I was playing my first game of descent and one of my friends played the character that can stun entire groups. Is stun just one action to get rid of or takes a whole monster turn? We played it that it takes the whole turn but I was reading the card later it says "it is the only action while you have this card" so that means once you discard the card you can still take one action. Anyone got an answer? It seems with games there is always a way things are worded to get my friends to disagree.

Yes. I seem to see that with a LOT of people on this forum. They seem to read into every little thing when the creators made it pretty simple on it's face. "We need an eratta or FAQ for this!" seems to be the call for every little thing. It's really silly. It's like, if the instructions said "Write your name here", you'd think, huh, write your name there. But, someone would come along and say "Well, I need an official ruling because I think they meant for us to write 'your name' in that spot." Really? Sorry, off my soap box.

To me, the rules are pretty simple. When you are stunned, the only action you can take on your next turn is to discard the card. That's it. Next person. But, I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who will disagree with me.

I have to agree with the other side of the argument, the card states that removing stun is the only action you can take "while you have this card". Once you've removed the stun, you no longer have the card and thus you no longer have that restriction, and as you have only used one action you may use your second action and any abilities, feats, skills, etc.

I think the definition of the "Stand Up" action, which at the end states that you must flip your hero card over to indicate your turn is over, is a good way to compare the difference, and I think if being stunned meant the same thing it would have used the same language.

We can only hope that FFG is quicker about getting a FAQ for this out since there's so much ambiguity everywhere.

wootersl said:

Well that's exactly why the FAQ is necessary, because everyone who disagrees with you also thinks the rules are pretty simple to them too.

Considering that Stand Up allows you to recover health and stamina, playing with Stun as losing an entire turn actually ends up to be more of a punishment to the hero than being knocked out and spending their entire turn to Stand Up, which doesn't make sense to me.

I guess I can see where the confusion could into it. I still think it's reading too much into it and trying to find loopholes. But, I do think killing your entire turn due to Stunned is a bit much, since there are so many ways to stun Heroes and Monsters. Perhaps the better solution is to change the text to read. "On your next turn, discard this card. You are allowed only one action during your next turn."

wootersl said:

I agree, maybe something more like "On your next turn, you must use your first action to discard this card before any other actions." Even then we get into the ambiguity of whether an action means a Hero action or other free actions, etc. I think this is actually the basis for a lot of the confusion about many different rules, all because they couldn't choose a different term for different things.

If Stun was intended to make you lose a whole turn, what is the point of the text "while you have this card"?

Soapboxing is all well and good, but you look a little foolish when you're wrong. (See, I can claim to be unassailably right too!)

The first time I played, we used stun as "lose your whole turn" interpretation.

It very quickly became very obvious that Ashrian becomes an unstoppable juggernaut who ties up monsters while allowing heroes to waltz to victory.

Imagine a game of First Blood with only two heroes. That means there is only one Ettin to choose as Mauler, and he is a Minion.

Get Ashrien next to him, and he is automatically stunned every time he activates.

Mauler never gets an action.

The Goblins can be safely ignored because no way are five of them getting off the board before the heroes kill Mauler, who cannot fight back. Alternately, Ashrian can kill Mauler by herself a little more slowly while the other hero picks off Goblins (possibly two of the three a round).

This caused me to re-read Stun.

I wouldn't say that I was "looking for a loophole." Rather, I refused to believe that the game was that broken, and figured I must have been misreading something.

And, indeed, I concluded (I would like to think, following a rational interpretation of the game text) that "while you have this card" meant exactly that. Therefore, once you no longer had the card (or token), it's limitation no longer applied.

The irony here is that the designers no doubt though that by wording it that way, coupled with the act of physically discarding the card, would make it obvious to all and avoid exactly this kind of misunderstanding.

Kris I feel the same way about the hero you mentioned. I was playing a 2 player game and my friend just laughed the whole time because poor mauler never got to do anything the entire time. He then said "this is too easy to win for me" and I realized stun was either way too overpowered or we were playing it wrong. I believe the latter in that we were playing it wrong. No one ability, hero, spell in a game should be that powerful on its own. I run into this a lot because my friends are power gamers who only care about destroying everything in their path (which can be fun don't get me wrong) so I read the card and from the way it is written you can get another action after the stun is shaken off. Errata needed I suppose so everyone can be on the same page. Okay rant done.

radiskull said:

On the same context you look a little foolish when you feel the need to talk down to someone who is just giving his opinion. I never said that I was right. I can almost be assuredly wrong. What I'm saying is that it seems people seem so hot to dig into the meaning of every card. The point of "while you have this card" to me means that if someone can do something before your turn to have you discard that card, then you won't miss your next turn. See, it can be read that way too. Not saying either way is right or wrong, but after reading all the posts on Stunned, I agree that losing your entire turn is a little harsh. Never berate a man for his opinion, it doesn't put you in a good light. Now, let's start over and be polite to one another.

I'm too lazy to look for it - but there are many threads addressing this on the forums here and at BGG - but I believe there are even some quotes to an official response…

BUT - with regards to stun - it takes 1 action to remove the stun… The stunned monster would then have their second action remaining to do with as they please.

In my opinion, its clear that Stun basically eats up an action on your next turn, leaving you one action to do what you want.

Nothing more simple really…and **** I wouldn't want to play with the ones called "Rule Na***"…

The card says: The only action you can take while you have this card is to remove this card"…So, your turn starts, you have a Stun Card…you spend 1 action to remove the card. Then what? After you shake off that odd stun feeling off your body, you'Re good to go for another action. Well done Hero! Good job Monster!

On my side of the planet, it's simple as it can be.

I've played two games of Descent. One in which the three player game had two heroes, Avacyn and the Thief --

Avacyn's Surge Ability is he can add a stun condition to an enemy, which we read -- and did incorrectly. Stun doesn't remove your whole turn, though wihtout thinking it through it sounds like it does. Stun works as read: The only action you can take while you have a stun card is discarding the stun card. If you have an action after the discard action, take it. If the Overlord plays 'Dash' on his turn to give the monster who's stunned an additional action, basically shakes off the stun for free. If you are afflicted with both Poison, Stun, and Immobilized -- the first action you must take, is shake off the stun by discarding the card.

This is why 'while you have this card' is on there, I think. To denote that no matter what action you take on your turn, removing the stun card MUST be the first thing you do. For example, Avacyn gets stunned AND immobilized on his turn, as well as lethally damaged for 9 hearts. On his turn, he's going to want to use his Heroic Feat, but first he must remove the Stun. Then he can either try to muscle out of his immobilization OR use his Heroic Feat.

It's spelled out as far as the rules are concerned if you look at the purpose of conditions, and the meta-ruling here. It seems to want the stunned condition to be resolved before any other condition is resolved or any other action is taken on the turn. Either Hero OR Overlord.

Dan

Alienmastermind said:

I assume you mean Avric Albright, the Healer, rather than Avacyn the Archangel from Magic: the Gathering.

D'oh! Yeah, that's what I meant.

Dan

Alienmastermind said:

I completely agree. My group was confused about this at first, but I thought about it later and it hit me. They HAVE to word it like this to cover the different ways you can receive Stun, and how it can affect you in those particular situations.

For instance, you are stunned while it isn't your turn. Your turn starts, you read the card which says: Discard this card or token. However, notice it starts with an 'Action Icon.' Even this is a clue. If it was to simply take your whole turn, there is no need at all for this symbol. it clearly indicates it takes an action to do whatever you are about to read. In this case, it takes an action to discard the card. After this, it says "This is the only action you may perform on your turn while you have this card or token." This is telling us two things, and the reasons are obvious. The first part is there because it is one of the only ways to indicate that you must perform this action before any others whilst not knowing exactly when you receive this card/token (this is where covering the different times you could get the condition comes into play.) The second phrase is there to tell us that once you've satisfied this limitation, it no longer applies to you. Because it makes you use an action, and indicates it must be the first action (which is to remove the card itself) it becomes clear that you only lose 1 action. The reason they had to make it read like this is again because of the different times in which you can receive the condition. The other clear example; Pit Trap. If a hero is using fatigue to move around and the OL plays Pit Trap on him (assuming he fails) he is then Stunned because he has no movement points to suffer. The wording of Stun is necessary in this situation to reflect the possible moments this could happen during a hero turn. Say the Stun card simply read "Lose your first action and discard this card." This is no longer simple when the hero has received Stun because he used Fatigue to move, after taking his first action to Search, over to attack a monster. However, consider the way Stun IS written and you'll realize that no matter when he suffered Fatigue to move (before, in between, or after his two actions), he'll lose his next action and ONLY that action.

Stun

This got kinda wordy… and for that, I apologize.