Hmm, this is getting more and more interesting with every interpretation that I hear.
Combat, for my players, has always been long and tedious without some kind of flavour or style.
We always try to spruce it up by making interesting combat maneuvers or taking advantage of the terrain.
The only time that we get awesomely descriptive is when someone performs a critical or does a really neat move.
The idea that each dice roll, even in combat, could potentially tell a bit of a story sounds really GREAT to me.
Then again, I just played DnD 3.5 this past weekend and we all got REALLLLY bored by a two hour combat scene. It was terrible: the environment was not immersive nor were there cool obstacles to get in the way or to be used creatively. I kept wanting to perform neat maneuvers, but due to the impatience of the other players, I simply went with my two attacks. Really freakin lame.
So I'm a bit biased, I suppose.
but the new system looks like it forces you to tell a story every time you roll - if there's a skull, you need to explain the negative side-effect, if there's an hourglass, you need to figure out what the heck took you so long. If you roll the comet, what made the action so successful, how did fortune intervene?
I'm not certain, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of that stuff is indicated on the action card itself, so I doubt that the GM will be scratching his head that much over what to do.