Jump to content

Thundercles

Members
  • Content Count

    480
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Thundercles

  1. Frog said: Thundercles said: You can't find this game, really. I mean, sure, the $100 price point is ridiculous, but that's about as much or less than what you're paying for used versions on BGG or ebay. The point is that, unless you get the ripped pdf's online and just remake the game yourself, you're going to be paying $100, minimum, for a copy of the game. I have seen certain distributors offering the traditional 20% discount on the new version. That may be the way to go. http://boardgamegeek.com/geekstore.php3?action=viewitem&itemid=162945 They charge $14 shipping. That means you pay $96 + tax. I paid $99.00, no tax, and free shipping directly from Games Workshop. Sales taxes apply differently based on what state the buyer and seller are in, but you're right, the shipping makes it not be a deal at all. I was just mentioning that there is at least one distributor that's picked the game up: others will hopefully follow.
  2. Antistone said: Thundercles said: As far as I know, you can't attack from spaces you can't enter, so there can't be any discussion about attacking out of Rubble, since it can't come up. Not so. Figures with the Fly ability are perfectly capable of entering rubble spaces (though they can't end their turn there), and I can see no reason that they would be unable to make attacks from them, barring LOS issues. You're right. I think I mistakenly extrapolated the fact that you can't attack while sharing a space with another figure: I believe I've assumed that applies to sharing a space with an obstacle for some time now.
  3. As far as I know, you can't attack from spaces you can't enter, so there can't be any discussion about attacking out of Rubble, since it can't come up. The tree question is interesting. If trees block LoS entirely, then attacks can't go in or out of them, rendering single-space figures immune. That sounds kind of...insane, but it matches the rules for Fog, where there must be a special allowance for tracing LoS into Fog spaces (which may or may not be necessary?). Have I mentioned that the new RtL categories for props make the game so much harder to understand? Because the only reason for comparing Fog to Trees is that the props system from RtL lumps them into the same category, "Blocks Line of Sight? Yes" I think that rubble is supposed to completely shut down LoS and that trees only prevent LoS from being traced through them (i.e. blocked if it crosses 2 borders of a square, like a figure blocks). I don't have evidence to back that belief up, however. In my version of the game, if you're standing next to the tree-inhabiting monster you wish to blast, you can target a tree next to it in order to make the hit, but you can't shoot rubble with blast to hit surrounding monsters. I may be wrong about this, it may very well be that LoS is only blocked if you're tracing it through two borders of a blocking square in order to hit the center of the target square. I wish I had gone to GenCon so I could sit in on a KW game and actually run these scenarios past the man himself.
  4. You can't find this game, really. I mean, sure, the $100 price point is ridiculous, but that's about as much or less than what you're paying for used versions on BGG or ebay. The point is that, unless you get the ripped pdf's online and just remake the game yourself, you're going to be paying $100, minimum, for a copy of the game. I have seen certain distributors offering the traditional 20% discount on the new version. That may be the way to go. http://boardgamegeek.com/geekstore.php3?action=viewitem&itemid=162945
  5. Shmoozer said: Antistone said: If we're going with the premise that traps that deal damage deal two more, and traps that don't deal damage still don't do damage, then I think the most reasonable thing to say would be that the cards you listed each work exactly as written, except the damage number is increased by 2. Thus, Crushing Block deals 6 (instead of 4) damage, reduced by 1 for each surge rolled on 4 black dice (as normal), and Spiked Pit deals 4 damage (instead of 2) unless the hero rolls a blank on one black die. +1 for this part. Exactly how we play. It is always nice to be able to transform your chest into a beastman, which attacks and deals another 2 damage on top of its "normal" attack The mimic chest probably shouldn't be affected by trapmaster....but it's still up for review and discussion.
  6. Corbon said: Big Remy said: Great work on the list. My only concern is classifying Villagers as figures, but since I'm not exactly where they should fit I don't have a solution. As long as its specified somewhere that or clarified that even if Villagers are figures that they are not capable of blocking spawning. Villagers are specified as figures in the current FAQ. I think it is at the end of the crushing-block-beside-what question on page 11. AFAICT there is no need to mention spawning. - As figures they can't be spawned upon. - They aren't heroes, so don't block spawning in their LOS. - They aren't monsters so do block hero LOS for the purposes of spawning. I'm not really interested in too many clarifications for things that are actually clear in the rules. There are enough unclear things to fix before we 'fix' clear things just so incompetent idiots can understand the simplest interaction between rule A and rule B. I asked: They don't block LoS for the purposes of spawning. No figure ever blocks LoS for the purposes of spawning. That much is already defined, and was in the GLoAQ on the old boards. I'm glad I was the one who asked, because people always forget the answer and I'm still around to dispense it.. From my email: Re: Rules Question : Descent‏ From: kevinw (kwilson@fantasyflightgames.com) Sent: Fri 7/11/08 9:54 AM To: [MY EMAIL WAS HERE] No, figures never block line of sight for spawning purposes. On Jul 11, 2008, at 3:26 AM, [MY NAME AND STUFF] wrote: > Below is the result of your feedback form. It was submitted by > [MY NAME AND ALSO EMAIL] on Friday, July 11, 2008 at > 03:26:14 > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > questionfor: Descent > > question: Do any figures block the heroes' line of sight for the > purposes of spawning? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >
  7. Antistone said: Thundercles said: That's why I said "on which a figure cannot end its movement". Flying figures and Acrobat can only move through obstacles, you can't land on them (except for specific flying figures who get an immunity to terrain). I suspect you misunderstood him. The problem he was referring to was not that figures with Acrobat/Fly would be able to move through them and therefore they would escape your definition, but that you would implicitly be giving heroes with Acrobat (and, IMO, figures with Fly) the ability to move through things that they couldn't previously move through (by turning more things into obstacles, which Acrobat and Fly allow you to move through). Ah, I see the mistake now. Amended to work with Corbon's list: Obstacles: Any Terrain-class prop on which a figure cannot end its movement (either because of movement restrictions or immediate destruction) is considered an Obstacle. Pits that instantly kill and impassable Trees are considered Obstacles even if the standard versions are simply classified as Terrain. Since Trap-type and a few other special props are not terrain, this should fix the props list to work properly with the trap card definition of obstacle. It still excludes pits as obstacles normally, but I get the impression that y'all are working on fixing that bit anyhow.
  8. Corbon said: Thundercles said: Obstacles: Any prop on which a figure cannot end its movement is considered an obstacle. Pits that instantly kill and impassable Trees are considered Obstacles even if the standard versions are simply classified as terrain. This avoids the problem with using Crushing Block to drop heroes into instant-kill pits. The problem with that is that Acrobat allows passage through obstacles but specifically not Boulders (or, one assumes, Crushing Walls) While these adoptions would require an errata to Acrobat (well, one is already required), I do not wish to actually change anything. Personally I think a FAQ ruling that says you cannot play a Crushing Block next to any impassable and immobile prop or natural terrain space (replacing the current FAQ answer on page 11, which is incomplete anyway) would cover this anyway. Since you die if you enter the pit, you cannot pass it. So you cannot play a block beside it. That's why I said "on which a figure cannot end its movement". Flying figures and Acrobat can only move through obstacles, you can't land on them (except for specific flying figures who get an immunity to terrain). Additional stuff in re villagers: I think they're supposed to be treated like neutral figures. I don't know if Figures have had defined conditions, but I've always seen the shared properties of Monsters and Heroes as being the properties of the Figure class of objects.
  9. Obstacles: Any prop on which a figure cannot end its movement is considered an obstacle. Pits that instantly kill and impassable Trees are considered Obstacles even if the standard versions are simply classified as terrain. This avoids the problem with using Crushing Block to drop heroes into instant-kill pits.
  10. I'd say they need to start classifying props by their keywords again. All of the game rules and cards created before RtL use specific keywords to differentiate all of the different props (obstacle, trap, figure, prop) and it's completely insane to try and shoehorn a "new" classification system (Jumpable, Passable, Transparency) into the old system. Bring back the old system that works with the actual rules we have please.
  11. Corbon said: fex said: *snip* Villager: Method 4 - The monster is immediately affected by a single Villager tile (thus allowing Villagers to effectively block off 2-tile walkways). Road to Legend rulebook, page 27. *snip*Aaaanyway, I'm still curious to see how they go about dealing with this ruling, which is structurally unsound, at best. +1 for each and every entry above. Note that all cases of Method 4 are 'blocks movement' obstacles, so strictly speaking it isn't really even method 4. The figure simply cannot enter that space with any of it's spaces. And yes, this is quite restrictive for large monsters. I agree with all of them except villagers: they're not terrain. Villagers are figures, and thus follow figure rules for monster movement. Not that it matters a whole lot.
  12. bitva said: That would be awful. DD4 isn't really a role playing game, it's just a board game with even more rules. I'd hate to see that happen to WFRP too. The old timers tell me that DnD4 is a throwback to original DnD and DnD2. I'm curious: what are your reasons for saying that DnD4 is no longer a true rpg but is instead a complex board game?
  13. NigelTufnel said: Thundercles said: NigelTufnel said: Corbon said: (added 1a) 1. Yes I agree that an effect that 'deals' damage also 'causes' damage. But you are claiming the reverse is true, which is a logical fallacy. Being an Oak makes me a Tree. Being a Tree does not make me an Oak. 'Dealers' are a subset of 'causers', not the reverse. 1a. It's funny. Your own writing right there indicates a degree of separation which you are at the very time denying. "...the result of which..." I can hear the linking pause just saying it. Dark Charm requires an immediate attack (pause) the result of which* does (may do, with no input from the target (unless dodging)) damage.See how they are two separate clauses with two separate subjects? A does B, B does C. A does not do C directly. *(the attack actually, not the result - the result of an attack is (may be) damage, an attack does damage) 2. "That is why I used the terms interchangeably" (cause and damage being the terms in question). If you can use the terms interchangeably then by definition 'cause damage' and 'deal damage' are the same thing. "the card (I) is requiring (make) the attack and the damage is the direct result, it's my contention that the card (I) deals damage." => If I make the (an) attack ... then I dealt damage Both lines are your claimed position, differing only in the actual physical text. I cannot understand how you can possibly claim they do not represent any argument you have made. You reinforce them with your very reply. 1. I've never claimed the reverse. That's exactly the point. I used the terms interchangeably in one direction only--the direction that you happen to agree with, incidentally. 1a. "the result of which" does not indicate a degree of separation. At least, not any moreso than other trap cards. A spiked pit, for example, requires an immediate pit hazard to be place, the result of which is to deal damage. No difference, in my view. I recognize that my view differs from your own, but please stop insisting that I'm saying something I'm not. Make your own arguments, don't misrepresent mine. 2. First, the terms in question were "cause" and "deal." Not "cause" and "damage." Second, the reason I can say your restatements of my position don't accurately represent my position is that you clearly don't understand my position. What you wrote: "Deal damage? That's the same as Cause Damage isn't it? So RAW if I cause damage I dealt damage." Sorry, no. Not as Written Never said it. My position from the beginning has been that Dark Charm directly deals damage. This also means it "causes" the damage, but I've never suggested that all causation = damage in every instance. "Deal damage? That's the same as Make an Attack isn't it? So RAW if I make an attack then I dealt damage." Sorry, no. Not as Written I've never suggested that making an attack = dealing damage. I will re-state my position one last time, just for grins: - Trapmaster applies to trap cards that deal damage - Dark Charm deals damage because it requires an immediate action that directly results in damage I understand your reading of the rules/cards, and I accept that your position is different/opposed to mine. So basically, if a card deals indirect damage (by causing actions that can deal damage) then it gets the Trapmaster bonus? No. My position is that only cards that deal damage directly receive the Trapmaster bonus. Hence, no Mimic, imo. Dark Charm deals damage indirectly. I'm not saying that this means that Trapmaster shouldn't apply to Dark Charm, just that Dark Charm's damage is indirect. Causality is usually well-defined. Direct means that action A causes effect B with no steps in-between. For example, if I punch someone, that's direct damage. If I tell them to punch themselves, that's indirect damage. If I use a spell that forces them to punch themselves, that's still indirect damage. The damage from Dark Charm comes directly from the attack, which itself is a direct effect of the card. Even though it's A->B->C in this case, C (the damage) is still an indirect effect of A (the card). To illustrate my point, note that Dark Charm still succeeds if the attack itself fails. The success of the Dark Charm card is defined by the first power die roll, and once the OL declares the Dark Charm attack, it's officially succeeded at its direct purpose.
  14. NigelTufnel said: Corbon said: (added 1a) 1. Yes I agree that an effect that 'deals' damage also 'causes' damage. But you are claiming the reverse is true, which is a logical fallacy. Being an Oak makes me a Tree. Being a Tree does not make me an Oak. 'Dealers' are a subset of 'causers', not the reverse. 1a. It's funny. Your own writing right there indicates a degree of separation which you are at the very time denying. "...the result of which..." I can hear the linking pause just saying it. Dark Charm requires an immediate attack (pause) the result of which* does (may do, with no input from the target (unless dodging)) damage.See how they are two separate clauses with two separate subjects? A does B, B does C. A does not do C directly. *(the attack actually, not the result - the result of an attack is (may be) damage, an attack does damage) 2. "That is why I used the terms interchangeably" (cause and damage being the terms in question). If you can use the terms interchangeably then by definition 'cause damage' and 'deal damage' are the same thing. "the card (I) is requiring (make) the attack and the damage is the direct result, it's my contention that the card (I) deals damage." => If I make the (an) attack ... then I dealt damage Both lines are your claimed position, differing only in the actual physical text. I cannot understand how you can possibly claim they do not represent any argument you have made. You reinforce them with your very reply. 1. I've never claimed the reverse. That's exactly the point. I used the terms interchangeably in one direction only--the direction that you happen to agree with, incidentally. 1a. "the result of which" does not indicate a degree of separation. At least, not any moreso than other trap cards. A spiked pit, for example, requires an immediate pit hazard to be place, the result of which is to deal damage. No difference, in my view. I recognize that my view differs from your own, but please stop insisting that I'm saying something I'm not. Make your own arguments, don't misrepresent mine. 2. First, the terms in question were "cause" and "deal." Not "cause" and "damage." Second, the reason I can say your restatements of my position don't accurately represent my position is that you clearly don't understand my position. What you wrote: "Deal damage? That's the same as Cause Damage isn't it? So RAW if I cause damage I dealt damage." Sorry, no. Not as Written Never said it. My position from the beginning has been that Dark Charm directly deals damage. This also means it "causes" the damage, but I've never suggested that all causation = damage in every instance. "Deal damage? That's the same as Make an Attack isn't it? So RAW if I make an attack then I dealt damage." Sorry, no. Not as Written I've never suggested that making an attack = dealing damage. I will re-state my position one last time, just for grins: - Trapmaster applies to trap cards that deal damage - Dark Charm deals damage because it requires an immediate action that directly results in damage I understand your reading of the rules/cards, and I accept that your position is different/opposed to mine. So basically, if a card deals indirect damage (by causing actions that can deal damage) then it gets the Trapmaster bonus?
  15. This thread got un-stickied for some reason. Re-sticky?
  16. so.... the argument comes down to: 1) Traps that deal damage = traps that hurt the target hero or the heroes in the spaces targeted by the trap, not including attack rolls made as a result of the trap. or 2) Traps that deal damage = all traps which result in damage being dealt to heroes Assuming 2 is true, then Dark Charm, Animate Weapons, and the 3 different Mimic Chest traps all receive the +2 bonus from trapmaster. Personally, I believe that Dark Charm and Animate Weapons deal the "charm" effect to the target hero (like brother vs Brother), which is then resolved in a specific way (overlord declares attack, etc). However, since the cards use quotidian language instead of legalese, I don't see a way to "prove" that one of the two possible readings is the correct one.
  17. Since Dart Field and Scything Blades are noted as Trap props, do they get the Trapmaster damage bonus?
  18. Corbon said: Parathion said: C is different to A with respect to the "turning/sideways" movement, which A isn´t capable of doing but still needs a separate ruleset (and which is basically the same ruleset as for B, justifying to rule both creatures together). I simply don't find that a significant difference. Lumping B and C together differently from A needs, IMO, a more substantial reason than such a minor and rare requirement. And it is provide-able with a simple, obvious (and no less arbitrary than yours) interpretation. FWIW, anyone else notice the hellhound's movement example on page 17 could be achieved in 3 spaces instead of 4 by moving diagonal NE (x2) then rotating and moving N? I am of the opinion that they are trying to emphasise the rotational movement That always bothered me. So, basically, there's nothing that says any figure can sidestep horizontally. Square figures don't sidestep; they move in that direction since they don't have distinguishable "fronts". Meanwhile, rectangular figures are shown to be able to sidestep diagonally, but no example of advancing in a straight line on the long edge is ever given. "Sidestep" is in fact explicitly a diagonal movement. I don't know, I've always played with horizontal sidestepping but there appears to be no basis for that rule. On a slightly related note....I found this in the Large Monster movement section "Likewise, large monsters only take one wound from slime per move, no matter how many spaces containing slime they enter." Slime?
  19. Bravo McWilley said: Dont we have to assume that the 3 red hell hounds in this level is a misprint and meant to be 2, since you can never use more mobs than the figures provided. I had thought this had been adjusted in a FAQ but can not find it. On a note for the opposite side of the debate though, in JitD there are 2 master giants in Quest 2 and it does say to use a white one for the second if encountered together. Answered your own question.
  20. Aside from extra conquest, the overlord doesn't gain any strategical advantage from attacking the hero party in tamalir upon the given lieutenant's arrival.
  21. I always find that the binding and covers of softcover books (like rtl's rulebook) get totally destroyed by laying/pressing them flat. To me, hardcover is preferable to softcover, although if it were up to me I'd ask for the new book to have the same binding as the original JitD rulebook. Spiral wouldn't be bad, either, although I'm never satisfied with the actual spiral bit of the spiral binding. Always gets in the way. Long story short, put me in the pro-hardcover camp.
  22. Veinman said: edroz said: We could tell you what's in it, but then we'd have to kill you. No big deal, he'll just respawn in town. But he'd lose half his money. Then how would he be able to buy the book?
  23. Figures under the effects of knockback ignore all terrain until the space they "land" on, right?
×
×
  • Create New...