Jump to content



Photo

FFG Sez Contradictions / Clarifications?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

#1 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 479 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 04:11 PM

So we've seen a couple instances where the "FFG Sez" (aka "Adam Sez" aka "Justin Sez") responses (which have been compiled on this BGG Thread), have run into contradictions. Now, this is likely to happen from time to time since the people who answer the Rules questions can't ALWAYS keep everything in their head at once, have to deal with lots of these, etc.

 

Before I contact them about these, I want to make sure that nobody else on these forums has seen other places that either better explain them, etc. (Here's the first, more will follow.)

 

Stealthy and Melee (FFG Sez)

The stealthy ability requires melee attacks to roll at least 3 range to hit.

Melee attacks usually require 0 range (even with Reach), so 3 is all the range the attack would need.

 

The problem here is that I can find NOWHERE in the 2nd edition rules that mentions that Melee attacks usually require 0 range, ignore range, etc. To me, this is a relic of 1st edition mechanics.

 

For those that may need a history lesson:

In 1st Edition, each type of attack (Melee, Ranged, and Magic) used a different attack die (Melee used Red, Ranged used Blue, Magic used White) Each die had 1 X, but otherwise provided different allotments to damage, range, and surges on the other sides (Red was high in damage, low in range; Ranged was the opposite of Melee; Magic was in between, but I believe had extra surges) However, only a couple of sides of the Red Melee die had range. Others had no range at all. Because of this, it was very often possible, especially in the early game, to roll a Melee Attack that wasn't an X, and still not have the 1 range that would be needed to attack an adjacent unit. However, there was an exception in the rulebook specifically for Melee attacks, emphasis theirs.

p. 11 Types of Attack

Melee Attacks: Melee attacks can only be declared against adjacent spaces. However, a melee attack only misses if a miss result is rolled. Range results are ignored during melee attacks.

 

In 2nd Edition, however, there is only one attack die, it's Blue, and unless a miss is rolled, the valid range results are 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6.

 

Here's everything relevant I could find in the 2nd Edition Rulebook:

p. 9 Attack

A weapon with the Melee icon may only target a space adjacent (see "Adjacent Spaces" on page 10) to the attacking hero.

p. 12 Combat > 1. Declare weapon and target

A figure making a Melee attack can only target an adjacent space.

p. 13 Attack Keywords > Reach

The Reach keyword allows the figure to use a Melee attack to target a figure up to two spaces away, rather than only adjacent spaces. The target still needs to be in line of sight.

Stealthy

Each attack that targets this monster must roll 3 additional range beyond the normally required amount or the attack is a miss.

 

As such, based on just reading the 2nd Edition rulebook alone, there should be absolutely no confusion. The confusion appears to entirely be coming from people who remember the confusion that arose from the first edition (IMO, this includes whoever responded to the FFG Sez question), and whoever wrote the rulebook and designed the Blue die very intentionally did what they did to remove this confusion.

 

So, ignoring the FFG Sez thread post, here would be the ruling:

Melee attacks (or any other attack) against an adjacent space normally require 1 range. Melee attacks with reach (or any other attack) against a space 2 spaces away normally require 2 range. In both cases, these will never miss due to range since the minimum range on an attack roll is ALWAYS 2. Melee attacks just can't make a roll against spaces further away (see quotes above). So, a Melee attack against an adjacent space would require 4 range against a target with Stealthy. A Melee attack with Reach against a space 2 spaces away would require 5 range against a target with Stealthy.

 

But with the FFG Sez post, the ruling is technically different, but seemingly only because it's based on information that just doesn't exist in the 2nd Edition Ruleset.


Edited by griton, 26 August 2013 - 04:11 PM.


#2 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,561 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 06:59 PM

So, ignoring the FFG Sez thread post, here would be the ruling:

Melee attacks (or any other attack) against an adjacent space normally require 1 range. Melee attacks with reach (or any other attack) against a space 2 spaces away normally require 2 range. In both cases, these will never miss due to range since the minimum range on an attack roll is ALWAYS 2. Melee attacks just can't make a roll against spaces further away (see quotes above). So, a Melee attack against an adjacent space would require 4 range against a target with Stealthy. A Melee attack with Reach against a space 2 spaces away would require 5 range against a target with Stealthy.

 

If we're talking strictly about RAW here, I'd be more inclined to take the FFG Sez answer as a clarification of Melee range rules.  There is no clear support for this answer in the rules, but there's also no clear contradiction.  This is additional information, and the stuff errata is made from.

 

That said, I don't deny that FFG often answers the question they are asked, which may or may not have been worded to suggest one answer over another. Your house rule is not unreasonable, if that's the way you prefer to play.



#3 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 26 August 2013 - 09:48 PM

The "sez" answers often settle debates on points where the rules don't give a clear answer.
The answer about Stealthy does not seem to contradict tbe rules or other "sez" answers.
It adds the notion that for a melee attack, the attacker must at least roll 3 range.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#4 ZXTR

ZXTR

    Member

  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:42 AM

As such, based on just reading the 2nd Edition rulebook alone, there should be absolutely no confusion. The confusion appears to entirely be coming from people who remember the confusion that arose from the first edition (IMO, this includes whoever responded to the FFG Sez question), and whoever wrote the rulebook and designed the Blue die very intentionally did what they did to remove this confusion.

 

So, ignoring the FFG Sez thread post, here would be the ruling:

Melee attacks (or any other attack) against an adjacent space normally require 1 range. Melee attacks with reach (or any other attack) against a space 2 spaces away normally require 2 range. In both cases, these will never miss due to range since the minimum range on an attack roll is ALWAYS 2. Melee attacks just can't make a roll against spaces further away (see quotes above). So, a Melee attack against an adjacent space would require 4 range against a target with Stealthy. A Melee attack with Reach against a space 2 spaces away would require 5 range against a target with Stealthy.

 

But with the FFG Sez post, the ruling is technically different, but seemingly only because it's based on information that just doesn't exist in the 2nd Edition Ruleset.

 

Your house rule may render Reach usless, make stealthy monster are more attractive to your OL as well as make them almost immortal.

 

Stealth came from D1E where it instruct you to roll additionaly to your normal attack roll one transparent die with two sides showing "X" and 4 blank sides making attack more likely to miss. In D2E stealth midified to make it mostly melee targets.

 

D1E

- normal attack 16,6%(1/6) chance to miss

- attack against stealth monster 44,4%(16/36) chance to miss

 

D2E FFG ruling for melee

- normal attack 16,6%(1/6) chance to miss

- melee attack(with or without reach) against stealth monster 33,3%(2/6) chance to miss

 

 

D2E your ruling for melee

- normal attack 16,6%(1/6) chance to miss

- melee attack(with or without reach) against adjacent stealth monster 50%(3/6) chance to miss

- melee attack with reach against stealth monster 1 space away 66,6%(4/6) chance to miss

 

It is up to you which rules to use, I just explaining the nature and logic of stealth in Descent.



#5 PlainWhiteBread

PlainWhiteBread

    Member

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:05 AM

The problem I encounter with Stealthy, one that I've brought up with our OL, is this:

"If stealthy is thematically designed for those with it to be in hiding, why do the 'stealthy' figures still block line of sight and movement? If I can't see them, how are they preventing me from shooting at or moving up to things behind them?"

Also, the only monsters that have Stealthy are from the conversion kit, so naturally the rulebook wouldn't have any mention of the mechanic. I'm not saying that Melee should ignore Stealthy (A monster could be hiding behind something adjacent to the hero after all, like a monstery Solid Snake), but if the concept is that these monsters are 'hidden', they shouldn't block movement or line of sight.

Maybe having have heroes test Awareness in order to ignore the 'range' penalty could work. I mean, isn't that what awareness is for?

Also, can us heroes get a cloak or something that can be exhausted to grant Stealthy for the turn?


Edited by PlainWhiteBread, 27 August 2013 - 09:20 AM.


#6 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 479 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:41 AM

D2E your ruling for melee

 

- normal attack 16,6%(1/6) chance to miss

- melee attack(with or without reach) against adjacent stealth monster 50%(3/6) chance to miss

- melee attack with reach against stealth monster 1 space away 66,6%(4/6) chance to miss

 

It is up to you which rules to use, I just explaining the nature and logic of stealth in Descent.

 

Firstly, I fully understand the nature and logic of stealth in Descent. I'm merely explaining the Rules as Written, and to me, there's no complication or contradiction that needed a clarification in the first place. Then when one was asked (almost guaranteed to be from someone who is basing their knowledge of 2E on the way 1E worked, which is a flawed, but common, assumption), the answer was given and explicitly used a justification based on information that isn't found anywhere in 2E, but WAS in 1E, which makes me think that the answer was an honest mistake based on the same perspective as the question. Especially so, considering that there is evidence (the new attack die with a minimum range of any attack to be 2, which includes Reach) that this was already thought of by the original designers.

 

Secondly, your math is only correct for attacks that just use the Blue and Red dice. (Red has no range.) There are many melee weapons that also use Yellow Dice, including the Iron Spear, which provides Reach.

 

Adding 1 Yellow (or Green, if using the expansion) die, the miss chance against an adjacent stealth monster would be only 38.89%, against 2 spaces away: 55.55%


  • Kunzite likes this

#7 Kunzite

Kunzite

    Member

  • Members
  • 542 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 09:42 AM

Also, can us heroes get a cloak or something that can be exhausted to grant Stealthy for the turn?

 

There isn't something that currently gives stealthy, but there is that one that requires a surge to be spent to hit them. There are other things, including relics, that consume surges to make that cloak very valuable, in which I might think this makes them even better then having stealthy. At least I have had a scout with it and it was hard to land a hit and didn't like it very much like how my heroes hate stealthy.


"Bide your time and hold out hope."

~Count of Monte Cristo

 

NotesFromTheOverlord.tumblr.com


#8 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 479 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 10:06 AM

Here's another Contradiction that I've found, regarding Army of Death:

 

Army of Death

:action:: Perform an attack with your Reanimate. This attack affects each monster in your line of sight, ignoring range; your Reanimate does not need line of sight to the affected monsters but does need to be on the map.

 

Someone asked if you could use Fortuna's Dice on this ability, and FFG Sez initially said "Yes" (source), but then changed it based on the assumption that this was the Reanimate making the attack (source) and not the Necromancer. Given, the card as it reads is a bit vague: is the Reanimate performing the attack or is the Necromancer performing the attack with the Reanimate's stats? However, this was actually clarified in the "Arcane Secrets Revealed" preview before the game was even released:

 

Note that although this powerful skill uses the Necromancer’s Reanimate as a reference for the strength of the undead army, the attack actually originates from the Necromancer himself.


Edited by griton, 27 August 2013 - 10:09 AM.


#9 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 03:43 PM

I like to think of the Reanimate as a puppet. Necromancers LOS, Reanimates stats. It makes since to me the Necromancer should see his targets before telling his puppet to attack. The puppet can't think on his own it needs his master. Anything else would just be stupid otherwise the Reanimate would attack his master on occasion.

#10 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 479 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:43 PM

I like to think of the Reanimate as a puppet. Necromancers LOS, Reanimates stats. It makes since to me the Necromancer should see his targets before telling his puppet to attack. The puppet can't think on his own it needs his master. Anything else would just be stupid otherwise the Reanimate would attack his master on occasion.

 

A bit OT, but that's not really how it plays out. The Reanimate can be in a totally different part of the board and can even attack while the Necromancer is knocked out / dead (in the Finale). The Reanimate has its own limited autonomy after being raised. Unless you're just referring to the Army of Death skill, which, thematically is the Necromancer raising less autonomous copies of his current Reanimate and directing them in a single attack (hence LOS needing to be to the Necromancer, not the Reanimate, but the Reanimate still needing to be on the board).



#11 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 04:53 PM

Never had to play against or as a Necromancer but that's how I imagined it.

Yes that was OT lol was thinking kind of out load. Really wish they would of kept it to Necro's LOS even if Reanimate was off somewhere else. Think that would solve some of its (being necro and his pet) problems I read about.

#12 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 27 August 2013 - 11:12 PM

Why not directly communicate with FFG about what seems contradictions in their answers to rules questions?
It would be much more useful, as they could give an answer.
Simply pointing things out does not lead to other result than noticing that there are possible inconsistencies - and forum members won't be able to provide decisive, official answers...
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#13 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 479 posts

Posted 28 August 2013 - 11:29 AM

Why not directly communicate with FFG about what seems contradictions in their answers to rules questions?
It would be much more useful, as they could give an answer.
Simply pointing things out does not lead to other result than noticing that there are possible inconsistencies - and forum members won't be able to provide decisive, official answers...

 

As I mentioned in the first post, I plan to. But I also acknowledge that I don't read every Descent forum on the internet. I started reading this forum only a few months ago (though I did read the entire history before I started posting), and haven't yet caught up on everything on BGG. As such, I want to make sure that there aren't other official responses that I've missed or other rules issues that I'm missing. As these are questions that have already been answered, but in a way that I feel created some kind of contradiction with other official responses / rules as written, or further misunderstanding, I want to cover my bases before I email them and point it out.

 

And you're right, most forum members don't provide anything close to decisive, official answers (as seen by a number of posts above which are basically rehashes of information that I've already posted or comments about it being a house-rule, how it'd change the game, etc., without addressing the intent of the post) But there are a few on here who I feel at least surpass my own level of comprehensiveness when it comes to knowledge of the existing rule-set, errata, preview explanations, FFG-Sez posts, etc. (Hats off to Steve-O, who I feel is probably at the top of the list)


Edited by griton, 28 August 2013 - 11:31 AM.


#14 schmoo34

schmoo34

    Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 11:05 AM

Perhaps we don't post anything decisive because it really doesn't matter?

 

Take Monopoly...free parking, per RAW is free parking.  Nothing happens on that spot.  Yet, most people put a 500 spot on there, or place additional monies there so it has morphed into a house rule lottery space.

 

Now take this game.

 

Heroes can take mana weave, use it to trade from hero to hero every turn, and exploit a trade mechanic allowing them to fireblast/attack the OL with automatic surges four times per turn instead of the intended one time.

 

RAW states it is perfectly ok to allow the heroes to decimate the OL's armies before the OL takes a single turn.  But is it fun?  No, it isn't.  So most people houserule that if you trade an equipped item, you need to wait until next turn to equip it on the new character.  (Or any flavor of this)

 

The best solution would be to have party inventory and scrap the trading mechanic altogether.  And we have houseruled that mechanic and it makes the game BETTER to play that way.  I don't care that it isn't RAW or people on a forum don't see it that way.  The game is more fun because it is possible for someone other than the designer to think of something they didn't.

 

So why do you care so much about what the rules are?  I certainly don't.  Just do what makes sense for you and your group.

 

And just to show how different people can interpret things differently, "Reach" means to me that  they have long arms, or a polearm and can attack from one space away.  I.E.  So if they have to add +3 to their range for stealth, then they still only need to roll a 4 range because a character with reach has the same odds as one without reach, but gets the added bonus of attacking from one more space away.  The fact that he has or doesn't have reach doesn't even factor in AT ALL with the stealth calculation.  Reach only determines whether or not an attack can be made.  Rolling to see if you successfully hit is done AFTER that determination.  So Reach has no business being in that calculation.


  • Silverhelm likes this

#15 Kunzite

Kunzite

    Member

  • Members
  • 542 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 11:48 AM

Schmoo:

 

I like your way of thinking and respect that. Having a free will about playing it is great! (and isn't the mana weave still tapped down if it's used and traded? They would still have to wait for their following turn, I would think, but that's all beside the point >D)

 

BUT

 

The game is like an art to me. Knowing the rules is apart of the art. The creators put some heart into making it, and like a Monet, you want to know how you are to look at the piece/game as a way of understanding it and how to interact with it. Unlike abstract paintings, in which you press yourself into the image. This isn't scribblenots.

 

So, when we get to rules that are not fully understood, we need to go back and look at the intent of the creators. We can't always speak to the artist or selves, so we have to try to interpret it and make since of it our selves. Besides, fleshing it out can sometimes be fun. I enjoy reading about the justification here. Really, I do.

 

Doing this also helps FFG make future campaigns. I am confident they read them. In a way this is a collaborate art effort and we have a bit of our fingers in this pie, even if it's super passive. I think that is pretty cool.

 

And that is why I care. ^.^


"Bide your time and hold out hope."

~Count of Monte Cristo

 

NotesFromTheOverlord.tumblr.com


#16 schmoo34

schmoo34

    Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 01:33 PM

That is a fair and reasonable reason.  I wasn't intending to cast judgment on whether it is right or wrong to passionately pursue the answers to the rules, but I was rather stating a point for why forum members read but don't bother to clarify.  At the end of the day, you gotta do what works for you.

 

With that said, I actually think my interpretation of reach and stealth put together is the correct one...for what its worth.  (And if I find out it isn't, it will be on my table!  HA!)

 

Also, I truly believe you are coming up with scenarios the designers never considered.  So this isn't a monet, where everyone is debating what the creator was thinking...it's an "oops", and they are scrambling to figure out how to rule on it based on the current ruleset and mechanics.

 

As for mana weave, per the rules, all cards refresh at the beginning of a hero turn. 

So if Leoric the book had it, used it, and then moves and hands it off to Tomble and ends his turn.

Tomble then refreshes his cards at the start of his turn (including mana weave) and then uses it, performs a move action to hand it off to Hugo the Glorious; ends turn.

 

Rinse and repeat.

 

Mana weave has now been exploited in its full glory, Leoric got off a fire blast, Tomble did dastardly surges, Hugo, was able to add uber damage, and so forth.

 

The designers could also fix it by having heroes refresh their cards prior to the first hero taking his/her turn.  That way, if an item is traded, it remains tapped.

 

There is a similar exploit/variant with that conversion kit character that is allowed to take his two actions separately (take one action, end his turn, let another hero go and then gets to take another turn).  The rules for start of turn is "refresh cards" so some believe that hero gets to refresh all of his skills twice in one round.

 

No offense intended, only being my eastcoast blunt self.  All discussion is good...even when I don't understand it.



#17 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 02:08 PM

I don't see the need to change the refresh rules to avoid the powerful effect of transferring an item from hero to hero and using it in succession.
Good tactical skill is adapting to a situation and making the best of it, rather than change the conditions, so as not to make the effort of solving the problem.
Houseruling is - IMO - the last recourse to overcome a tactical challenge.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#18 Kunzite

Kunzite

    Member

  • Members
  • 542 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 02:29 PM

And you are correct! I had forgotten that small point about refreshing the cards. hehe. And don't worry about the bluntness. I have grown up all around the US. I can normally take whatever comes at me. And I don't remember all the rules all at once. Maybe not the best quality of an OL, but that's why I have fair heroes. They keep me in line, while I keep them in line.

 

Fun factor is ALWAYS more important then rules, I would agree. Would we not say that FFG did intend the game to be frustrating? Rather they intended it to be fun.

 

I compare the games with a Monet for a reason. While in a Monet, you are almost always sure that the painting of a garden is just that, but it often requires one to stand back for everything to come together or to get in close to understand how it was made to hold together. Some forms are subjective while other forms are concrete. There is allot of flexibility for the viewer in this respect.

 

In playing a game like this, such flexibility will need to be given. If you have a super OL that can deal with a mana weave being passed around like that, then great for him! I am not one of them. House rules need to be made to stop such abuse.

 

But sometimes it turns into beating a dead horse: useless. ^.^;; At that point, I don't understand it either. I don't think this thread is there yet, though.


"Bide your time and hold out hope."

~Count of Monte Cristo

 

NotesFromTheOverlord.tumblr.com


#19 schmoo34

schmoo34

    Member

  • Members
  • 150 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 03:13 PM

I don't see the need to change the refresh rules to avoid the powerful effect of transferring an item from hero to hero and using it in succession.
Good tactical skill is adapting to a situation and making the best of it, rather than change the conditions, so as not to make the effort of solving the problem.
Houseruling is - IMO - the last recourse to overcome a tactical challenge.

And what exactly is the tactical challenge in your eyes?

 

Heroes go first, OL just sits there  and watches his troops die.  Boy, that is some challenge!

 

OL can use tripwire, pit trap and web trap (if he has it).  And that is based on random luck of the draw.  He has a 4/15 chance of getting one on turn 1.

 

It isn't like this is a realtime game and the OL has options at his disposal.  And you pick any scenario, the opening moves are crucial.  But, hey, if you feel that is a tactical challenge vs. an exploit, by all means...go for it.

 

The wording on the card wouldn't say what it says if it was intended by the designers to be used multiple times per round.

 

I don't envy their position...all of these card effects, especially with the conversion kit create numerous possibilities that were not considered.

 

But calling an oversight a tactical challenge...I at least like the optimism there...this isn't much of a challenge in my eyes, it is an exploit.


  • Cursain likes this

#20 Cursain

Cursain

    Member

  • Members
  • 132 posts

Posted 29 August 2013 - 07:55 PM

 

I don't see the need to change the refresh rules to avoid the powerful effect of transferring an item from hero to hero and using it in succession.
Good tactical skill is adapting to a situation and making the best of it, rather than change the conditions, so as not to make the effort of solving the problem.
Houseruling is - IMO - the last recourse to overcome a tactical challenge.

And what exactly is the tactical challenge in your eyes?

 

Heroes go first, OL just sits there  and watches his troops die.  Boy, that is some challenge!

 

OL can use tripwire, pit trap and web trap (if he has it).  And that is based on random luck of the draw.  He has a 4/15 chance of getting one on turn 1.

 

It isn't like this is a realtime game and the OL has options at his disposal.  And you pick any scenario, the opening moves are crucial.  But, hey, if you feel that is a tactical challenge vs. an exploit, by all means...go for it.

 

The wording on the card wouldn't say what it says if it was intended by the designers to be used multiple times per round.

 

I don't envy their position...all of these card effects, especially with the conversion kit create numerous possibilities that were not considered.

 

But calling an oversight a tactical challenge...I at least like the optimism there...this isn't much of a challenge in my eyes, it is an exploit.

 

 

All I can say is +1.  Good post.  I think it's time to mail FFG on the effects of Stealthy vs. Melee attacks, and a ruling on Mana Weave.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS