IronRavenstorm said:

I've always wondered where the groups were who didn't know how to cooperate in a co-op game. I guess they're where you are.

You'll have to institute a house rule from the very beginning saying that if the heroes can't decide as a group how to split the cash then they have to roll a die or something to decide. Or during each shopping phase, one player is considered the "leader" who arbitrates all decisions for the group, and the leader changes each shopping phase.

Bleached Lizard said:

In this sort of situation, I generally explain the issue and ask them how they want to play it. Getting everyone on the same page is more important to me than which page we're ultimately on; I really hate it when someone discovers half-way through executing a strategy that a rule they were depending on doesn't work like they thought it did.

Of course, first I would try to look through the cards and see how much it matters. It may be that there aren't any items, hero abilities, etc. with fatigue costs, at least in the base game, in which case I wouldn't even bring it up during a teaching session. And if there are , then looking at them might provide further clues as to intent, or reveal that interpreting the rule one way or the other would lead to major balance problems (for example, if there's an item that says "suffer 1 fatigue to heal 2 damage, as often as you want").

Not that I'm certain I'm going to be explaining the game to anyone in the first place, since at this point 2e is solidly on my "try before I buy" list. I'm still worried that the strategy may always boil down to either "kill everyone, and keep killing them as they stand up/reinforce, so they can't do anything while one guy slowly completes the actual objective" or "just do the objective and don't make a single attack the entire quest", and even if that isn't the case, I'm not sure it really does anything better than 1e.

But if it comes down just to me making a decision based on current information, I'd cap fatigue for movement and skills only. The "movement and skills" vs. "all other effects" distinction seems pretty clear to me (they even make it multiple times, IIRC), and the counter-arguments sound (at least to me) like post hoc rationalizations from people who made up their mind that "you can't use something if you can't pay for it" before even getting to that paragraph.

It's not the intuitive split, and I could imagine they meant something else, which is why I brought it up in the first place. But sometimes rules actually do something counter-intuitive intentionally . If you always go with your intuition instead of the RAW, then you can get the rules wrong even if the designer did his job right. If I go with what the rules actually say, then the only way I can be wrong is if the designer screwed up. As a game designer myself, I work hard to avoid screwing up, and I know that I, for one, prefer it when players give my rules the benefit of the doubt.

Antistone said:

Yes you have. Read the example just below the fatigue rules text (p. 13): Example: Tomble has a Stamina of “5”. If you have a Stamina value, you have Stamina, just as you have weight if you have a weight value.

And yes you use it to pay for things. Same example: …this skill has a fatigue cost of “2”… When something has a cost, the cost must be paid to get it. Basic economics. It is not because you receive something (in that case, fatigue tokens) that it can't be something you pay. Receiving debt, for instance, is a form of payment (as with credit cards).

Antistone said:

Seems that I am the "people".

I do not disagree that this part of the rules is not very well written, but I tried to address the problems you mentioned with an interpretation of the rules that would prevent any future gaming problems (you mentioned the "suffer 1 fatigue to regain 2 health" possibility). It has nothing to do with having a made-up mind, it is a question of interpreting an unclear rule in a problem-solving way.

At least I won't have to look at all items (including those of future expansions) to see if my interpretation of that rule still works.

Ispher said:

I may have phrased that badly. Your stamina is not a pool of consumable resources that you deplete. You obviously have a stamina score - you also have 4 trait scores, but that doesn't mean that you "spend might" when you make a might check.

Ispher said:

You've just quoted a cost that is in "fatigue" (not stamina). And you can receive debt even when you don't currently have enough money to pay it off - that's more or less the point of debt.

I fail to see how either of these examples supports your position.

Ispher said:

And if I declared that you can't suffer fatigue to gain movement points, I wouldn't have to check cards to see whether there's a "spend 1 movement point to heal 2 fatigue" card.

Removing options that the rules say you have just because those options might be part of a game-breaking power loop that the designers might have included in the game is madness. By that logic, you shouldn't let anyone do anything.

So far as we currently know, the only "problem" with the rule is that it's counter-intuitive.

I would love to understand the version of the english language that Antistone speaks. They way he interprets words is to me as if he views them all as having a single definition with no room for error.

As a native born American I have always had always had a problem with the idea of one word meaning exactly one thing, though I do run into people that disagree with me. I've never been able to wrap my head around the phrase "It doesn't matter what you meant, it's not what you said."

I'm a native-born American.

Many words have more than one meaning…but still only a handful. If every word could mean anything at all, we wouldn't be able to communicate. Lots of sentences have more than one possible meaning, but that doesn't mean that any arbitrary meaning you pull out of your sleeve is a valid interpretation. Even when there are multiple correct readings, there are still lots of wrong ones.

And when you're writing a technical document - such as a rulebook - you generally define several pieces of jargon to have a single, clear, and specific meaning in the context of that document. For example, in the context of Descent, "skill" has a special meaning that is different from its normal usage in the wider world. It doesn't matter how many different things "skill" can mean in English, Descent is using the word as a term of art with exactly one meaning.

Sometimes people make mistakes. You could say "up" when you meant to say "down". That doesn't imply that "up" and "down" mean the same thing. Nor does it imply that everyone will magically know that you really meant "down" if you actually said "up".

If you still don't understand the difference between "what you say" and "what you mean", try writing computer programs. Computers do exactly what you tell them, 100% of the time, no matter how crazy it sounds. And they will not listen to arguments about how your instructions ought to be interpreted in some weird way in order to conform to your "obvious" intent.

**** this discussion is depressing…

I don't want to point anyone out, call anyone names or anything (and if I offended anyone please report me) but I would never play games with people like that, who over analyse everything and words and provoke mood killing downtime every now and then…I already had one bad session with MoM last year I don't want that to ever happen again.

The game is not even out and already there's debate around "if" and "and"…

Antistone said:

I think because you write rulebooks yourself you may have subverted your 'spirit of the rules' gene.

I completely agree with quite a lot of what you say, but come on, it's not a legal document we're discussing here. You are obviously an eloquent chap, but some of your observations can potentially suck the enjoyment out of the anticipation of reading the rulebook and playing the game…

It's all relative I guess.

I just looked over the rules and I don't believe it is ambiguous.

"If any other game effect FORCES a hero to suffer Fatigue in excess of his Stamina instead suffers damage equal to the excess fatigue that would have been suffered."

Its all about cost and effect gentlemen. If suffering Fatigue is a cost (using a skill, additional movement, other game mechanic that requires the use of Fatigue to do something) it is optional and does not force the hero to suffer Fatigue. Thus you can't use if you don't have the necessary Fatigue. An effect on the other hand is the result of having used a skill or other mechanic that may cause the loss of Fatigue. This would force the loss of Fatigue but it is not voluntary.

To illustrate:

Cost: You have a relic that requires you to suffer 3 Fatigue to activate it's ability. You can't use it if you have too much Fatigue.

Effect: You have a relic that you can use for free. As a part of the effect you suffer 3 Fatigue. You can use this regardless of the amount of Fatigue you have.

Scy800 said:

You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I do enjoy analyzing rules, but I generally try to avoid telling other people how to play their game. The goal is to have fun, so make whatever house rules you need to accomplish that. On the surface, 2e seems to be better built for house rules reworking it than 1e (ie: I can see it being done without having to throw out the entire rulebook.)

For my part, based on the games we played, it was a lot less fearsome in 1e when the hero ran into the dragon's lair to grab the chest, not caring that he would be killed because he'd just pop out in town, treasure in hand. At least in 2e he'd be stuck somewhere near the dragon until he could death-crawl his way out or someone else could get in to help him. Being stuck in a useless position is a great discourager of non-thematic tactics like that.

Scy800 said:

Well, the only major problem that jumps out at me is that there may well be times when killing all the heroes is much easier than the OL's real objective in the quest. Introducing that option could seriously impact the balance of some quests. Of course, it would be dependent on the quest whether or not that mattered.

I can also see some groups enjoying the increased challenge that rule would create, even if it did unbalance the game sometimes.

SolennelBern said:

I'm completely with you for this.

With very competitive players, the issue about rules wording could be important. I am fortunate enough to have friendly players. With the pre-release event with promo figures to win, those clarifications are needed.

On the other hand, expecting to play a new game and knowing in advance it could already have some flaws… it may cool down my enthousiasm (but only temporarily!).

Anyway, I am very happy with the rules modifications of 2e. It is what I was looking for to run some old school D&D modules, so I may not use the game exactly as written. Of course I will still play the campaign included in the box! But compared to any version of D&D, it will be easier for me to prepare and run adventures. I can see that a lot of thought went through the new rules as they are more general. A lot of specific elements seemed to be kept to quests specific rules. So I think it will be easier to customize the game with new items, skills, etc. Why not a relic with the power to create transportation glyphs? There's nothing hindering the use of 1e props!

Just a quick question after reading the rules: in the combat example, Tomble is using a sling with a special ability which is triggered with one surge. It reads: 1 surge: +1 range, +1 damage. My question is on the COMMA. Does it mean AND? Does it mean OR? Nowhere on the rules is clarified (at least I haven't seen it), it may come from 1 edition but for newcomers it should be clarified.

Steve-O said:

I am sorry if I gave the impression that I want to tell other how to play THEIR game, that is not my intention. Just wanted to speak out my disappointment of the new hero death rules. It was something I really hoped they would change… I guess it harkens back to my heroquest era days, where me and my players just loved the "permadeath" mechanic. Heck we even played Doom the boardgame with perma-death rules.

I agree with jou that it does seem that the non-thematic tactics of 1e are out of the window. In order to avoid balance issues, We will play vanilla first of course. But I will definately try to get some house rules for harsher death rules without unbalancing things for the heroes. Much more fun (for us)!

Jrescan said:

I have the same question

Jrescan said:

It's not from first edition, and a clarification wouldn't hurt.

I'm about 99% sure that it means "and", though. Since (1) that's generally the default for lists of things that don't specify one way or the other, and (2) if they meant "or", I think they would probably have just given you two separate surge abilities (i.e. "S: +1 range" and on a separate line "S: +1 damage"). That would give you the option to activate them separately if you wanted to spend two surges, so they might have combined them onto one line specifically to prevent you from doing that, but it seems unlikely.

Antistone said:

I'm 99% sure you're right.

Wait - does that decrease the certainty to 98.01% ? :S

When does a comma ever mean "or"? Looks like a series comma to me, and it would have been so easy to to write: "+1 this, or +1" that if "or" was the actual intent then someone deserves a mild verbal warning.

Sadly, the rules don't specify if he also got the +1 range as well. It appears to me, since they're both on the same line for 1 surge you get both +'s.

Allegedly, if FFG wanted you to choose between +1 range or +1 dmg, they would have added a 3rd line to the card to make it a choice.

Ok, let's rephrase the rule this way:

Drink 1 soda: Gain fart, burp. From there, everyone knows that sodas give you both, explaining the use of the comma to show you both effects will be gained.

Is it clearer now!?!?!?

Ok I kid I kid…or could I simlpy say I kid, kid?!?!?!?

Antistone said:

But 1. edition there was on the forum a clering, that monsters, that was out of LOS could not block LOS. (1. edition you could have a situation, where you did not have LOS to a monster because of a corner, but the monster behinde that monster was also hiding only because of the first monster (you could not see))

Just edit it because I have found the link: http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=4&efcid=1&efidt=17937

A) For purposes of determining LoS for an attack, ignore figures that are not in LoS themselves.

But of course you can not say, that because it was clear out in 1. edition, that it still works in 2. edition.

If you accept, that it does not block LOS, you have to ask what if you are adjacent. Now you have LOS to the one in the pit. Could you now "look over" the one in the pit??? Realy hope for a quick FAQ, that say. You can ignore figure in pit, when tracing LOS!

Coldmoonrising said:

First I think it is "and"

But I will argue, that your argument (or other for that mater) is not 100%.

As already said: you can only use 1 surge on each ability. If FFG intent is, that you can only get 1 damage or 1 range no mater how many surge you role. Then it had to be on the same line!

In danish it is wrong to divide with a , in this situation, because it could mean both ("or" or "and"). You could say: you get 50 gold, 1 shield and 1 sword (in this case , = and) You could also say you get 50 gold, 1 shield or 1 sword (in this case , = or). I belive it is the same in english, but as you can see english is not my strong side

So to summing up: You could argue both for "or" or "and". It need a FAQ to say for sure, but I will try to convince my gamegroup to go for "and".

Now I have read all the rules and this forum. First I would say. I think FFA have made a good job. The rules are more clear than 1. edition (IMO).

There have been a lot of "hate" for people, that like to have clear rules! Of course you should not have to much discusion with your gamegroup, but I think this forum is all about what Antistone is trying to do! So thanks for your good work/views Antistone. Anyone can take what they think is right, and make there own rules for the rest.

I will try to give my view of Antistones 12 points. Feel free to comment (english is my second language, so I could make big mistakes because of that)

1. The rules seem to say that the heroes choose their turn order at the start of the round , unlike in 1e where you could wait until the first hero finished his turn to decide who goes second.

it say: "Each round, the hero players decide as a group the order in which they wish to act" not "at the start of the round". So can not see, that they are force to make all the dission for all 4 heroes in the begining.

2. It's unclear whether a hero who "stands up" can use fatigue to move. Standing up is "the only action" the hero can perform that turn, but suffering fatigue for extra movement doesn't take an action and can be done even when you don't perform a movement action. However, the rules for standing up also imply that doing so ends your turn. That would maybe still allow you to use fatigue to move before standing up, except that being knocked out uses up all your fatigue, disables your abilities, and prevents you from being targeted by any effects that don't revive you, so there's probably no circumstance in which you can have fatigue available while knocked out.

As you say. The turn end right after "stands up". No time to move with fatigue. If you have a item like "Ring of Quickness" from 1. edition. (giving 1 free movement point) I would still say no, because you can not use it before "stands up". That conclusion is clear IMO because of the way "Knocked out" is discribed on page 15: Figure is removed, cannot use skills or abilities. (you could argue, that it says nothing about - not moving a hero token and it say skills and abilities, but not items), but I am sure, that in my gamegroup you can not )

3. Attacks target a space (as in 1e), BUT the targeted space must contain an enemy figure. No more centering Blast attacks on empty squares, or moving allies around with knockback attacks (of course, knockback seems to be gone anyway). That will make Blast a lot less powerful.

This rule is clear. IMO it should be change, but it need a houserule or beter a FAQ, that change it. (but as you said, maybe the game designer thought it was a way to make Blast less powerful?)

4. Unarmed attacks must target adjacent spaces, but are never described as "Melee" attacks. So, unlike in 1e, any bonuses that apply to "melee attacks" apparently won't work on unarmed attacks.

You are right again, but I would change it with a house rule and hope for a FAQ

5. Line of sight is blocked by "the edge of a map tile" . The puzzle-shaped connectors that link to other map tiles are specifically referred to as "edges" in the box on page 5, so, as written, you can never attack a non-adjacent space on a different map tile, even if it's a straight shot down an empty corridor. Pretty sure this one's a mistake.

You are right again. This is where I would not even use time to point it out )

6. Range determination is retroactive again. Similar to 1e, you determine whether you have enough range to hit in step 3, but get to include extra range from surges spent in step 4. (Actually, what it technically says is that you miss unless you can increase your range with surges; it doesn't actually say you need to exercise that option.) That probably doesn't cause many problems in actual play, but it still bugs me - why the heck didn't they just write it the other way around?

on page 12:

3. Chec k Range …. If the total range obtained from
the attack roll does not equal or exceed the distance between the spaces,
the attack is considered a miss unless the range can be increased (see “4.
Spend Surges” on page 13).

7. The effects of missing aren't clearly defined . If you roll an X, "the attack is considered a miss" AND "all other results are ignored". If you have insufficient range, "the attack is considered a miss" but it doesn't say to ignore other results. It does not spell out (anywhere that I can find) what "considered a miss" means. Presumably it prevents you from dealing damage, though nowhere does it actually say that. Could you still, say, spend a surge to recover a fatigue? Having insufficient range apparently doesn't prevent you from spending surges, since otherwise you couldn't use surges to get enough range - though in 1e they eventually errata'd in a rule that said if the attack doesn't affect anyone after you finish spending surges, then all of those surges retroactively have no effect.

you right again: My house rule will bee, that you can not use surge if it miss also miss with range.

8. When "using skills or moving", you can only suffer fatigue up to your stamina. "Any other game effect" converts excess fatigue into dama ge. That means that if you can find any items, hero abilities, heroic feats, search cards, or quest-specific actions that cost fatigue, you can pay for them with damage instead (once you're out of fatigue).

I think Unclechawie answer was good (you have to be force to do it)

9. Large monsters get a free rotation as part of their move. This can effectively be used to increase the monster's movement range, by choosing a "front" space to count from when you start moving, and then using it as a "rear" space when you stop (the example on page 17 specifically shows this - the ettin with speed 3 moves a distance that would have taken 4 movement in 1e). Furthermore, you get this "free movement" each time you end or interrupt your movement - the more reasons you can find to "interrupt" your movement, the farther you can move for the same number of movement points.

It does not say, that you can choise a new space just because you make a interrupt. The picture of large monster "shrink" to a 1 hex monster and "expand" when interrupt is good. But when you "shrink" it after and interrupt you have to do it to the hex from where you where expand it from (I know it is not clear in the rule, but it is also not clear that it is not like this ). I think it is good, that they have made it more easy for the bigone to move around. It was realy hard in 1. edition. You right that 2x2 monster with 3 speed can reality move 4, 2x3 monster with 3 speed can move 5. But where is the problem. Now it is the rule. So the designer can make the speed adjusted for that. If they only whant the dragon to have the ability to move 4 like 1. edition they give the dragon speed 2.

10. Figures in a pit only have line of sight to adjacent FIGURES. Note "figures", not "spaces". Um.

and what is the problem with that? (rule and logic is not the same, but if you look up from a pit (a hole that is deeper than yourself) you can not see the floor, but can see people standing at the edge) )

But what happen with this rule page 18: "While in a pit, the only action the figure can perform is a special
action to climb out of the pit."?
So you can not attack adjacent figures? not even if the pit is 2 hex and there are monster next to you? If not a melee hero can not do anything in a corridor with a 2 hex pit and 2 monster on the other side?

11. Only adjacent figures can see a figure in a pi t, but figures in a pit still block line-of-sight normally. Or at least I can't find anything that says otherwise.

Look for my answer in a previos Reply

12. Heroes that end their turn in lava are immediately defeated and move to the closest empty, non-lava space. Fair enough. But you may have noticed that there were several other effects up to this point that move a hero to the closest empty space and do NOT specify "non-lava". For example, if the overlord knocks out a hero adjacent to lava, and then manages to position monsters in that hero's space and all adjacent non-lava spaces, then when the hero stands up on his turn, he is forced to place himself in a lava space, where he will presumably instantly die again (and the monsters will presumably move on top of him again so that he never gets out).

You right again. I don't think it would happen often, that the monster have the opportunity to do it. If they have, the hero is need help from his fellow heroes or he/she will be a very fried hero.

Last : good thinking about don't play the "bad" OL card, so when your are true the pile first time, you would only get the 1-3 very strong cards. Hope there is a balance in the OL card or the game is so fast, that it will not be and issue.

Also strange, that it does not cost any to play OL card, and you can play as many as you like. (does that make the OL play 5 card in his first round every time?)

I don't know Danish, but in English (and even in Chinese) commas in this situation are coordinating unless you use "either" or "or" with them to let the reader know that they are not.

Bindlespin said:

Exactly…so don't see the point of posts asking if the comma means "and", "or", "if", "what", "then", "maybe", "so" or "be"…47 minutes sigh…

in response to Antistone's list:

1. yes
2. Stand up, roll two red dice to determine recovery, replace your token with your figure in the nearest empty space , and flip your activation card because you are done.
3. yes, you can only target spaces with figures in LOS.
4. Melee means hand to hand combat, with or without a weapon. That is why it is used to differentiate between hand to hand and ranged combat.
5. This is a small mistake; clearly, they meant the black bordered edge of a tile blocks line of sight.
6. Ok.
7. A miss is a miss. if it is a miss all other results are ignored. it is a ranged miss if after all possible jiggering with surges you still lack the range to hit your target.
8. Nope.
9. But how many reasons are there to interrupt movement when there are only two actions and one of them is movement?
10. You can't attack spaces without figures so why care if you have line of sight to an adjacent figureless space from inside a pit. In fact, the only action you can perform while in a pit is to get out of the pit.
11. This is an invented problem that is not in the rules anywhere.
12. The lava pit says nearest non-lava space, not an adjacent non-lava space. So put the hero in the nearest non-lava space without a monster. if your dude was next to lava and all the closest non-lava spaces are filled with monsters. Put the hero in the nearest empty space without lava.