Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Antistone

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    , California, United States
  1. The wording on the card implies that you can't have spare movement points if you're moving with fatigue, but even if you can't "save up" fatigue movement points, the rules (and FAQ) are pretty clear that you can suffer fatigue for movement even in the middle of a move action, so the card is simply wrong. No way around it.
  2. Nothing stopping them that I can think of, if that's what they want to do. Of course, that leaves no actions for moving. Also note that the recent FAQ contained a significant nerf to Air.
  3. any2cards said: the OL's monster group limits mostly going from 1,0 to 0,1 (minion to master). I've only played once at a preview event, but I noticed two main scaling formulas: groups that went from 1/0 (at 2 heroes) to 1/1 (at 4 heroes), and groups that went from 2/1 to 4/1. It seemed pretty obvious to me that the former groups would work better against 4 heroes than against 2, and the latter groups would work better against 2 heroes than against 4. It's not obvious how many minions a master is worth, but it's clearly "more than one", so going from 1/0 to 1/1 is a >100% increase in monster force, while going from 2/1 to 4/1 is a <67% increase. That's a pretty big difference even if masters are the same as minions, and it only gets bigger the more you value masters. (The gap also probably becomes even bigger when you take reinforcements into account.) I don't know how the two styles are balanced relative to each other; it may still be that the small, powerful groups are just all-around better in all games. But if you're primarily using the small, powerful groups, and you're finding that 2 heroes have a much easier time than 4 heroes, I would at least try throwing some of the larger, weaker groups against the 2-hero party.
  4. I noticed that the FAQ includes answers to seven out of the eleven questions that I listed in a single post in the FAQ thread, so I don't think timing is the only consideration in which questions got answered.
  5. jcbbjjttt said: FAQ Says: Q: When exactly can cards that are used “during your turn” be used? A: Any skill or ability that can be used “during your turn” can only be used during the Perform Actions step of a hero’s turn. A hero cannot use these skills or abilities at the start of his turn or at the end of his turn. Does this mean that I can only use these before the first action, after the first action but not after the second action? Example: Averic has 4 fatigue on his card and would like to use Healing Prayer. Unfortunately, he cannot. He takes a Move action to place himself by a monster. He then takes an attack action during which he recovers a fatigue. At this point, is he at the EOT or is there time for him to use Healing Prayer? Well, it seems you're allowed to spend fatigue to move after your second action (p.8: "during his turn, before or after resolving an action or during a mvoe action, a hero may suffer fatigue to gain movement points.") So I would argue that your "perform actions" step doesn't necessarily end as soon as your second action is complete, and therefore you can do additional non-actions before proceeding to the next step.
  6. KristoffStark said: You're suggesting that if I begin a move action, and interrupt it to attack, then this attack takes place during both an Attack action, and a Move action? That makes no sense to me. It admit that I'm speaking as much from my perceived spirit of the rules as the letter of them, but I really don't think any two events should be considered to be occurring simultaneously. Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. It clearly isn't happening before the move action or after the move action, so what option is there besides "during"? I'm not saying that it's part of the move action. But if it happens after the beginning of the move action and before the end of the move action, then definitionally there's some chronological overlap, right? I don't see what the alternative is. Mrbob0069 said: The only part of the "MOVE" action, that is actually an action, is generating movement points. Physically moving you miniature from one space to another space, is not an action. You can stop moving form space to space at any time to do just about anything. BUT, the only thing that will allow you to put the model back on the board (and expand if its a large monster) is using an action. Anything that is NOT an action, is done while the model is shrunk. That is an interesting set of rules you just made up, and they might work reasonably well, but none of them are the official published rules for Descent 2e. If your move action ended before you actually spent any of the movement points, then you couldn't "interrupt" the action to do something else, nor could something force you to "end your move action" while you're moving.
  7. Triu said: Antistone said: Those two statements can't both be true, so either the original RAW was in error and this is a correction, or the FAQ is itself wrong and is in need of a correction. I'm not saying I like what they wrote or that it makes sense, but they did not say remove this text and replace it with that text. Right. They obviously changed the rules, but didn't explicitly tell us they were changing the rules (that is, they issued an erratum without labeling it as such). That was my original point. Triu said: Antistone said: But your proposed rule doesn't solve the issue either. Suppose I'm standing behind a wall that's solid on my left and open on my right. Under your rule, I can still trace LOS from my right front corner to spaces that are on the other side of the wall and on my left - that line will not be perpendicular to the wall. I did not explain myself properly. Someone else did a better job on BoardGameGeek. The line you propose would not work, because it passes through the wall that separates the spaces. Of course in normal 3D space, that wall would also block diagonals -- which many people are arguing on BGG. Apparently Terrinoth is not in the same universe as our world, and the laws of physics & geometry are different. The line I proposed is coterminus with the corner of the wall. Touching a wall at a corner is specifically allowed. It's hard to have this conversation without a diagram, though. Let's see, take a look at this: http://www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1374810/emmowbee Imagine someone standing in the unlabeled space below the number 4 in that picture. Under both the FAQ ruling and your proposed "no perpendicular" rule, that person would have line of sight to the space labeled 3, by tracing LOS from the upper-right corner of his space to the upper-right corner of the 3. The thing is, if you just extend that exact same LOS line further down, you can see that someone standing in the square below the yellow 5 would also have LOS to the 3 - even if we turned this free-standing wall into a regular corner by removing all the spaces below the 4. So any rule that denies LOS to the guy standing below the 4 based purely on the line being traced also has to deny it to the guy standing below the yellow 5, which means you'd be changing the LOS rules for regular corners, not just free-standing walls.
  8. KristoffStark said: Easy. You can gain movement points from Fatigue without engaging in a move action. There are OL cards that are only activatable while a hero is moving during a move action as opposed to some others that can be triggered by the hero entering and empty space. In the former case, how you gaining the movement point is significant. You seem to be implying that if I interrupt my movement action to move a space with fatigue that the trap can't be played. But if I've started a move action, and haven't yet completed that move action, then wouldn't that be "during a move action"? Unless the card says "when moving using movement points gained from a move action" or something like that, this seems like it is at least arguable. KristoffStark said: Likewise, the rules for moving with fatigue (if I'm not mistaken, and I don't have the rules handy) are written in a way that suggest to me that said movement points must be used as they are being gained. I've had this discussion several times and the rules don't suggest that to me. Though I actually asked about this specifically in the FAQ thread (bottom of the second page). Interestingly, though this FAQ answers seven of my questions from that post (20% of the questions in the FAQ!) it doesn't answer this question or three others that I asked in the very same post. I'm really curious how they decided which to include.
  9. Actually, this is about the worst possible answer to this question that I can imagine. They say that you can interrupt a movement action to perform another move action, but then they also say that you shouldn't distinguish between the two of them and that something that causes you to "end your move action" will take away all your remaining movement points from both actions - which sounds like they want to treat the two move actions as combining into one action, except they never actually say that, and they specifically do NOT address the issue of large figures expanding/shrinking that was (I think) the main motivation for asking this question in the first place. And then they go on to say that you DO need to explicitly state which spaces are moved with fatigue, which is just unnecessarily complicated (move actions combine their total MPs, but fatigue movement does not? by the gods, why?), and creates a bunch of problematic corner-cases (what if I want to move into water using 1 movement point from my move action and 1 from fatigue?). Plus, they never actually tell us why we need to specify which spaces are moved with fatigue. I assume they think it's relevant for some overlord trap card, and I don't have the cards handy, but I seriously doubt the cards themselves are specific enough to make it clear how they interact with this ruling. Moreover, even though they tell us to specify which spaces are moved with fatigue, they just said that "if a card instructs you to end your move action…that figure loses all unspent movement points". By a completely strict reading, this answer says that if you have unspent movement points that you acquired by suffering fatigue and you performed 2 move actions, then a card that ends your move action also causes you to lose the movement points from fatigue (but doesn't address the case of unspent fatigue MPs if you only performed one move action). It's clear that the people writing the FAQ are not reading the original discussion threads that prompted the questions, nor thinking very deeply about all the implications.
  10. Triu said: Errata: a list of errors and their corrections … They are not admitting to an error in the RAW or correcting any text, Um…the FAQ directly contradicts the original rulebook. The rulebook says: "Any space that shares an edge or corner with another space is defined as being adjacent to that space." (p.10) The FAQ says: "spaces that are separated by a wall (the black edge of a map tile) are not adjacent…although the two spaces technically share a corner." Those two statements can't both be true, so either the original RAW was in error and this is a correction, or the FAQ is itself wrong and is in need of a correction. Triu said: The wall blocks movement & LOS because it has definite thickness. A line drawn perpendicular to that wall is blocked, but a diagonal line (45°) is still treated as crossing an open corner I would assume. [Diagonals are the bête noire of the square grid. In the example in question, the starting and ending point of LOS are the same, so it doesn't have an angle. The FAQ says nothing about perpendicular lines vs. other angles. But your proposed rule doesn't solve the issue either. Suppose I'm standing behind a wall that's solid on my left and open on my right. Under your rule, I can still trace LOS from my right front corner to spaces that are on the other side of the wall and on my left - that line will not be perpendicular to the wall.
  11. "spaces that are separated by a wall (the black edge of a map tile) are not adjacent nor are they in line of sight to each other. Although the two spaces technically share a corner, the wall blocks both movement and line of sight between the two spaces on either side." So we now have an explicit rule saything that you cannot trace line of sight between those two exact spaces (which is listed as an answer instead of an erratum for some reason, even though they specifically admit that they share a corner and the rules clearly state that spaces sharing a corner have LOS to each other). The thing is, that's just the tip of the iceberg. We're also concerned about the line of sight of someone who stands one or two spaces away from the wall, rather than right next to it. Or someone who is adjacent to the wall, but is tracing line of sight from the free-standing corner to spaces that are down the corridor in the opposite direction. And they haven't said anything about these cases. Now, we could guess that maybe you should just not be allowed to trace LOS through the terminating corner of a free-standing wall. But that would mean it blocks line-of-sight in a bunch of cases where you're not even behind it - where if you extended the wall out to the side to form a regular corner it would suddenly stop blocking your LOS. Which is every bit as stupid as the original problem. So going strictly by RAW, the rules are now even more complicated and counter-intuitive than before. And if you're happy making up a house rule, you still need to solve the hard problems on your own; this provides no help at all. Remember, kids: FFG answers the question asked, not the question implied.
  12. Perhaps this will surprise you, Putney, but other posters cannot read your mind to figure out why you said something. They can only read what you actually wrote. So if you say "I assume the Troll Bash is an action and has the action symbol (arrow)….So, the bash is the Troll's one attack," then it looks like you are drawing an inference based on the implied rule "things that require an action count as attacks". Similarly, if you say "I'm suggesting that the bash ability is an attack because it does damage," it looks like you're applying a rule along the lines of "things that do damage count as attacks". If you want anyone that lives outside your head to understand your reason for thinking that Bash counts as an attack, you need to tell us what that reason is. We don't just magically know.
  13. Putney said: I'm not suggesting that every action icon counts as an attack. I'm suggesting that the bash ability is an attack because it does damage. You realize that the word "damage" did not appear a single time in your previous post? Various things in the game deal damage that, I would argue, are obviously not attacks (e.g. lava, various overlord cards). And the rule you just quoted about special actions involving attacks does not mention damage at any point. Trying to rule that special actions count as attacks if and only if they deal damage is also going to run into problems with actions that cause fatigue, since fatigue is sometimes (but not always) converted into damage. So I'd say your suggestion is pretty clearly not RAW, and furthermore would not make a very good rule.
  14. schmoo34 said: Sorry, but you cannot use the exact same logic because it isn't logical. Perhaps it is because I play living card games and deal with this quite often, but the "trumping" occurs on the card which the effect is being applied. The shield is applying its effect ONTO the dragon. It isn't the dragon applying TO the shield. Therefore, the dragon trumps the shield every day of the week and twice on sundays. That is totally crazy. By that logic, if I have a monster card that says it deals 5 damage, and a hero ability (like the one on Leoric of the Book) that says monsters deal one less damage, then the monster wins and Leoric's ability does exactly nothing (ever). Rules conflicts are normally resolved by specificity. But it's also, still, totally irrelevant. No one is suggesting that the shield's ability "trumps" the dragon's ability, because the abilities are not contradictory. If you don't spend a surge to get past the dragon's ability, then the dragon's ability is fully applied and the attack is a miss. No one in this entire thread is arguing otherwise. The question we're asking is: what does "miss" mean? Can attacks that miss still spend surges? The fact that the surge ability in this particular example comes from a shield isn't even relevant. We could be spending that surge to recover fatigue, or to heal, or on any other available surge ability.
  15. Uh, are you suggesting that every ability with an action icon counts as an attack? I'm pretty certain that's not true. I believe that rule is saying that some special monster actions also count as attacks. If the ability says it's an attack, then certainly it is. But if it doesn't say that, then it sure sounds like you could do it twice in one turn. Of course, if it only affects adjacent targets, then heroes could make it very difficult to do it twice in a round by the simple expedient of not ending their turn adjacent to a troll.
  • Create New...