I looked through the first several pages, and didn't see this question posted, so here it is.

Can a hero spend fatigue to move, and do a battle action during the same turn? The description for battle action specifically says that the hero receives "zero movement points", so my group and I (I generally OL) believe that the hero CAN spend fatigue to move, then do a battle action (which is how they usually do it, as opposed to battle action, then move), or vice versa, do a battle action, then move. It just seems kind of powerful to be able to do this.

Yes, a hero certainly can spend fatigue to gain movement points AND battle. The Battle actions doesn't restrict movement, the heroes simply receive no movement points when declaring it. Be careful with the distinction of receiving no movement points (Battle, Stun, etc...) versus not being able to spend movement points (Web, Grapple...).

It is stated in the rulebook on Page 18 top left corner under "Spending Fatigue for Movement".

To further clarify, when a hero performs a battle action, he can spend fatigue to move before, between, or after his attacks, but he cannot spend fatigue to move before declaring his action for the turn; if he chooses to battle and spends fatigue to move, then something unexpected happens (like the overlord plays a trap card, or he kills the monster with the first attack), he cannot then choose to advance instead.

Thanks for the answers, guys. It was the specific mention of "zero movement points" that made us think that the hero could in fact spend fatigue to gain movement points through other means. Also, we had seen mention other similar references (I believe it's the ring of quickness or whatever it's called that mentions that the movement points from the item may be used even if the hero has no other movement points available). It's good to see that we've been playing situation this correctly. It's those kind of specific wording details that makes me appreciate how tight this game is.

dlange said:

Give it time, that viewpoint will change.

Big Remy said:

LOL +1

Let start the countdown guys...

?!?

We've been playing this game a couple of years now, and haven't encountered any major issues with the rules. Not having spent much time at all on these forums, I'm curious about the apparent skepticism about how solid the rules are? I've played some pretty shoddy games that are much less complex, and for the high level of complexity that Descent has, the rules seem really solid and well-integrated.

dlange said:

Its not so much the rules, its how the rules are written that causes most of the issues. Or maybe its just more RtL than anything. Go take a look at the New List of Unanswered Question thread to get an idea.

Or another example, the definition of an "empty space" in the FAQ directly contradicts itself and makes it possible (if I remember right) for an OL to drop a Crushing Block on a treasure chest or glyph to deny the Heroes access to it.

Big Remy said:

Thundercles said:

Ah yes, the "Dust bunnies can block movement and LOS, but that Pit is not an obstacle" ruling.

You may also be interested to know that that careful wording of "zero movement points" was not the original wording. The original wording (see the downloadable rules PDF, page 6) says that heroes " cannot move " when they declare a battle action--even though the exact same rulebook also says (on page 18) that heroes can spend fatigue to move even when performing a battle action. And they've never updated the downloadable PDF, even though they fixed the wording in the printed version (or at least some printed versions, I'm not sure exactly how the version progression goes).

So, yes, the wording in that particular instance is very tight--after they screwed it up, people complained about it, and they went back and fixed it. (But not in the version available online.)

The rules for the movement of non-square figures are also a nice example of horrible wording; a strict reading of the text directly contradicts a pictured example on the next page. After much argument, I've been convinced that the best guess at authorial intent is to use a strict reading for hellhounds (and now blood apes and wendigoes) and then say that dragons (and now ice wyrms) can move in an analogous way, despite the rules not actually saying that (unless you very creatively redefine the word "half"). Even after that change, the wording of the rules is still needlessly confusing.

And they apparently haven't learned from that one, since they screwed up the new rules (FAQ v1.4) for large monsters and obstacles just as badly. My best guess at intent requires the word "half" to be read as referring to a part of the figure that may be as small as one third or as large as the entire thing --and the wording isn't even the biggest problem with that rule (there was another thread on that).