I recently started playing this game and I love it. Our group uses the core game with the Tomb of Ice and Well of Darkness expansions. A few questions have popped up while playing that we needed to address:

1) Are Feat cards that allow the player to attack allowed to be used if the player does not have a weapon of that type equipped? For example, a player was running Brother Glyr and had Dwarven Fire Bombs equipped. Is he allowed to use the Riposte Feat Card? Logic would say not, but I realize that game rules and logic don't always intersect.

2) If a hero has effect tokens on him (burn, dazed, etc) do these remain when he returns to town? I saw nothing that said that they go away, but wanted to be sure

Also, on a related note, we are finding that our games take WAY too long, mostly because the players get into a state of analysis paralysis and can never make up their minds. Do any of you institute time limits to keep the game going? If so, what amount of time per player have you found to work well? I was thinking 2 minutes per hero and 4 minutes for the overlord. Thoughts?

Thanks for the help and feedback.

1) Are Feat cards that allow the player to attack allowed to be used if the player does not have a weapon of that type equipped? For example, a player was running Brother Glyrhad Dwarven Fire Bombs equipped. Is he allowed to use the Riposte Feat Card? Logic would say not, but I realize that game ruleslogic don't always intersect.

In general no. I'm not sure if any feats let you make a specific attack by playing them. If so then you'll have to qualify for that attack when you play the feat.

2) If a hero has effect tokens on him (burn, dazed, etc) do these remain when he returns to town? I saw nothing that said that they go away, but wanted to be sure

They stay.

Also, on a related note, we are finding that our games take WAY too long, mostly because the players get into a state of analysis paralysiscan never make up their minds. Do any of you institute time limits to keep the game going? If so, what amount of time per player have you found to work well? I was thinking 2 minutes per hero4 minutes for the overlord. Thoughts?

Never done it. Typically we talk amongst ourselves about what every hero should be doing, then each person takes their turn.

So a character can use Riposte if he has a bow equipped? Seems daft to me...

Here is the Riposte rule:

http://www.descentinthedark.com/_r_/riposte.php

Why does it seem odd?

Riposte can be played after a monster attacked the hero with a Melee attack - the feat grants an attack with no restriction of its type, so Dwarven Bombs or a Bow would just be fine.

The rules are clear in this case.

Several feats have explicit attack type restrictions. Hurry lets you make an extra melee attack, so it will be of little use if you don't have a melee weapon (though you could still use it to make an unarmed attack). Similarly, Killing Blow only works on melee attacks, ***** in the Armor only works on ranged attacks, Magi Madness only works on magic attacks, etc.

However, Riposte has no restriction on the hero's attack type (just the attack type of the monster that triggers it), so I don't see any problem using it with a Bow (except of course that Bows suck, and you're unlikely to want to draw many fighting feats if you're using ranged attacks, because many other feats do have attack type restrictions).

I think timers in Descent are useful mostly for the placebo effect; both sides can do a considerable amount of stuff during the other's turn, so there's no way to enforce it rigorously without extreme micro-management or opening it up to abuse. Still, among friendly players, just seeing that you're on the clock can often do a lot to speed up a game.

I recommend a time limit for the entire heroes' round, though, not for individual turns, since the heroes will often want to plan out a lot of stuff before the first person starts moving. I played Enduring Evil a couple times with 10 minutes for the heroes10 minutes for the overlord, with a 1 conquest penalty if you went over (after which you could take as long as you wanted). That seemed to work reasonably well, though vanilla may be faster. We paused the timer while setting up new areas, and allowed heroes to shop during the next hero's turn if it was the last thing they did.

Parathion said:

If you know what a riposte is, using a feat called "Riposte" with a bow is absolutely silly.

I realize that rules and realism don't always come together well, but in this case I think it is obvious that the skill was intended to be used with a melee attack and that the designers were unfortunately not clear in their wording. Considering the name of the feat and the fact that every single other fighting feat that affects or allows attacks is limited in scope to melee attacks, it would seem to me that Riposte is meant to be used with a melee attack.

In any case, I thank you guys for your thoughts. I'll probably make a house rule to add the italicized words to the card as follows:

Riposte

"Play after a monster has attacked you with a melee attack.

If able, you may immediately make a melee attack against that monster.

After your attack, the overlord resumes his turn as normal."

Antistone said:

Good ideas, particularly around the collective hero timer rather than individual. Thank you.

MR Suplex said:

If you are referring to the special Fencing maneuver called Riposte, then it is indeed odd, since no monster ever uses a rapier or the like.

In my dictionary, however, Riposte means counterattack or counterstrike in general, so to me it looks ok. English is not my first language, though, so I might get corrected on this one.

Parathion said:

Riposte is specific to fencing as far as I know (English is my native language)

Having said that,thinking about how ranged attacks can be made from 1 space away (which is actually probably a few arms' lengths squared, at least) I realized combat is actually a flowing entity. With this concept in my head, I can envision someone blocking an attack, creating space for himself, then countering with a bow shot, etc.

So yeah, no house rule I guess...lol

Again, thanks for the discussion everyone.

I truly never thought I'd see the day when I'd want to call someone else's house-ruling dumb, but... I think that putting errata on Riposte because it originates in fencing and must therefore only apply to melee attacks would be... well... sensically-impaired.

But if you're going to go that far, why not go all the way ?

Riposte

"Play after a monster has attacked you with a melee attack that was 'parried', so, the attack didn't miss, but it still caused no damage.

You may immediately make a melee attack, but only with a 1-handed weapon. And it can't be the Morning Star.

After your attack the Overlord resumes his turn as normal, but only after shaking his head in dismay at his opponent's silliness."

By this logic, Master Archer shouldn't work with Dwarven Fire-Bombs, because, like, where's the Archery in that? I think it's obvious that it was intended to work with bow weapons only.

And Killing Blow should be changed so that it just kills the monster, because otherwise, it's not a Killing Blow.

Also, potions shouldn't give their effects for a few turns, because the heroes need time to digest.

Or... just say that all ranged attacks at melee distance consist of whacking your opponent in the head with the weapon, rather than firing it.

Problem solved.

-pw

MR Suplex said:

I think it's obvious that what seems obvious to one person is almost always colored by their personal opinion. To say that anything is "obviously what was intended" when the rules themselves are vague at best is a shaky argument to begin with. The ony way to know what the designers intended with any degree of certainty is to ask them, which you can do via the "Rules Questions" link down at the bottom, although I gather it can take some time to get a response. Especially with this game.

I'm fine with Riposte the way it is. If Parathion's dictionary defines the word simply as "a counterattack," so much the better. The word might have a specific meaning in fencing, but I would be careful about assuming that has anything integral to do with the word itself, especially if dictionary definitions disagree. I don't claim to know anything much about fencing myself, but I do gather that it only involves swords of a few different types. Considering that all forms of attack used in the formal sport of fencing are essentially what Descent would call "melee attacks," it's hardly surprising that the word "riposte" in that context only refers to melee counterattacks.

House rules are house rules, of course, you can do whatever you like with those.

phelanward said:

I knew sooner or later some asshat would crawl out from under the bridge and make a stupid comment like this. If you don't like my rule, that's fine, but since you aren't playing at my table leave your pompous attitude at home, kiddo.

Steve-O said:

Yeah, I see both sides of itif you follow the thread I came to the conclusion to leave the rule alone. I still personally think the rule was intended for melee attacks, but I can see the other side of the argument. The swinger for me was ranged attacks being capable from melee range...

Either way, thanks for the input.

MR Suplex said:

If you want to get technical Riposte (at least according to Mirriam-Webster) isn't fencing specific. Which makes sense considering it's also commonly used to refer to a verbal counter-attack. It's simply a retaliation. So yes the rule is correct in that any attack could be used.

Keep in mind this is a tactical board game not a role playing game. You may as well argue that there's no reason the knight in chess has to move in an L shape as a real horse on the battle field would never have to do so. Sometimes rules are in place for balance reasons.