Corbon said:

Uh...whereas if they were using 'ranged attack' to mean 'an attack that is not melee', then it would NOT be already clear that melee attacks were excluded?

And on the general topic of "the scrub rules were written by an incompetent", that might conceivably tie into the "LOS in own space" question in that it's not obvious whether the range penalty applies when attacking out of a scrub space, into a scrub space, both, or neither. It looks like the same root error, where they write the rules as if you were tracing corner-to-corner instead of center-to-center.

Sometimes I wonder if the editing in Descent expansions is actually becoming worse . It's probably just that the mistakes that haven't been FAQ'd yet stand out more...I hope...

Antistone said:

1. Yes. Some people might argue that melee attacks need a range of 1 (even though that would be wrong) and think that melee attacks with a rolled range of only 1 may fail in scrub (because the scrub increases the range required to 2). If it is just 'attacks with a range - ie all attacks' then there is a (bad) case for excluding melee attacks explicitly. If it is 'attacks of type Ranged' then there is no possible reason (I can think of) that they might explicitly exclude melee and not also explicitly exclude magic .
Basically they have 1 explicit exclusion. If they actually meant to exclude 2 types then it is inconceivable that they'd only mention one in the explict exclusion and not mention the other .

2. I don't know... they mention 'into' and 'through' which implies there is an 'out of' that isn't mentioned. I think the root error is that they know it is obvious that you don't have to see through your own space because you are in it , so they write with that assumption.

Corbon said:

But you seem to be implicitly assuming that it is more likely and/or somehow preferable that they intentionally added a second, implicit, and extremely confusing definition to an existing technical term than that they simply forgot to include "...or magic" in one part or the other. (In a sentence that already demonstrates multiple examples of terrible editing in a very compact space.)

I really hope you're wrong about that, because just thinking about the sheer soul-crushing stupidity required if you're right causes me actual physical pain. They studiously and consistently wrote "ranged or magic" in all sorts of places for years before this. I can even cite places in the same expansion where they did so, and I don't own it, haven't played it, and haven't even read much of the manual. For them to intentionally replace a good convention they've been following for years with such an incredibly stupid one (which they don't define and don't even follow consistently) would make my head explode.

Corbon said:

The effect applies when you fire "into or through" a scrub space...which I overlooked, because the actual effect is "every scrub space that line of sight is traced through adds two range...".

OK, that's probably merely an editing error (the second "through" should match the first "into or though") on an already terribly-worded sentence rather than a conceptual error.

Perhaps we should ask the question as to why a familiar would need to have the flying ability.

If they can move through enemy figures, and end their movement in spaces containing enemy figures there is no real need to them to have fly unless its to ignore some obstacles. Such as rubble and water. But what about a pit? Do familiars need to spend movement to get out of a pit? If so, how can they do so if they cant do any special movement actions?

Perhaps we should allow a bit of time to discuss that question in the thread where it came up before we move it here?

One of the most important questions of this new FAQ, of which a whole expansion depends, should be:

How is (or: how to make) Sea of Blood winnable (with more than a single digit percentage probability) for heroes against a competent OL who plays to win?

Under the current rules, Lieutenants seem to raze cities (or bindings) too easily and too soon to allow the campaign to last until the final battle. This is so because:

a) When fleeing, Lieutenants don't go away like they did in RtL, as they can come back the very following turn.

b) Lieutenants spawn at various places instead of a single place like in RtL, so heroes cannot protect part of the map like they could in RtL.

c) Like in RtL, it is almost impossible to kill a Lieutenant against a competent OL, as they can be placed very far from the ship, then flee on their first turn.

d) When chasing Lieutenants, heroes stop making the campaign progress after a while (when Islands have been explored), as they don't earn Conquest anymore. This gives the OL even more time to siege and roll for razes with the Lieutenants that are not currently chased. The "solution" to this could be to stop chasing Lieutenants and enter dungeons, but with unhindered sieging, the OL also seems to have the upper hand.

Proposed solutions (ideas are of course welcome):

A. No Lieutenant can be spawned before the Silver Age.

B. Razes happen on a blank, not on a surge.

C. It becomes progressively harder to raze cities: after 2 cities razed, the OL needs 2 surges (not necessarily in a row) to raze a city; after 4 cities razed, he needs 3. Or: one more surge for each city razed (1 for the 1st, 2 for the 2nd, 3 for the third, etc.).

D. Lieutenants cannot flee.

E. When fleeing, Lieutenants return to the OL's Keep. If it is landlocked, they need 1 week to get to the nearest city.

F. When fleeing, Lieutenants are removed from the map. They may return to their spawning location when the OL rolls a power enhancement (surge?) at the beginning of a week.

G. Sieges are broken whenever heroes successfully sail through the map.

H. ...

This should really, really be addressed in the FAQ, so that a party has good chances to enjoy a SoB campaign until the end .

Ispher said:

I agree, but this is a balance question, separate in a way from rules questions.

In a way it is an entirely separate category of discussion with FFG, though the results of that discussion would hopefully bear fruit is FAQ additions.

I would like to add an extra document (to our later discussions with FFG staff) aside from the FAQ change proposals that addresses the fundamental flaws in SoB.
But the first thing required in this document is a thorough explanation of how and why the fundamental flaws mean that the game cannot be completed if the OL makes an effort. We basically need to 'prove' (as near to proof as is possible) the flaw is deep and total.
It isn't good enough to just go to FFG and cry 'broken, please fix', even if fixit ideas are provided.
We need supporting data. (I'm working on supplying data through a solo campaign on BGG, but it takes a huge amount of time to prepare a tiny amount of data).
We need a good mathematical analysis (someone did one on BGG, was that you Ispher?)

Basically though, the FAQ revision is for all of Descent (even if much of it is SoB related) and so has first priority, for me, for now.

I think that it would be worthwhile starting another thread, with an XXX. numbering, titled "SoB campaign balance", or something similar. Attempts to collate data and write the 'proof', as well as ideas for 'fixes' (the simpler the better) and discussion of teh implications of those ideas, could be collated there.
But since that is not the primary purpose of this subforum, I'd like more 'yes please's' beofr creating such a thread.
How about we work on that in the google group for now? - or put a thread up in the main forum (and at BGG) asking for people to supply campaign results - Group ID and campaign number (to prevent the same data being counted twice), campaign result, rough timeline when result achieved, heroes used, Avatar chosen, Plot chosen and whether the OL really tried hard to win as best he could (I know some campaigns I've read the OL is deliberately not trying hard to win).

Corbon said:

I didn't do a mathematical analysis, which would not be that easy to do if we aim for something rigorous. However, I would be glad to add my campaign's result to the data, even if it won't be worth much, as we already implemented a couple of house rules. Why did we do so? Because it seems obvious to us that the game will stop before the end with a OL victory if we don't*, for the reasons a) to d) listed above, to which I'd like to add:

e) Empirical evidence: more than a year after Sea of Blood's issue, we have yet to see a campaign won by the heroes.

I mean, come on, FFG issues a game which no hero side in the whole world is able to win in more than a year, and they still won't issue an errata in their March 2011 FAQ?! This is not the time to put one's head in the sand and do nothing! At least do something simple like A or B, but having nothing in Descent's next FAQ about Descent's biggest problem would be a catastrophy and would be felt as a letdown by many, many Sea of Blood players - and buyers.

So maybe it doesn't have to appear in this forum, but it sure needs to appear in the FAQ!!!

*We don't want to be certain to reach the end either; what we aim for is at least a tiny bit of uncertainty .

Pardon the reply to a post which is itself a little off-topic, but I'm a little amused why, after such chronic failure in design and uneven effort in revision, anyone would still turn to FF to fix the problems of Sea of Blood. These are the people that brought you the Quest Compendium, Lone Golem, Zyla, Burglar, and the slew of unbeatable expansion quests. These are people who seem to only skim FAQs before answering. The fact that their design team has brief flashes of inspiration, however impressive, is not a reason to perpetuate the mythology that they know what they're doing in terms of sound design. Their past experience in creating that-which-is-often-fu n should not lead us to prostrate ourselves before their pulpit of that-which-is-fair. What information do you think FF has to make these kind of decisions that you don't also have? What obscure process do you think they use that you cannot also use? If they released a kit saying ' we suggest the following changes, which we have deduced after months of careful playtesting ', would anyone here really be foolish enough to believe them? I promise you that many, many people on this forum have played more Descent (SoB or otherwise) than anyone who works for FFG. And I can find plenty of evidence that people here and at BGG have actually played . Everyone who comments on SoB pretty much agrees that there's no evidence that FF development has played, at all.

Here's a hypothetical-

If the regulars on this forum (you know who you are) spent half the time they do here on a new forum for a cooperative, player-driven initiative to put together a tested, comprehensive set of revisions to Sea of Blood which make it playable, balanced, and fun, does anyone here really think that errata from FF would be better? Here, Corbon, I'm gonna call you out– Corbon is far from laconic, and sometimes has a bit too much confidence in his own opinions. But he's also probably spent more time thinking about Descent mechanics than anyone else alive, and really knows his stuff when it comes to both tactical and legal questions. And Antistone may be rough-around-the-edges, but he designs balanced quests only out of love, out of a desire to make balanced quests . He is not trying to sell me something, and that is why I, for one, will trust his work above FF's– because it will be used or discarded solely on its merits as a design, not because it has a shiny new boat thingy, or comes in a shrink-wrapped box with a picture of a sea monster on it. There are no mystical forces at FF, no geniuses who spend their days with spreadsheets, carefully calculating balance. They're people just like us, except less informed, and less personally invested. We're turning to people who have taken our money, and abused our trust, when we should be turning to ourselves.

-pw

I don't care about advanced campaigns, but speaking to principle, whatever faults FFG may have, their status as the publisher makes any changes they put forth immensely more likely to be accepted by the community at large, and having a set of rules accepted by the community at large makes it much easier to discuss the rules, and much more likely if you find a new playing group that the other players will use the same rules that you do. Thus, even if the actual changes were invented and proofed entirely by the community, getting the official stamp on them has some value.

For example, I've gotten nothing but positive response to The Enduring Evil , but official Descent is still the default assumption on the forums. Though admittedly, the amount of work involved in creating an EE card set may have something to do with that, as well...

Could you add an aclaration to know if the OL can gain threat with a dark charm attack?

OK, I will do two questions that I think that should be included:

1. When the OL plays Dark Charm on a hero, can he gain threat with the hero attack sourges?

• 1A) Yes, the attack is done under the OL control and he can spend surges to gain threat like any other monster attack.
• 1B) No, the OL can choose how to spend surges, but he cannot gain threat with this attack because it is done by a hero character.

2. When One Fist hero uses his special ability, is it a hook weapon attack? Can he add melee dice and an off-hand bonus to this attack?

• 2A) Yes, he adds melee weapon dice to this attack, and he can gain a melee off-hand bonus if he is using a melee weapon in his hand.
• 2B) He adds melee wepon dice because it is a melee attack; but it is a special melee attack, so he cannot add an off-hand bonus because it is not a weapon.
• 3B) He only rolls one red and one green dice.
• 4B) Any other answer.

gran_orco said:

I am for including in the FAQ questions that are frequently asked but that do have their answers in the rules. I would, however, leave no choice but what is written in the rules, so I would propose only one answer. FFG people could then decide if they want to include it in the FAQ or not. As an example, the hook question:

Q: How does One Fist's hook attack work?

A: It is a melee attack, therefore melee trait dice are rolled, and skill and item bonuses apply. Surges rolled are useless, except to activate special items like Gauntlets of Might. One Fist may make his additional hook attack whether he takes a Battle, an Advance, a Run or a Ready action, but he may only make it during his turn. As the hook is not an equipped weapon, it gains no benefit from the skill Ambidextrous. One Fist may also carry out his additional hook attack when he is Stunned or while in the Stomach of a Master Ice Wyrm, but not while he is Sleeping.

I hope I've covered everything.

Gentlemen (and Ladies),

From this thread I have the following collated:

101. Ispher: Island flee #14
102. Ispher: Damage ignores armour
103. McManus: Reinforcement Marker in new dungeon levels - IMO NN, +1 support
104. Immortal: Fatigue tokens limiting?
105. immortal: Focused out power cards
106. Immortal: Immunity to Avatars #27
107. Dragon76: Secret Training 3 options? IMO NN, +1 support #25
108. Antistone: Start of Turn clarifications
109. Antistone: Extended ruling to all situations
110. Corbon: Fog
111. Antistone: Familiars in Pits (or make it bigger)
112. Antistone: Daze + Bash #13
113. Parathion: Transport Gem timing
114. Gran Orco: Threat from Dark Charmed attack
115. Gran Orco: One Fist attack

In italics have already been turned into questions with their own thread, number given.
I'll set about churning some of these out this week as new threads, but there is still time for more questions. I know I have personally thought of a few several times reading other threads in the main forum, when I didn't have the energy or time to record them, and have now forgotten

In particular, please state (if you haven't already) support for the creation of some of the weaker 'possible threads' above - #103 and #115 especially, though I guess #115 pretty much has to go in...

I do support: 102 (myself, duh!), 108 (strongly), 109, 110 (it indeed seems "only" is missing), 111, 113 (strongly), 114, 115 (but if possible not the way Gran Orco worded it).

I remind my line of reasoning for 102: if an item existed that made its carrier immune to bat attacks, and both a monster and a weapon in the game were named "bat", the carrier would have to be immune to both attacks from bat monsters and figures wielding the bat weapon. Or, as another example: if, in a future expansion, FFG printed a treachery card that made the targeted hero roll 1 die for every piece of his equipment and discard it on a blank, and that card was named "Frost", Karnon would have to be immune to it even though it is completely different from the only "Frost" he is currently immune to, because being immune to Frost is being immune to all possible "Frost"s in existence . Therefore the argument "ignoring armor means that only the numerical armor value is ignored because otherwise it would mean two different things" is void, simply because in the English language, one word can mean two (or more) different things. Without further (FAQ!) precision, "Ignoring armor" can perfectly well and even can only mean that both the hero's armor value and all abilities of his equipped armor are ignored.

No one was able to refute that argument yet, so until someone does, that question will keep my support (actually, I am quite certain that any English teacher would give me right). On top of that, it was a frequently asked question a while ago, and I predict that if it is not resolved, it will be asked again.

Otherwise I'm fine with the rules of 103, which seem clear to me. 104 and 105 were already covered in questions 21 and 26, so they should be in italics.

In any case, I already say a very big thank you to Corbon for this FAQ compilation. It is a Labor of Hercules!

Ispher said:

It's an interesting argument, but I'm fairly certain it's pretty much all wrong.

It is definitely not true that a word in natural English can ONLY refer to all of its definitions simultaneously. If I say "it is a myth that bats are blind; all bats have eyes," I doubt any native speaker would seriously argue my statement was false on the ground that baseball bats do not have eyes. If I say "this product must not deviate from these standards," no one is going to tell me my sentence is ungrammatical because "deviate" is also a noun.

And I'm not convinced that a word in natural English can EVER refer to multiple definitions simultaneously, except with explicit clarification. Someone might say something like "that man is dumb, in both senses of the word," but if you only said "that man is dumb," I don't think anyone would guess that you meant in both senses. Certainly that would not be the default assumption.

Your frost example is further flawed, because a card named "Frost" and an ability named "Frost" are not written in the same way (special abilities have their names in bold). There are, in fact, already two things in the game named "Frost": the special ability, and the effect token (similar to burn, bleed, daze, etc.). There have already been debates about what happens if you equip armor that makes you immune to, say, Daze after already receiving daze tokens, and the consensus was that the armor makes you immune to the ability, not the effect, so it offers no protection to daze tokens you already have (or even to daze tokens received in some other way than via the Daze ability, unless it specifically grants exemption, the way the Fire Runes card inflicts burn tokens but explicitly exempts targets that are immune to Burn ). Though, admittedly, that's purely forum discussion, with nothing official about it (maybe it should go in the FAQ).

Now, it is certainly true that using the word "armor" for two different technical concepts in Descent was a bad idea, and "ignores armor" is ambiguous, and it should be in the FAQ (both because it's ambiguous, and because it is, in fact, frequently asked). But the standard answer is really the only reasonable answer.

Antistone said:

Without enough disambiguation , a word or expression can either only refer to all of its definitions simultaneously, or need further disambiguation. In your examples, there is enough disambiguation. In the request "Give the definition(s) of bow" for instance, "bow" refers to all of its 6 different definitions because there is not enough disambiguation to choose one in particular. Make the request "Give the definition(s) of bow (the weapon)", and you are left with one.

All I am asking for this "ignoring armor" problem is disambiguation, which would be easily done by using the completely unambiguous " ignoring armor value " instead of the ambiguous "ignoring armor". Put in the FAQ that "ignoring armor" should be read as "ignoring armor value" , and the question will never pop up again (or will be answered by Big Remy's signature READ THE FAQ!!! ).

Antistone said:

You can use a word in a double sense to be purposely ambiguous. When asked about his upcoming chess world championship final years ago, Kasparov could have said "It will be short!" to mean that he thought his opponent would be Nigel Short and that he would make short work of him (he actually used a less elegant formula which was unambiguously insulting for Short).

Antistone said:

That's a good point. Karnon's card indeed explicitely refers to the "Frost ability", not just to "Frost", and a "Frost" treachery card would be a treachery card and not an ability. I should have checked the card.

Antistone said:

"Ignoring armor" should be read as "ignoring armor value." This tiny clarification in the FAQ would be all that is needed to solve the problem once and for all. 1 line. Is that too much to ask?

You did get the part where I agreed with you that this should be included in the FAQ, right? I'm just disputing your claim that the only currently correct strict reading is that it ignores both the armor attribute and the effects of armor items.

Ispher said:

Sure, in the same way that an ambiguous word or expression either confirms the existence of life on mars, solves the halting problem, and proves the existence of Santa Claus, OR is ambiguous . You can any proposition at all for X in the assertion "A implies (X or A)" and it remains equally true, and equally uninteresting.

So yes, I agree that words or expressions that are " without enough disambiguation...need further disambiguation ." That's a tautology. Even if you a completely superfluous disjunction.

That provides exactly zero support for your claim that they might ever refer to multiple definitions simultaneously, let alone that they must .

Ispher said:

Congratulations, you've created an example sentence that refers to multiple definitions of a word by specifically and explicitly referring to the multiple definitions of that word. I am in awe.

Of course, while the sentence may refer to all those definitions, the word itself isn't being used to mean any of them, but it standing in as a marker for the word itself (I think technically it should be in quotes). And it's kind of a pointless example even if it did, because again, explicit declaration of intent.

Ispher said:

You can break ANY rule of language intentionally for dramatic effect or to be deliberately unhelpful. That's really not relevant to any discussion of technical writing, though.

Antistone said:

As we see, blurting out tautologies can happen to anyone. My bad.

I'm just saying that it can undeliberately happen, as it seems to have happened in this case of a rules wording being undeliberately unhelpful. "Ignoring armor" could indeed also be read as "ignoring all aspects of armor". After all, "ignoring something" should mean, in technical writing, "ignoring all aspects of that something" and not "ignoring one aspect of it and not another".

And a word can bear two different meanings. If I created a game with bat monsters and bat weapons and deliberately gave "immunity to bat attacks" to a figure, I would have used one word to mean two different things in a crystal clear way. If you think it breaks a rule of language, please quote which so that I don't wallow in my dumbness any longer.

Technical problems destroyed my reply, and I find I don't care enough to retype it. This really isn't the right thread for a prolonged debate on that anyway.

Back on the original topic of collecting questions for the FAQ, is there anything yet about further clarifying the interaction of "simultaneous" overlord and feat cards? I was recently reminded that Crushing Blow vs. Blocked is still not resolved even after the previous (very general) question got into the last FAQ.

update
I spent most of the week rather sick, so sorry for no new threads until now.

101. Ispher: Island flee #14
102. Ispher: Damage ignores armour #39
103. McManus: Reinforcement Marker in new dungeon levels - IMO NN, +1 support
104. Immortal: Fatigue tokens limiting? #21
105. immortal: Focused out power cards #26
106. Immortal: Immunity to Avatars #27
107. Dragon76: Secret Training 3 options? IMO NN, +1 support #25
108. Antistone: Start of Turn clarifications
109. Antistone: Extended ruling to all situations
110. Corbon: Fog #40
111. Antistone: Familiars in Pits (or make it bigger)
112. Antistone: Daze + Bash #13
113. Parathion: Transport Gem timing
114. Gran Orco: Threat from Dark Charmed attack
115. Gran Orco: One Fist attack
116. Feat timing review - or is that 109?

Hopefully we can tidy away all these by the end of the month, and maybe even review all the other threads as well by then. March (presumably FAQ time) is fast approaching.

Here are some questions that have been brewing with my group– not sure if they're FAQ-worthy, but they are 'frequently asked' by us, and some official answers would be be nice.

1) How exactly does Wind Pact interact with pits? " You may move through pit obstacles without effec t" is kinda vague when you consider all the possible things that go on with pits. They're kinda unique in that they have an entrance-effect (damage), a status-effect (LoS), and a exiting-effect (costs 2 mp). Clearly Wind Pact probably cancels the first and last of these, but what about your LoS if you end movement while you're 'hovering' over the pit? Wind Pact only nominally affects moving . Furthermore, how does it interact with the Spiked Pit card? Presumably it doesn't effect the damage, but if you do thematically 'fall' into the pit, do you still have to pay an extra MP to move out? It's pretty easy to see it either way– Wind Pact seems to want to cancel movement-hindering effects, but exiting a freshly-created pit doesn't seem exactly the same as the ' move(ing) through ' mentioned on the card.

2) This one comes up a lot– In Road to Legend, can a hero take a Visit/Restock action at the Temple during a Training week? The rules mostly suggest no, but– while I'm far from a thematic gamer– it doesn't really make any sense that they couldn't, and it is congruent with the idea that 'A Campaign Week Is A Million Dungeon Turns".

3) Another Road to Legend one that screws us up a lot– Some more clarification is needed about the end of a dungeon level. Right now we're playing it this way (correct me if I'm wrong)– If a hero exits through the portal, his or her turn is immediately over, and he/she may not re-enter the level. If, at any time, at least one hero has exited through the portal and no other heroes are on the board, the level is forcibly ended. Lots of little things crop up, though. Can a hero who's exited through the portal use an ability (e.g. feat, skill, hero ability, familiar) after he goes through the portal? Does he even get a turn in subsequent rounds? (This is important for things like lingering effects, Sahla/Scorpion/Varikas/Lindel, or familiars) Furthermore, if the last hero exits though a glyph with the intention of healing in town, does he get to complete that action, or does the level/turn end as soon as he's no longer present? If there were heroes already in town that round, do they just miss their turn completely?

-pw

Corbon said:

It's related, but more complicated, because most triggered effects are already openly known, but with cards in your hand there's the additional issue of when you reveal that you intend to use one (or don't), which may or may not be the same as when you apply their effects.

Also, cards in general tend to be complicated and will generate more special cases that might need special treatment.

When/if we have discussion threads for these, we might actually want to try to list all the specific confusing cases we can think of. It's a lot of work, and risks FFG giving us non-generalizable answers, but including them in the background section probably gives a better chance that they'll give us an answer that resolves some problematic case(s), instead of another statement like "the active side has priority" that's so vague as to be useless.

Also, you should reword 109 in your list, because it seems I can't ever remember what that's referring to without going back and rereading my original post. Maybe "order of effects with the same triggering condition".

Has there been any official clarification or ruling on what happens to active potion effects like Invisibility or a Power Potion after a dungeon or encounter in an AC ends? If not, we should put in this simple question as well.

phelanward said:

IMO 1) is definitely not FAQ worthy. It is quite clear and simple. You may move through pit obstacles without effect . As you say, that has no effect on the LOS effect of pits. It also has no direct interaction with the Spiked Pit Card. The card is a trap, Wind Pact provides no protection against pit traps. The Trap card leaves behind a pit obstacle, and Wind Pact can ignore the obstacle. Sorry, but 'seeing it either way' is, in this case, just not applying what is written.

2) just needs some basic rule reading. The temple has a Train action available to use during a Training week. So use it. ... Oh, so you are trying to save 25coins because you only have a few wounds? [shout]Moron! Go do something more useful like visist the Alchemist or Market if you aren't that badly hurt![/shout]
Well, a strict reading of the rules would say, no. You may not Visit/Restock at a temple durin a Train week. You are allowed to choose one building and do a Train action there. That. Is. All.

3) This has been discussed recently. I am personally of the opinion that it is fairly logically necessary that the hero in a portal no longer gets turns, nor can use abilities and is effectively removed form the game. But I could see it as possibly FAQ-able. The second parts about the last hero exiting the dungeon when one is already in the portal are more interesting. I think it is quite FAQ-able to ask if the last hero gets to finish his action. I don't think it is necessary to ask about the other heroes - they clearly do not get turns (they should have gone in a different order).