Antistone said:

In almost every game I've ever played if something has a radius it uses a template of some kind (though not necessarily a physical one). Why, when someone sees this question in the FAQ, should that person think differently when they see the word radius? While there is nothing directly stating that there is a template involved, it's implicity assumed once you use the word radius (Thanks Corbon for stating what I was thinking).

Antistone said:

Would this ability be functionally the same as Word of Vaal? I hadn't thought of that possibility before. The only real differences are it's radius is variable and it targets a single space. If, with the current rules, you can't come up with a definitive answer on this one, how can you state that all radius abilites are templates? This doesn't seem to be all that different from them honestly.

What's wrong with you? Word of Vaal is one of the examples listed in the question!

How can I make this clearer?

1. A question was asked because, before the question was asked, we weren't sure how they worked.

2. The question used the same terminology everyone on the forum used when it was being discussed.

3. I can't name a single game where the word "radius" is specifically linked to the concept of using a template to determine the affected area.

4. Even if that were some nigh-universal standard that everyone in the forum discussion was somehow unaware of, if that actually caused an incorrect answer to this question, that's the lamest screw-up in Descent authorship to date. You're suggesting that the person who's job is to explain how the rules work was presented with two detailed choices for the workings of a bunch of explicitly named effects, one of them completely correct, but chose the incorrect one because a word that would have had an untrue implication in a different context was used in BOTH options. If someone used the term "AC" instead of "armor" when talking about Descent, I'm not going to get so confused that I tell someone that armor in Descent reduces the odds of getting hit. Not to mention there's so much redundancy in the wording of that question that the word "radius" could have been written in Eskimo and he still wouldn't have had an excuse for misunderstanding.

5. If we seriously need to be concerned with such a ridiculous error, we might as well give up on the FAQ entirely, because there are no words we can possibly use that won't have a special technical meaning to someone , and anyone who gets so confused by incidental word choice that he makes an official answer that is the opposite of true isn't worth listening to anyway. (Not that I put much stock in the FAQ currently.)

6. And on a tangential note, you haven't presented a single scrap of evidence that it should work the other way. The diagram in the rulebook explaining how to calculate range doesn't even cover diagonals , let alone corners.

Antistone said:

Umm, yeah. That's the only reason I'd contemplate proposing putting in the extra clarification. It seems somewhat rude to simply say "we made a detailed and explicit question for you last time but we don;t like the answer you gave and think you might have screwed it up". OTOH, that is exactly might have happened, and it wouldn't be the first time. Thus, forcing an explicit example that would work one way and not the other will either reinforce the previous ruling, or draw out a self-understanding of an error. Either way works for me!
OTOH it might still be a little rude, or considered completely unnecessary.

I'd like to have a FAQ I could trust a bit more...
I'm working towards that.

Antistone said:

Word of Vaal is the closest thing to the described ability. Using it to determine the how the ability would work is the best course of action. Unless you know of a better way. I know it's hypothetical, but it's definately a valid way to determine how stuff works.

1) & 4) Bad questions lead to bad answers, whether the answer is right or not. No offense to the people who wrote the question, but including examples in the question tells the person answering it that there are only two options, maybe there was another option that would have been considered but was rejected because there were only two options given. The question should have been more general and forced them to actually give an example. Questions are generally a good thing and I encourage them to get answers that are needed. But if a question gets through that is worded poorly and could lead the answerer on, I would expect someone to call it out. That's what I'm doing. Calling this question into question. I don't believe in the question itself. Why should I believe the answer to be correct, even if it is from an official source?

2) That's elitist actually. The FAQ is supposed to be understandable to as many people as possible. It shouldn't be written using the terminology of an elite few who frequent the forums.

3) All forms of D&D describe very well how AOE effects are handled. If there are any exceptions, they describe them. In fact, most role-playing system describes that stuff very well. A lot of strategy games, like Warhammer, also describe these types of thing to a huge degree. I'm sure other smaller scale tactical games (like Descent) also describe these things.

5) Corbon stated it correctly. I want an FAQ I can trust. You stated yourself that you don't really believe in the FAQ. Lets try and get stuff corrected in it. If that means getting answers clarified, new answers to old questions, eliminating repetition, getting rid of ridiculous errors, or whatever. Lets do it.

6) Ok. Breath says to ignore rolled range. It never says to ignore other stated range for anything. The 3 spaces given for Command are also the range on the ability itself, not just the radius of the ability. Nowhere does it state that it can't be both the radius and range at the same time.

Solairflaire said:

That is unfair, if sort of accurate.

The question was discussed here IIRC, in an effort to bring it to a wide audience to critique before sending it to FFG, for precisely the reasons you describe. If everyone here had the opportunity to see, and comment, on any issues with the question, then did not, it isn't fair to claim elitism. We did try...

Incidentally, I am currently writing up a list of new questions or edits for the next FAQ, that will be critiqueable here before we send them. I'll be posting something in a week or two (still setting up the background information and first draft for the questions to be discussed). Please come to that discussion!

That was unfair to say. I'll admit that. It was probably even elitist the other way. Double-standard FTL.

Solairflaire said:

Command doesn't mention the term "range". I think you're confusing yourself by insisting on that term, because you're then assuming that "range" must be calculated the same way for an ability as it is for an attack. But whether you call it "range" or "radius", "within X spaces" is still completely undefined in the original game.

(The concept of "range" could be used to describe other things in this game, too - such as movement. Your # of MP is essentially your character's 'range' of movement, but that's not calculated the same way as an attack, because some spaces cost more than one MP. And sometimes an attack path is not a legal movement path - like when you shoot over water.)

I happen to think that the FAQ answer in question is actually one of the best questions/answers in the entire document, because (1) it really matters and (2) it's very clear. It's a significant issue that comes up multiple times in almost every game, and the question offers two very plausible alternate interpretations. (Yes, there are many more possible interpretations, but none that seem likely.) I really don't have any particular preference for one interpretation over the other, but I'm glad to have an unambiguous explanation rather than just making up the rules at my gaming table. (I accept the necessity of making up rules for completely bizarre one-time occurrences, but it's frustrating to make up rules for common situations that come up every 10 minutes.)

As for asking FFG to clarify this FAQ answer, is there really some reason to think the answer we have is wrong? Is it inconsistent with game mechanics we already understand? Does it create unfair exploits in-game? Does it contradict the way the majority of people on the forum think the game works? (I'd say the majority of players rather than the majority of forum users, but we have no way of polling Descent players who are not active in the community.)

I'm all for having rules that are consistent and that actually work, but I really don't see the necessity in asking for clarification on this one. I don't see any problems with the rule we've been given; it seems like it just doesn't fit with some people's personal preferences. If you don't like the rule, you don't have to use it. (I've tried out many different house rules myself; there's nothing sacred about the "real" rules of a game.)

I'm not going to try to stop people from asking for clarification, but I do wonder about the reasoning. Are we submitting FAQ questions because we're trying to change the 'official' rules to reflect our own visions of the game, or are we submitting FAQ questions to get clarification on situations that are not addressed by the rules?

Solairflaire said:

You think that because you happen to be on the wrong side of this one question, but established doctrine is exactly the opposite, and for good reason. Corbon in particular is always endorsing that we write out a bunch of plausible answers so that the FAQ writers can pick one.

Why? Because there are dozens of examples where we write a question about some subtle, complicated issue, trying to tease forth a rule that actually explains what happens, and then get an answer like "Yes." Sometimes when "yes" isn't even a gramatically appropriate answer. Or there was the question about the Knight skill, where they misunderstood and answered a bizarre question that no one was confused about multiple times before we finally made them understand what we were asking in the first place (despite the fact that the final ruling contradicted a strict reading of the card).

Experience has shown that if you don't suggest an example in the question, you usually won't get one in the answer. Even if one is really necessary.

Solairflaire said:

No, it's exactly the opposite of elitist. We sampled the largest population that we realistically could, in a venue where anyone who wanted to have input could easily have made themselves heard, and used the most common terminology.

Solairflaire said:

How is that relevant to anything? I'm not an expert at D&D, but I've played it, and to the best of my knowledge, "radius" is not a technical word, and they don't have ANY effects that work like a template in Descent (though they do have a "spread" effect that works like the other suggested option).

The issue was whether using the word "radius" would automatically imply the template answer to this question based on the person's experience with the use of that word in other contexts. You have so far failed to provide ANY example where it would have that implication, despite your claim that "almost every game [you've] ever played" uses the word in that way. Can you even produce a quote from ONE game that would illustrate your point, or are you just spouting hot air?

I'm sure that words exist that could have been used in the Descent rulebook to make this clear. But that doesn't help us if they didn't actually use them.

Solairflaire said:

I asked you to provide evidence in favor of your position. Pointing out things that the rules don't say does not count. Especially when you're making up new techncial definitions for words that aren't defined or even used in the abilities in question.

As Mahkra said, as far as questions in the FAQ go, this is actually a good one. It's very difficult to see how either the question or answer could be misunderstood. The question was "leading" to the extent that it suggested only two possible answers, but those are the only possibilities that I have ever seen anyone seriously suggest, and I really can't come up with any others that are remotely plausible. Can you?

mahkra said:

Well, yes.
It means these effects can not only go through walls, but also through non-spaces!
In one way of looking at it... sure, it has to go around, but the actual 'count' goes through.

Matter of fact, I'm already looking at questioning the 'goes through doors' thing - it creates some very game-changing effects in several SoB levels as Astarra can trigger glyphs from behind rune-locked doors , which makes a mockery of needing to get the runekey. But that goes more to your final question below...

mahkra said:

Well, that is why I am asking whether it is worth getting extra clarification.

I'd like a ruleset (including FAQ) that is internally consistent. But I don't think just my likes are worth bothering FFG for a FAQ change.
In this case I think that the answer might be internally inconsistent. It may be that the previous answer-er didn't consider that inconsistency, or it may be that he did and dismissed it. That is why if we do propose a change it would just be an example that makes it very clear whether this potential internal inconsistency is intended or not and leave it up to the answerer to 'discover' that they made a mistake last time (if they did) or confirm it quite thoroughly (if they did not). Either way, those reading the ruling get a very clear backup of how that ruling works.

Corbon said:

This is perfectly consistent with Breath, so is not a new mechanic. And it certainly makes a difference in the way many abilities work (which is why it was such an important question to answer!), but does it negatively affect the game to have things work this way?

Corbon said:

This is probably a stupid question, but I have to ask...
I haven't played much SoB yet, and have only actually seen a few of the levels - are there situations where the area behind the rune-locked door starts out already revealed? I don't think anyone would let an effect pass through a door to an unrevealed area, as those areas essentially do not yet exist.

Corbon said:

My apologies if I seemed to be dismissing your concerns & Solarflaire's concerns out-of-hand, for that was not my intent. If there are genuine gameplay concerns resulting from this ruling, then by all means let's ask for clarification. I was just trying to say that I hadn't seen any actual issues mentioned yet.

The only "issue" I'd really noticed is that it's inconsistent with how range is calculated for an attack. But is that actually an issue? You could describe 'range' for movement, knockback, blast, an attack, bolt / breath, and numerous skills or abilities, and you'd end up with quite a few different concepts of range. In this FAQ answer, it's inconsistent with range for an attack, but it's perfectly consistent with 'range' for breath.

If there are many cases in SoB, though, that could be cause to give this FAQ ruling a second look. Maybe the levels are badly designed, or maybe there's a problem with this FAQ ruling. Or maybe there's nothing wrong, and there just happen to be a few levels that are trivial if you have the right party.

mahkra said:

1. Is it perfectly consistent with breath? Breath can't do these things because it is explictly styopped by walls and doors. It must still go around them, this doesn't seem to need to?
Put a hero directly below carthos in the FAQ pg 3 examples and that hero cannot be breath-ed upon yet fits within range 4.
Perhaps I am still missing something here? I feel like I still don't quite have my head around this one.

2. Yes, at least two (and I haven't studied the levels exhaustively, just ones we have run into). They are single 'normal' dungeon levels, so count as one area and are entirely revealed.
In one case the blue runekey is at the end of a long corridor filled with rubble and 'swamp' (water that you can enter at extra cost and gives you a web token if you end your movement in it) spaces. There are two runedoors on the north side of he corridor. The first, near the starting glyph is a yellow rune door with no key (only the boss can ever open it, and he starts just far enough away from it that he can't open it on turn 1 without a Charge card). The second, about 2/3-3/4 along is a blue rune door (needs the key at the end). But 3 spaces on the other side of the blue runedoor is a glyph. Astarra just runes up to the door, triggers the glyph through the locked door, and the heroes can get into the other side through the glyph. The level should be very hard work getting the key. Between the rubble and the swamp it is not easy to get at the key and virtually impossible to prevent spawning (sans Kirga). Meanwhile the boss can pop out behind the heroes with reinforcements...
In the second case the runekey is behind a large (6 spaces) pit that 'pulls' all figures in the dungeon (except the boss) towards it at the start of the OLs turn. You need to get the runekey to open a runedoor, behind which is a glyph and the boss. But the glyph is just two spaces behind the door, so again, Astarra can just run up to the door, trigger the glyph and never bother with the awkward and risky runekey.

1. Perhaps I overstated slightly as it is not exactly like breath. But the rule does say that non-attacks go through doors, but attacks do not. So the attacks part of it is consistent with breath, and the non-attacks part of it is merely extremely similar to breath.

2. I can see how this would ruin some perfectly good levels. I'm still not sure there's any problem with the template concept, but I do see how abilities going through doors could cause issues. (Personally I don't think anything should go through doors, but I don't really think about it much because it doesn't really come up very often in our games. Almost always the only closed doors are the ones leading to unrevealed areas. Or rune-locked doors closed behind the heroes, but they don't really just hang out next to the door after it's closed.)

Antistone said:

As you stated, radius is defined by the English language and has been defined in this very thread from what I remember. Your assumption is that these abilities only have a radius and must become a template that follows the breath template. If by pointing out ways that you could be in error isn't supporting my position when it is the only other viable one presented, I don't know what to do.

Range is defined in the base rules quite clearly. Pg. 11 the picture example, Counting Range Example, explains it. Range is the number of spaces from an origin point to an ending point. If I am given a number of spaces for an ability, that would also be its range. As far as I know, range cannot go through walls and must use the available spaces provided. That would include going around walls.

The FAQ only states that the abilities function like the breath example, not the breath template. The only thing the breath example explains is that a flying figure must be able to reach the figure in question for that figure to be affected by it. There is no mention that there may or may not also be a range limitation on the ability itself. Breath explicitly says it doesn't have one, but that does not mean other abilites that follow its example won't have a range limitation.

I don't appreciate being told to give arguments and then when I do, being told they aren't valid because you decided they don't fit some arbitrary definition you came up with. Honestly, it's insulting. If you wanted me to explain something better because you don't know what I'm saying or want clarification on parts of it, ask me.

Solairflaire said:

Nobody is assuming that the abilities must become a template. We're merely reading the FAQ, which explicitly states that the abilities use a template.

And while the term "radius" certainly can describe an enclosed area (e.g. "everyone in a 20-mile radius"), that's not the only way to use the term. In general, the term "radius" just means the distance from the center to a point in the periphery . When applying the term to the game, you still have to figure out how to calculate that distance , so this brings us back to the template idea vs. counting spaces "as the razorwing flies."

Solairflaire said:

Counting range for an attack is clearly defined in the base rules. But 'counting range' for movement definitely doesn't work the same way.

And not everything in the game requires you to 'count range'. (Line of Sight [in general] and Breath / Bolt are obvious examples.) If we're discussing an ability that we have been told does not 'count range', then how is the picture on page 11 relevant at all?

Solairflaire said:

Actually, the breath example explains that a flying figure must be able to reach the figure in question without leaving the breath template . And as for what the FAQ tells us, let's look again at that Q&A:

Q: Must the target space be reachable by (1) moving a number of spaces, or (2) do these work like Breath (fly to anywhere within a template)?
A: These abilities work like Breath.

Are you saying that you think this answer actually means that the target must be reachable by [a flying figure] moving a number of spaces? The FAQ writer chose option (1), but used the exact language from option (2) to explain the [a flying figure] modification? Doesn't it seem infinitely more likely that by using the exact language from option (2), the FAQ writer was actually choosing option (2)?

Solairflaire said:

If you use the template concept and restrict the range as you describe, then the template concept is utterly pointless. The spaces reachable counting range "as the razorwing flies" are a subset of the spaces beneath the template.

Solairflaire said:

Breath doesn't "have no range". The "range" of breath is restricted by the size of the breath template. Breath ignores rolled range because the "range" of a breath attack is already determined. (Breath certainly has a "range" in some sense, but you definitely don't have to "count range" as per page 11.)

Sorrry for the delay, I had to walk away to get a fresh perspective. I'll admit straight out that I was being stubborn. That happens to me, a lot actually. There's still a few things I'd like to say before stopping though.

mahkra said:

The range for movement is dependent on the MP spent, but that doesn't mean that the amount of MP available is the range. The range would be the number of spaces moved since even at full MP, a figure doesn't need to spend them all. Besides, the maximum range could only ever be 1 space for movement anyway because you need to stop at each space, spend the MPs necessary to enter, take any other effects for entering the space (like lava), and allow the overlord to play cards. You don't spend all your MPs and then just place your figure where you want it to end up.

While you don't need to calculate the range on all things, that doesn't mean they don't have one. LOS has an infinite range unless restricted (by say Gust of Wind, which would make it 5). The definition I use has a wide range of possibilities that can be applied in a lot of circumstances and I can't see it interfering with other rules. A better word would probably be distance, but that isn't what is used in the rules. I think you are confusing yourself by trying to use a bunch of different definitions for the word when only one applies in the context of the discussion.

mahkra said:

I don't see a problem with this.

mahkra said:

You're using yet another definition for range here.

All in all, my main complaint is that this seems to actually break the game really. My group used the rule as it stands when we started playing and it seemed fine since there were only a couple of abilities it mattered for. It made Word of Vaal overpowered, but the heroes had it such a short time it didn't usually matter. Now there is Spiritwalker, Kirga, Auras that extend to 2 spaces (although that's only in the Demon Prince fight AFAIK), and other things. This ruling makes all of these vastly more powerful than using the other interpretation. Now, when the heroes get one of these things, it makes them far and away more powerful and really tips things in their favor by a huge margin. See below for knockback, but that was what made us decide that it made the heroes too powerful. When you hit a monster and can spend a couple surges and send it 10 spaces away "as the razorwing flies" but only technically 5 spaces, that's overpowered. Same thing with Spiritwalker, as the razorwing flies 20 space, actually only 10 spaces with the template method.

Mahkra had asked for possible exploits before, I'll provide a possibility. How does the rule interact with Knockback? That would have a radius and be a template too based on the wording. The only part I see being in contention is what do they mean by move the figure 3 spaces. Does it mean follow the movement rules (so as the razorwing flies) or are they just describing the physical actions the player must take (pick the piece up and place it somewhere)? My group has always thought of this the second way (pick up and place). If this was discussed before, sorry for asking again. Just point me in the right direction for the discussion.

Solairflaire said:

There was a thread a while back where I asked how the knockback distance was calculated, and IIRC everyone else said there's no possible way knockback uses the "radius / template" concept. The forum consensus was that knockback actually moves & calculates distance "as the razorwing flies".

I don't have the time to search for that other thread before I leave for work this morning, though.

Solairflaire said:

Sorry if the varying definitions of range confused the issue. The real point is that the idea we're discussing never mentions range , so there's no reason to think that single definition of range would apply.

I must say I have lost the thread of the conversation a bit.

Solairflaire said:

Picture

If you apply a maximum of MP for the "flying-razorwing" within a template, the template isn't needed, cause you will end up with the normal movement/flying calculation.

Solairflaire said:

Without having read any thread with this topic I would say Knockback works like a razorwing.

"move each affected target figure up to three spaces away from its current location. [...] The figure does not actually move through the first two spaces it is knocked completely over them. As such, this “knockback movement” is not blocked by any intervening figures or obstacles (though a figure cannot be moved through a closed door or wall)."

As the first two spaces are extra mentioned and the figure cannot be moved trough walls.

So am I right, that now the discussion is only about the strength of such abilities with big templates? Because 11x11 in case of Spiritwalker seem quite much for me in this light. This covers 2/3 of the space of all dungeons in JitD ... And in worst case if you image a spiral you can cover an area of 80 movementpoints ...

Here 's the other thread where we determined knockback movement does not follow the radius/template concept. I'm pretty sure we actually reached a consensus on it by the end.

(You can skip straight to page 4, reply #46, without missing too much. There's much discussion about knockback movement through boulders that is not relevant to this thread's discussion.)

Hello eveyone. I am new here but I have been playing Descent of a few years. I seem to be misunderstanding something in this discussion. When looking at the breath template, it seems to me that it does not go though walls, hence that is why the hero on the bottom left example is unaffected. So to me it reaffirms the belief that non space does not exist. That is why the area is "redded out". It seems to me that the faq was making a point that like breath, it can go around corners. Am I missing something?

Sorry, I mean abilities, not knockback.