Less has nothing to do with it when you got to relie on a wonky 3rd party sight to keep track of errata/faq that is Frustrating for new players. They come here for answers then get directed to BBG for a game they bought. Or they got to contact FFG for constant "am I reading this right questions". This is why errata is frustrating and I'm not speaking for myself I'm speaking for the new guy/gal who picks up the game thinking its a smooth running game because it isn't and its getting worse.

You're not wrong. FFG has been struggling with vague or poorly worded rules since I starting collecting games of theirs. Descent is worse than most due to how intense the competition between OL and heroes can sometimes get. You can get lost in the rules debates if you let yourself. You can make house rules to suit your own personal tastes if you're so inclined. Or you can get frustrated with it all and either shelf the game or sell it off. It may not be fair, but it's true.

At some point, we the customers have to take responsibility for how we spend our money. Products that don't sell will either die off or improve. So if you're not happy with the game, stop buying expansions for it. In the Age of the Internet, I don't even think it's unfair to ask the customer to do research on a product before buying into the core set, so even newbies aren't really off the hook on this one.

Jane isn't that complicated to play with but if wording on games causes this much confusion the game will feel broken out of the box. Plot decks are next are they being written right? Or should we wait for the errata on those too?

There will almost certainly be issues with the LT plot decks that call for errata, or at least FAQage. If you want to buy them just for the minis, you could do that and ignore the plot decks. Or you could wait a few months and see how bad things get on the forums before deciding if the LTs are really worth it.

Less has nothing to do with it when you got to relie on a wonky 3rd party sight to keep track of errata/faq that is Frustrating for new players. They come here for answers then get directed to BBG for a game they bought. Or they got to contact FFG for constant "am I reading this right questions". This is why errata is frustrating and I'm not speaking for myself I'm speaking for the new guy/gal who picks up the game thinking its a smooth running game because it isn't and its getting worse.

You're not wrong. FFG has been struggling with vague or poorly worded rules since I starting collecting games of theirs. Descent is worse than most due to how intense the competition between OL and heroes can sometimes get. You can get lost in the rules debates if you let yourself. You can make house rules to suit your own personal tastes if you're so inclined. Or you can get frustrated with it all and either shelf the game or sell it off. It may not be fair, but it's true.

At some point, we the customers have to take responsibility for how we spend our money. Products that don't sell will either die off or improve. So if you're not happy with the game, stop buying expansions for it. In the Age of the Internet, I don't even think it's unfair to ask the customer to do research on a product before buying into the core set, so even newbies aren't really off the hook on this one.

You make a very good point, but I guess the reason we're still here complaining it's that we haven't given up on this game already - always waiting for the next FAQ/errata update and always spamming FFG with clarification requests. In the end this game is still fun as hell, and if players trust the owner of the boxes (is it only me or does that person coincide with the OL in most games?) to make fair and sensitive ruling for any issues the game can still proceed without a hitch. That's why I bought all boxes so far, and if the situation doesn't get dramatically worse I'll buy Nerekhall as well...

You are right about struggling with rulebooks also! Though I think second and third edition Twilight Imperium were very well written and not clunky at all (except for expansion stuff with strange races doing strange things)

Less has nothing to do with it when you got to relie on a wonky 3rd party sight to keep track of errata/faq that is Frustrating for new players. They come here for answers then get directed to BBG for a game they bought. Or they got to contact FFG for constant "am I reading this right questions". This is why errata is frustrating and I'm not speaking for myself I'm speaking for the new guy/gal who picks up the game thinking its a smooth running game because it isn't and its getting worse.

You're not wrong. FFG has been struggling with vague or poorly worded rules since I starting collecting games of theirs. Descent is worse than most due to how intense the competition between OL and heroes can sometimes get. You can get lost in the rules debates if you let yourself. You can make house rules to suit your own personal tastes if you're so inclined. Or you can get frustrated with it all and either shelf the game or sell it off. It may not be fair, but it's true.

At some point, we the customers have to take responsibility for how we spend our money. Products that don't sell will either die off or improve. So if you're not happy with the game, stop buying expansions for it. In the Age of the Internet, I don't even think it's unfair to ask the customer to do research on a product before buying into the core set, so even newbies aren't really off the hook on this one.

Jane isn't that complicated to play with but if wording on games causes this much confusion the game will feel broken out of the box. Plot decks are next are they being written right? Or should we wait for the errata on those too?

There will almost certainly be issues with the LT plot decks that call for errata, or at least FAQage. If you want to buy them just for the minis, you could do that and ignore the plot decks. Or you could wait a few months and see how bad things get on the forums before deciding if the LTs are really worth it.

In a lot of ways this game is starting to feel rewritten. Instead of simply improving a rule or a balance tweak some game machanics are becoming unnessarly more complicated like "movement" for example. If they keep doing this the game simply won't play right out of the box!

There is a lot of well written game rules out there so i know it can be done! If a game is this poorly written then it doesn't need more and more errata it needs a NEW rule book that makes more since. Even if said rule books (because I'm pretty sure it won't stop at 2.1) were made atleast you'll feel like the game is being actually updated instead of the ever web searching you'll need to keep doing. Doesn't matter if new rule books started at 2.1 and ended at 2.9 this is the better way to update the game.

Another thing to add is don't hesitate to put house rules in place. Ultimately the game is about fun and if there is a gap in the rules or rule that doesn't fit your group, just change it. I guarantee play testers haven't been through all the scenarios in the game and broken rules will come up. It is just like a software, there will always be bugs.

Who cares if it is an official ruling with FFG - play with makes sense and provides the best balance with your group. I suggest rather than always having the need to have an official rule, just play with what makes sense to your group. After a few games it will work out.

House rules can be worse than the official rules, however.

And "making sense" is so subjective that it can actually be nonsensical.

But, putting those caveats aside, house ruling can be interesting.

For an example, one could transform Descent into a game of chess with space marines breeding cattle as in Agricola.

I am quite sure that some players would consider such adaptations as "logical" and an improvement to the game.

That is the bright side of freedom.

Now, of course, the challenge of trying to do the best of the system rather than changing it after one's whims would be lost.

But who cares.

I am personally thinking of trying the map tiles as Frisbee missiles, as I am convinced that the real intention of Descent is to be an outside game.

I fail to see what is so complicated about this game. Sure, there are a few strange interactions that should be clarified and the FAQ has officially ruled on those interactions. However, I think people are grasping at straws in regards to a few things about this game's mechanics. For the most part, movement and the move action are defined well enough for the game to function. If there was ever anyone I knew that would try to warp those rules into their own context, I would not feel comfortable playing the game with that person. I find this similar to miniature wargame scenarios where your opponent claims they have line of sight to a target because their is a small crack in a building.

I play this game in with a group of friends, and I have played quite a few times at conventions with complete strangers, and those games have never had the problems being presented here. Leave the rules lawyering to DnD and just have fun playing Descent.

House rules can be worse than the official rules, however.

And "making sense" is so subjective that it can actually be nonsensical.

But, putting those caveats aside, house ruling can be interesting.

For an example, one could transform Descent into a game of chess with space marines breeding cattle as in Agricola.

I am quite sure that some players would consider such adaptations as "logical" and an improvement to the game.

That is the bright side of freedom.

Now, of course, the challenge of trying to do the best of the system rather than changing it after one's whims would be lost.

But who cares.

I am personally thinking of trying the map tiles as Frisbee missiles, as I am convinced that the real intention of Descent is to be an outside game.

Ah, sarcasm. Always a great way to feel clever without actually having to think of a point to add to an argument.

I'm sure you are smart enough to se the differences between trying to play Descent Agricola Freesbee 40k and trying to make its own movement rules easy to understand and internally consistent.

I play this game in with a group of friends, and I have played quite a few times at conventions with complete strangers, and those games have never had the problems being presented here. Leave the rules lawyering to DnD and just have fun playing Descent.

Descent is great fun, but that is different from saying that it is a well-written rulebook. Rules lawyering becomes necessary because there's so many fallacies, so many things left unsaid. House-ruling on the fly and letting the argument drop is certainly the best solution... But it still would have been better if it wasn't necessary.

I'm in college and play with friends, we are new and argue over the flimsy wording of this game. We took Robins advise and played frisbee with it and now we enjoy the game thank you Robin.

House rules can be worse than the official rules, however.

And "making sense" is so subjective that it can actually be nonsensical.

But, putting those caveats aside, house ruling can be interesting.

For an example, one could transform Descent into a game of chess with space marines breeding cattle as in Agricola.

I am quite sure that some players would consider such adaptations as "logical" and an improvement to the game.

That is the bright side of freedom.

Now, of course, the challenge of trying to do the best of the system rather than changing it after one's whims would be lost.

But who cares.

I am personally thinking of trying the map tiles as Frisbee missiles, as I am convinced that the real intention of Descent is to be an outside game.

Ah, sarcasm. Always a great way to feel clever without actually having to think of a point to add to an argument.

I'm sure you are smart enough to se the differences between trying to play Descent Agricola Freesbee 40k and trying to make its own movement rules easy to understand and internally consistent.

I play this game in with a group of friends, and I have played quite a few times at conventions with complete strangers, and those games have never had the problems being presented here. Leave the rules lawyering to DnD and just have fun playing Descent.

Descent is great fun, but that is different from saying that it is a well-written rulebook. Rules lawyering becomes necessary because there's so many fallacies, so many things left unsaid. House-ruling on the fly and letting the argument drop is certainly the best solution... But it still would have been better if it wasn't necessary.

+ 1 to both those points, and that is obviously where I was coming from. Board games are a bit like software in a way - there is only so much play testing that can be done and 'bugs' are sure to surface. I play Talisman from FFG and even after the fourth version there are still some really bad design decisions in the game. Awesome game otherwise - just iron out the wrinkles with a few agreed house rules and makes the game so much more entertaining. Designers don't always get it right for everyone, as you can see with the LOS and movement rules. I personally like them, but I can definitely understand why they are criticized so heavily.

We haven't needed to put any house rules in place at the moment, but we found out we haven't been playing the revive heroes rule properly (we have been playing you cannot heal a character unless they have been revived) and we play random heroes. Our current campaign is 4-3 with two games coming right to the wire and we have enjoyed playing the game so far.

I fail to see what is so complicated about this game. Sure, there are a few strange interactions that should be clarified and the FAQ has officially ruled on those interactions. However, I think people are grasping at straws in regards to a few things about this game's mechanics. For the most part, movement and the move action are defined well enough for the game to function. If there was ever anyone I knew that would try to warp those rules into their own context, I would not feel comfortable playing the game with that person. I find this similar to miniature wargame scenarios where your opponent claims they have line of sight to a target because their is a small crack in a building.

I play this game in with a group of friends, and I have played quite a few times at conventions with complete strangers, and those games have never had the problems being presented here. Leave the rules lawyering to DnD and just have fun playing Descent.

And I agree but apparently a lot of people do have a problem or there wouldn't be so much "errata on the fly". Errata doesn't change much for me but errata is created for those who want changes. If someone don't understand how something is written then errata creation begins, if someone is having a balance issue with something more changes. They have enough data to make a new freaking rule book! They can even add a section for each expansion and plot decks...all I want is the errata in my hand ill use what I want I don't need anybody to tell me that lmao!

And Robin we play are game on a table outside so it is a outdoor game..

Thanks for having noticed that I was just having fun writing my post.

I don't think that I am smart.

I certainly don't say that the rulebook is an easy read.

But I do notice that most of house rules are just "gruge" rules and hardly have anything to do with good design.

Descent is far from perfection, but it is not the disaster that some people try to convince others that it is.

Yeah, sorry about that but sarcasm always rubs the wrong way on the internet. Lack of visual clues, all that.

Yeah, sorry about that but sarcasm always rubs the wrong way on the internet. Lack of visual clues, all that.

Forum/chat/email communication can often turn bad, because of the absence of body language, of the"absolute memory" (you can dig in the past words permanently inscribed and inject them into the more recent arguments - which does not occur in a normal conversation), the immediacy of answering, etc.

Now, I must admit that my background is wargaming and that - contrary to RPG and other looser gaming environements - wargamers usually shun house rules.

That is due to the need of a common basis of rules for competitive playing.

It also can be linked to the fact that wargamers facing a tactical challenge like to do the best of what they have at their disposal, rather than change the conditions of the problem to make it easier to solve.

But that said, there exist heated debates and flamewars about the level of "historical accuracy" of rules even among that gaming community - with poor results, as one's idea of "reality" and "logics" is much more subjective than one usually admit.

What do you mean by "historical accuracy", you mean resemblance to actual historical data? As in, you play historical tactical wargaming? I don't have any experience of that, in my area guys mostly play GW games

I like your problem analogy, because it fits perfectly. One thing is trying to solve a problem with the data you have at your disposal, like you say, I can respect that. But when the presentation of the problem is in poor form and in part contraddicts itself, it's another issue altogether.

I try to house rule as little as I can as well, but our hosue rules for this game are less "I don't like this so I'll change it!" and more "This is unclear/unstated, so either I rule it out now or we stop for 5 minutes (AGAIN) while I search for a FAQ, and if we are unlucky the issue remains and the game breaks"

Yes. I am a lot in historical wargaming (Advanced Squad Leader).

Up to now, I haven't needed to house rule a problematic aspect of the Descent system, as the FAQ or FFG direct answers have clarified things enough.

But I definitely would house rule an aspect if I don't find an answer to a dilemma, until a clarification is found.

Thanks for having noticed that I was just having fun writing my post.

I don't think that I am smart.

I certainly don't say that the rulebook is an easy read.

But I do notice that most of house rules are just "gruge" rules and hardly have anything to do with good design.

Descent is far from perfection, but it is not the disaster that some people try to convince others that it is.

It was clever and funny..

A knight's Oath of Honor teleports her in the chosen square, cannot be stopped, cannot be targeted by a pit trap in the landing square (she did not enter it, she was placed in it), cannot anything. Syndrael will be able to recover fatigue because she did not move - she was placed! It might even be flavorful with a character like Tomble (hide in the shadows and reappear suddenly and in an unexpected place), but when a knight does it's another headscratcher.

This isn't correct. "Placing" does still count as "entering a space", so something like Pit Trap can be used. Just as it can be used after a figure is Thrown. Trip Wire can not be used because it is not entering a space "during a move action". Syndrael can NOT recover fatigue because she DID move, it just wasn't done using a move action.

Remember that taking a "move action" and "moving" are separate (albeit very related) things. You can actually take a move action and not move. Example: Syndrael could take a move action to trade items (because trading items can only be done during a move action) and not spend any of her movement points on changing which square she was in, and then still recover fatigue. FFG has clarified that if she changes which square she is in during her turn (regardless of method or if she ends up in the same space she started in, that she can not activate her hero ability).

For Pits, if you move on them, you still fall down them and need to take a climb action to get out. It doesn't end your action, but it still prevents you from getting out of it.

He was referring to the Pit Trap overlord card, which does not require climbing out of. This is different than entering "Pit Spaces" which are printed on the board.

I was referencing the pit terrain squares because the post I was replying to stated that actions that create movement but are not move actions ignore the penalties from terrain.

A knight's Oath of Honor teleports her in the chosen square, cannot be stopped, cannot be targeted by a pit trap in the landing square (she did not enter it, she was placed in it), cannot anything. Syndrael will be able to recover fatigue because she did not move - she was placed! It might even be flavorful with a character like Tomble (hide in the shadows and reappear suddenly and in an unexpected place), but when a knight does it's another headscratcher.

This isn't correct. "Placing" does still count as "entering a space", so something like Pit Trap can be used. Just as it can be used after a figure is Thrown. Trip Wire can not be used because it is not entering a space "during a move action". Syndrael can NOT recover fatigue because she DID move, it just wasn't done using a move action.

Remember that taking a "move action" and "moving" are separate (albeit very related) things. You can actually take a move action and not move. Example: Syndrael could take a move action to trade items (because trading items can only be done during a move action) and not spend any of her movement points on changing which square she was in, and then still recover fatigue. FFG has clarified that if she changes which square she is in during her turn (regardless of method or if she ends up in the same space she started in, that she can not activate her hero ability).

For Pits, if you move on them, you still fall down them and need to take a climb action to get out. It doesn't end your action, but it still prevents you from getting out of it.

He was referring to the Pit Trap overlord card, which does not require climbing out of. This is different than entering "Pit Spaces" which are printed on the board.

Okay, I am fairly sure I read somewhere, probably on bgg, that it's the exact contrary - being placed does not count as entering a square, and being removed and replaced does not count as moving.

Oh nevermind I dug up an older post that says I'm mistaken. someone must have got it wrong...

Man it would be really REALLY nice to have all this **** compiled in the FAQ, instead of having to dig in the forum like this

It is funny how you mentioned the Jain is Overpowered, because I agree on this, but not for the reasons you posted

Danger Sense is OP. This single card, for a cost of 1 xp, will make a lot of quests A LOT easier. This is the card that eliminates the need for rush. Without it, it is always a tough choice for the heroes during encounter 1. A lot of scenarios requires the overlord to have certain cards on hand when going to encounter 2. Sometimes it is so vital, that OL will not care about winning the 1st encounter. I had a lot of situations where hereos were delaying the finish of encounter 1. They just waited for Danger Sense to discard the crucial cards.

This single ability changes the core concept of some quests where the time works in favor of the Overlord to time working in favor of Heroes.

It is funny how you mentioned the Jain is Overpowered, because I agree on this, but not for the reasons you posted

Danger Sense is OP. This single card, for a cost of 1 xp, will make a lot of quests A LOT easier. This is the card that eliminates the need for rush. Without it, it is always a tough choice for the heroes during encounter 1. A lot of scenarios requires the overlord to have certain cards on hand when going to encounter 2. Sometimes it is so vital, that OL will not care about winning the 1st encounter. I had a lot of situations where hereos were delaying the finish of encounter 1. They just waited for Danger Sense to discard the crucial cards.

This single ability changes the core concept of some quests where the time works in favor of the Overlord to time working in favor of Heroes.

I think you mean Wildlander is overpowered, not Jain. I can have any scout use Danger Sense if I take the Wildlander discipline. In fact, I think Roganna is one of the strongest candidates for the Wildlander discipline because her Heroic ability works really well with ranged weaponry.

It is funny how you mentioned the Jain is Overpowered, because I agree on this, but not for the reasons you posted

Danger Sense is OP. This single card, for a cost of 1 xp, will make a lot of quests A LOT easier. This is the card that eliminates the need for rush. Without it, it is always a tough choice for the heroes during encounter 1. A lot of scenarios requires the overlord to have certain cards on hand when going to encounter 2. Sometimes it is so vital, that OL will not care about winning the 1st encounter. I had a lot of situations where hereos were delaying the finish of encounter 1. They just waited for Danger Sense to discard the crucial cards.

This single ability changes the core concept of some quests where the time works in favor of the Overlord to time working in favor of Heroes.

I think you mean Wildlander is overpowered, not Jain. I can have any scout use Danger Sense if I take the Wildlander discipline. In fact, I think Roganna is one of the strongest candidates for the Wildlander discipline because her Heroic ability works really well with ranged weaponry.

Well, yes.

Actually every scout is overpowered because of Danger Sense

As a quick report, I am playing a 2 player Reynarth Champion and Jain/Thief campaign.

So far the two heroes have lost The Masquerade Ball and the Lair of the Wyrm rumor (forgot name, involves a burning in).