade' mechanism coming from? (Well, we can see it comes directly from the misleading question actually).
Third, this brings up the problem where a hero goes to train during his train week action and finds that another hero has spent his XP without his permission during the same week and he cannot complete his training. This didn't happen in RtL because Tamalir upgrades were bought collectively at the end of the week (so after training) - as opposed to singly during the week.

Clearly the FFG personnel who answered this didn't actually know of any rules so just looked at the question and made an answer up on the spot, basing their answer on the incorrect implication in the question that Ship upgrades are similar to Tamalir upgrades. Or they were deliberately obtuse, which I think is much less likely.

If the same question was put through after a 'community response' the question would probably be edited to look something like this (note, this is how I would try to word it, but others may improve my wording or offer better suggestions).
Q: For ship upgrades such as Elven Sails that have a experience cost, who pays the XP cost?
Note misleading references are removed, and possible answers are moved to a different section.
This would then be followed by a short (preferably one paragraph, but in complex cases maybe up to half a page) explanation of the issues pertinent.
Then, in bold, so the FFG staff can quickly find it rather than reading the 'help', a selection of answers.
A1: The her o who spent the training week at the shipyard pays the XP for the upgrade he trained .
A2: The hero party, so each hero must pay the XP cost for a ship upgrade that any one of them trains.
A3: Something else we haven't thought of?
The FFG staff can then simply choose one answer entire. We get clear, explicit answers that can be tailored to cover other situations as well (this example wasn't. I remember some questions had 4 or more potential answers for FFG to choose from, allowing subtle differences in wording to have clear and long-reaching game implications.

Corbon said:

Thanks for the example and the explanation - That is something I would love to help read and maybe throw ideas at - if it were something that was just simply community led with nothing that would happen with FFG - another story.

I knew Remy put a lot of effort into the last one - I drifted off before I saw Thundercles helping - but I recall several discussions and him asking if things should be added to the list.

I'll check out the links - if for any reason - to give me stuff to look at and think about on slow work days. I'm sometimes wrong - sometimes right in these forum discussions - but I enjoy the process of looking through the rules and finding the answers.

My guess is that the idea would be that the bulk of the discussion (arguments? ) would be here, on the forum, and that a few forum members would then have the ability to edit the documents according to the discussion results. Then FFG staff only need to access the documents instead of checking here - and can probably edit the documents themselves to give answers, ask questions about the questions (I doubt it would happen, but it could) and any blunders they make can be caught in the documents they have edited before publication as a new FAQ.

SoylentGreen said:

Sounds like someone is volunteering to do craptons of editing and revising work .

Corbon, I see we're on the same page.

As a mental note to myself and anyone else who ends up on this project,
Work Required:

• List of Answered Questions: I'm not sure this is super necessary, but it was important before, when people kept asking things that were either already on the FAQ or easily answered. In any case, this would need to be updated as per the latest FAQ.
  TIME ESTIMATE: lots 'o time (10 Hours or so?). Basically, you have to pull the questions off of the list and paste them in here with their answers after looking them up in the FAQ.
• GLoAQ Google docs version: I think Parathion may have posted more answers from Kevin? It hasn't been updated in 6 months and I know that the GLoAQ has seen at least one update.
  TIME ESTIMATE: Like half an hour. Just read through the GLoAQ and see if anything relevant has been posted since 3/18
• List of questions for the FAQ: Need to remove questions that have been answered (put them in the List of Answered Questions) and add new questions that have come up since 3/18
  TIME ESTIMATE: 10 hours for removal (part of the LoAQ effort). The removal bit is super annoying because it requires checking and double-checking the FAQ (which is easier now that FFG gave it some minor semblance of order). Adding questions is the long term goal here and cannot have a time estimate.
• FAQ Edits: This document basically needs to be redone, since most of the items here are either no longer relevant or were totally ignored last time. I'm really hoping that this push will be the bulk of the work, since most of the Descent dialectic is about how crappy the FAQ is (see above).
  TIME ESTIMATE: Weeks. This is the bulk of the work and will require reading the FAQ repeatedly, as well as reviewing and editing this list repeatedly. This is the other ongoing effort.

It's possible that rewriting the FAQ would be easier and take less time (as well as allow us to really control what goes into it) but I somehow doubt they're going to let us do that, given other random angry people posting that FFG is somewhat against simply publishing user content nowadays.

Last time, I think we managed to get the FAQ reposted 3 times and consumed about a week of an FFG staffer's time. If we do this one right, we're probably going to see a similar result, but the end product should be much more satisfying.

I think this is a great project and would love to lend some help to it.

I am down with helping on editing/comparing of files - as well as diving into and researching of questions. I will take a look at the google docs - friend the 2 of you - and at least get on the radar with you guys.

I need the 'latest' FAQ. My copy is from March 2010 but doesn't include, for example, the nerf to Kel, so it can't be the latest. Every time I try to download the latest it stalls at 1.3/1.33MB (pg 17/19) and the save file is corrupted.

Can someone please send me the 18 March 2010 copy, that includes Kel's nerf?

My contact is corbonjnl at gmail dot com.

TIA.

Corbon said:

I'm on it - sending it to you now.

Corbon said:

Done, thanks to all who sent.

I found that text in descent faq list. And came to think that is it possible to play spiked pit next to crushing block?

Q: Which map items count as obstacles for the Crushing
Block trap card?
A: Crushing Block may never be played in a space
adjacent to a pit or any token (or built-in map element)
that blocks movement. The reason for this is to prevent
the Overlord from sealing a hallway completely and
preventing the heroes from ever progressing. This is a
list of all relevant obstacles, current through the Road to
Legend: Boulder, Crushing Wall, Rubble, Water. (Villagers
are figures, not map elements.)

And other thing i have been thinking after our most recent game, can heroes or overlord block magic gateways by standing in both spaces at other end? I have seen these kind of teleports only in one map. Well in that map there was other way than just the gateway to the level leader, but still blocking these teleports ruins whole idea of the map, right? If there is not other way than gateway to the level leader or to the level teleport, heroes can't finish that level and dungeon if and when overlord block the way (i am not sure is there these kind of maps).

Magic Gateways
Magic gateways allow figures to move
on the game board in ways that would
normally not be possible, entering one
gateway space and emerging in another
gateway space in an entirely different
portion of the game board.
Each magic gateway has two ends,
which usually appear on different
map tiles. The linkage between a
given gateway’s ends is indicated
by color. The Road to Legend
includes magic gateways in five colors:
red, orange, yellow, blue, and purple.
Magic gateways are color-exclusive; that is, a figure can’t enter a
red gateway and emerge from a blue one.
Each end of a given magic gateway is composed of two adjacent
squares, as indicated by the glowing, colored area on the map
piece. Both squares at one end of a gateway are considered
adjacent to both squares at the other end of the gateway for
purposes of movement, and only for the purposes of movement.
Thus, for example, it costs one movement point to move from
either square at one end to either square on the other end, but it
is not possible to make a ranged attack or trace a breath
template’s attack between a gateway’s two ends.

(found in descent road to legend expansion rulebook)

sysrq828 said:

Yes.
It has always been possible to play pits next to blocks. Blocks next to pits is forbidden, but that is another thing entirely.

sysrq828 said:

The only level I can find like this is the Keep of the Beastman Lord, which has special rules for this gateway, not the usual rules. Even if it didn;t have special rules, this gateway still couldn't be blocked at the far end because it is 'unrevealed' so nothing there exists. Blocking at the near end is just a case of teh heroes having to kill the blocking monster first.

Basically, there is no issue here.

In general, yes, magic gateways can be blocked by standing at the far end, unless a figure has Fly or Acrobat etc.

And, er, what do these questions have to do with updating the FAQ? These are general questions. This thread is for discussion about the next FAQ update. If you have something you think needs to be FAQed, or an error in the FAQ you found, etc, then post t in general discussion first, then if something really does need FAQing it can be copied here - after any discussion, so we don't clog up this thread.

ahh ffs what is wrong with this forums QUOTE

i think i just use my own brain to solve these major problems and major errors of faq.

bye.

Corbon said:

hmm, i am not sure how you find that as another thing. In faq it says that the reason why you cant play crussing block next to pit is so you cant block walk ways. So what different it makes if you block hall way by playing crussing block first and then spiked pit, than other way around? So simply that faq rule in case of pits is pointless becouse it doesnt change anything becouse you can still do it.

Corbon said:

sysrq828 said:
And other thing i have been thinking after our most recent game, can heroes or overlord block magic gateways by standing in both spaces at other end? I have seen these kind of teleports only in one map. Well in that map there was other way than just the gateway to the level leader, but still blocking these teleports ruins whole idea of the map, right? If there is not other way than gateway to the level leader or to the level teleport, heroes can't finish that level and dungeon if and when overlord block the way (i am not sure is there these kind of maps).

The only level I can find like this is the Keep of the Beastman Lord, which has special rules for this gateway, not the usual rules. Even if it didn;t have special rules, this gateway still couldn't be blocked at the far end because it is 'unrevealed' so nothing there exists. Blocking at the near end is just a case of teh heroes having to kill the blocking monster first.

Basically, there is no issue here.

From road to legend quest 34 there is 2x two way gateways. Yes there is just straight way to other side. But blocking these gateways it just make this map last so much longer and when i played this i came to think why there are these gateways? And it just stupid that you can abuse these gateways like that

Corbon said:

In general, yes, magic gateways can be blocked by standing at the far end, unless a figure has Fly or Acrobat etc.

And, er, what do these questions have to do with updating the FAQ? These are general questions. This thread is for discussion about the next FAQ update. If you have something you think needs to be FAQed, or an error in the FAQ you found, etc, then post t in general discussion first, then if something really does need FAQing it can be copied here - after any discussion, so we don't clog up this thread.

sysrq828 said:

This requires the heroes to use different tactics to finish the level. It's perfectly doable and a leader that can get away from the heroes is the point of the level. Not every level should be in favor of the heroes anyway. As Corbon stated, these things should be discussed in a different thread. If a consensus is reached that the level is not balanced in that other thread, then something should be posted here.

Found an inconsistency in the FAQ pg. 15 (yeah, sysrq828 used it, but this is a different issue entirely):

Q: Which map items count as obstacles for the Crushing
Block trap card?
A: Crushing Block may never be played in a space
adjacent to a pit or any token (or built-in map element)
that blocks movement. The reason for this is to prevent
the Overlord from sealing a hallway completely and
preventing the heroes from ever progressing. This is a
list of all relevant obstacles, current through the Road to
Legend: Boulder, Crushing Wall, Rubble, Water. (Villagers
are figures, not map elements.)

The list of relevant obstacles does not include pits when it is mentioned earlier in the answer. It would be a relevant obstacle up to that point. They should also add any relevant obstacles in SOB as well, if there are any.

hmm, i am not sure how you find that as another thing. In faq it says that the reason why you cant play crussing block next to pit is so you cant block walk ways. So what different it makes if you block hall way by playing crussing block first and then spiked pit, than other way around? So simply that faq rule in case of pits is pointless becouse it doesnt change anything becouse you can still do it.

Pits do not block corridors, just make them harder to get into. You can still jump over or walk through them. Presumably they added pits to the answer to prevent the standard tactic of dropping a pit on someone and then using Crushing Block to shove them back into it when they climb out. You used to not be able to play Crushing Block next to any obstacles, and I don't know the original reason for the errata.

Please gentlemen, start another thread for this conversation.

This is exactly what we do not want filling up this stickied thread!

If necessary, at the end of the discussion (on the new thread) a single, simplified summary can be placed here. At the moment such is not needed.

sysrq828, I understand that at the moment you think that this is FAQworthy, but you are actually making a lot of mistakes and mis-assumptions. The rules are clear here, and their application is not in doubt and does not cause major problems with any scenario. If you have further questions or arguments (and I am sure you do) then address them to a new thread where they may be discussed without clogging this one up. If your points and arguments prove not to be effectively countered, then a FAQworthy addition can be discussed on that other thread, and placed here when it is suitably refined.

Thank you.

A link to a forum discussion shorty after the latest FAQ came out. There was some discussion about possible FAQ questions to send starting near the end of page 7. Link goes to page 10. Figured it was relevant to look at for anyone working on a new FAQ.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp

Solairflaire said:

Yep, thanks. That one is on the list already.
We have over 30 sets of Q+& and discussion notes like this for the next FAQ prepared on a google group (including large monster movement one linked above). We have been working on them for the last three weeks or so and are just finalising how to bring them 'back' to 'general public' for discussion and refinement before re-collating them (possibly here) to send to FFG for the next FAQ. I guess there will probably be some action within the next week?

Most are from SoB (the other sets have had multiple FAQ revisions to be cleaned up already) but a few, like this, are major general cases that ought to be cleaned.
The plan is pretty much to throw open each to discussion in a separate thread (possibly on a sub forum here so as not to clutter up this main forum). At the end of each thread we should have a refined solution (mostly Q+A s ) that we can eventually send to FFG. We do the work, they make the decisions - with the best information and potential wordings that we can offer them.
The individual threads might only be opened a few at a time though, in order to keep 'focus' and not overwhelm with too many things to look at.
There should still be room for 'new' questions or discussions as well.

I regrettably will not have time to actively participate in the FAQ update this time around. I just started a new job with a long commute leaving me short on spare time for working on the FAQ Q&A.

I will say that I think with the crew currently working on it will probably do a more complete job than I could.

Will all the GLoAQ answers that are currently missing in the FAQ be included in the new one? I suggested it last time, but it was not done. It is always a hassle to check both FAQ and the GLoAQ thread for relevant answers.

Parathion said:

That would rock. I'd love to see the GLoAQ thread disappear entirely.