So, when playing a recent game of RtL, the Bridge of death (I think that's what its called) popped up. It is number 4. And was the preview dungeon before RtL actually came out.

It has a built in pit, then when you fall in, the figure is killed. (bottomless pit)

I have played this map before as the OL and one of my tactics was to put a crushing block down and force a hero to die.

However, reading the most recent FAQ, it states that you CANNOT put a crushing block next to a pit.

I actually have an older version printed, the previous years version, and it does not have this restriction.

Is this a new thing? Has anyone else noticed this? Is this a mistake?

Page 15 of the most recent FAQ:

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.)

Yes, it's not allowed to play a trap card next to an obstacle, since you could in theory block off the heroes' path completely with impassable terrain. Nole that two preset obstacles can be adjacent to one another, but creating your own next to another is forbidden.

Jonny WS said:

It is almost certainly not a mistake.

It was originally the rule that you couldn't a block beside a pit. That was (probably accidentally) omitted the first time the FAQ explanation for Crushing Blow was introduced and has since been rectified.

This is one of the few rulings we simply ignore, because of the explanation sentence in the FAQ answer. A pit does not block the progress of the heros, so my reasoning is that the pit was included by mistake (or sloppy editing).

Do instant-death pits potentially block hero progress?

I go by the rules listed on the actual card, because memorizing a separate list of restrictions that only appears in the FAQ and is used only for that one card is annoying and seems to be totally arbitrary and unnecessary, in addition to being completely unfair to a new overlord if I don't remember to explain every single "gotcha" in advance (or if they forget some of them). "Empty space not adjacent to obstacles" doesn't create any particular problems that I've noticed.

My reasoning is that the pit (or lava, ice, fog, corrupted, tree, mud, etc) does not block the heroes path, it simply hinders the progress. So putting a crushing block next to a pit does not stop the heroes, it just slows them down.

Do they count a pit as a blocking obstacle? or any of the others I mentioned?

How is a tree a blocking obstacle if if you can still move through it?

Do instant-death pits potentially block hero progress?

Definitely, but it's not possible to block the map in question with Crushing Block because the bridge itself is 2 spaces wide. You'd have to play a CB next to a CB, which isn't allowed.

I go by the rules listed on the actual card, because memorizing a separate list of restrictions that only appears in the FAQ and is used only for that one card is annoying and seems to be totally arbitrary and unnecessary, in addition to being completely unfair to a new overlord if I don't remember to explain every single "gotcha" in advance (or if they forget some of them). "Empty space not adjacent to obstacles" doesn't create any particular problems that I've noticed.

Agreed completely, though we play by the FAQ regardless of how ludicrous it is, just because it's easier for us to remember that everything the FAQ says goes than it is to try and remember the written rules, the FAQed rules, and a list of our own ignored FAQ rulings.

Parathion said:

Thats very strange reasoning considering the path this rule took (I know, Mahkra!)

1. Original rules, Blocks cannot be placed beside pits.
2. FAQ answer changes block rules because a number of important 'blocking' items simply aren't obstacles and aren't covered by the original rule. New answer omits pits.
3. FAQ answer is slightly modified to include pits again.

So your reasoning that 2-3, w here the only change is to the pits part , is the 'mistake'?
Surely it is much more likely that 1-2, where pits were omitted amongst a much larger change , is the 'mistake'?

Corbon said:

Run that by me again?

Unless I'm much mistaken, the only non-obstacles that were added were rolling boulders and crushing walls, both of which are completely unnecessary to include in the list because they have forced movement, and therefore would never remain adjacent to a Crushing Block (in fact, normally they can't even remain on the board indefinitely).

Rolling boulders can even be dropped onto the map anywhere with a treachery card, which no restriction about being adjacent to rubble (plus, they're 2 spaces wide), so if they could block stuff off permanently, then the heroes would be screwed no matter how you ruled Crushing Block.

So I believe you mean:

"2. FAQ answer changes unnecessarily to an arbitrary rule that places different and more complicated unnecessary restrictions on the play of the card."
"3. FAQ answer changes unnecessarily again to yet another different and even more complicated set of unnecessary restrictions on the play of the card."

I personally think that both changes were intentional: #2 changed the restriction from "obstacles" to "anything that blocks movement", based on the reasoning that the purpose of the restriction was to prevent the OL from sealing off a passage to the heroes (without anyone bothering to think too carefully about boulders or walls), deliberately removing all non-blocking obstacles (including pits) from the list, and then #3 intentionally added pits back onto the list because there's an RtL dungeon where they cause instant death and so heroes can't stand in them and they wanted to cover that (again, probably without thinking it through very carefully).

But both sets of changes were ill-considered and unnecessary. The original rule is more restrictive than strictly necessary, but it's simple, and it has the important advantage of being written on the card .

Corbon said:

I see it more like this:

1. Original rules, Blocks cannot be placed beside obstacles in general .
2. FAQ answer lists the only relevant two obstacles (rubble, water) and adds props that had not been included so far, giving an explanation for that modification.
3. FAQ answer is slightly modified to include pits, with no further explanation given as to why this was done. The given explanation from 2. is not relevant for pits.

Antistone, What you said about how they changed the ruling for one map where the pits add instant death is interesting because if you put a pit next to another pit, they are considered to be part of the same pit. So, on that RtL level, if a pit is placed adjacent to to the built in map elements then the pit that is placed would also be an instant death.

The reasoning behind the FAQ change would be silly if that was the case. Either way, the heroes are going to get killed instantly.

I am going to submit this question to FFG and see what sort of answer I get.

Jonny WS said:

Yes. Yes, it would.

Probably even if that wasn't the case, too.

Of course, there was really no way that creating instant death pits was ever going to end well. They're basically the same as water, except that they turn forced movement abilities into auto-kill abilities.

I don't have the card handy, but I'm pretty sure that only the pits printed on the map are instant death, not ones the OL plays.

James McMurray said:

No, they aren't instant death. But, the FAQ states that a pit adjacent to another (in this case the ones on the map) are part of the same pit. And the ones printed on the map are instant death. There is no official ruling, but I am assuming this is the case.

Logically (and I use that term loosely) you would assume that they are walking on a bridge, and if a space gives out, then they fall to their demise.

That's why it's best to play with the rule: The overlord cannot create new obstacles of any kind next to other obstacles(whether preset or not). This way you avoid going into all the confusing subtleties of what should be considered a progress-hindering obstacle and what shouldn't.

No, they aren't instant death. But, the FAQ states that a pit adjacent to another (in this case the ones on the map) are part of the same pit. And the ones printed on the map are instant death. There is no official ruling, but I am assuming this is the case.

I don't see why there needs to be an official ruling. If only the pits on the map are instant death, then only the pits on the map are instant death.

Logically (and I use that term loosely) you would assume that they are walking on a bridge, and if a space gives out, then they fall to their demise.

Logic holds no place in Descent. It is not a reality engine intent on trying to mirror physics, it's a board game. It's up to us to make our internal flavor text mesh with the rules if we demand "realism." In this case I'd say that the bridge itself is very tall, so a pit on it just drops you deeper into the bridge rather than opening into the chasm. Given that it avoids auto-kills for the OL and follows the rules as printed on the card, I think it's better than house ruling the level to make it more "believable" at the expense of playability.