Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Letanir

Errata 1.6

Recommended Posts

I'm glad to see it. There are some interesting (and welcome) changes.

 

For example:

 

-the golden rules have changed to what I think most people have been playing (quest rules override card abilities.) That is, if Castle Daerion says Palamon can't heal, "Prayer of Healing" can't heal him.

 

-Figures "treated as hero figures" have been clearly defined.

 

-No more elixir tokens for summoned stones (only familiars "treated as hero figures.")

Edited by Zaltyre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, two hero games are better balanced. An extra attack action that if you don't attack can be used to recover 2 hearts, that is game changing. Also, the heroes always draw five shop item cards, regardless of the size of the party. 

I also like the part that clarifies the transition to Act II.

 

Edit: the two hero rule is especially game changing because the other quests are not designed with this in mind in contrary to HoB. I can imagine the OL losing his advantage in race-type quests because of this free attack.
Edited by Ceasarsalad101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Page 20 and 24, “The Campaign Phase”: The “Shopping” step should occur before the “Spend Experience Points” step; “Shopping” is step 4, and “Spend Experience Points” is step 5."

Lol, guess I'll have to switch that around on my website.

 

Any idea what the reasoning behind this is? I guess its just so they can say 'performing steps 5-8' instead of 'performing steps 4,6,7,8' ? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Page 32, “Let the Truth be Buried,” Special Rules, The Chain, first sentence of the second paragraph: Should read, “Chain links do not block line of sight; each time a figure other than Splig enters a space containing a chain link, that figure’s turn immediately ends.”"

 

I guess this was made for avoiding this situation.

 

And the change on Reinforce, I think makes the card nearly unusable.

Edited by AndrewMM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And the change on Reinforce, I think makes the card nearly unusable.

The funny thing about that is the reprinted card has been that way since later 2013- the errata just left out the 3 space restriction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And the change on Reinforce, I think makes the card nearly unusable.

The funny thing about that is the reprinted card has been that way since later 2013- the errata just left out the 3 space restriction.

 

 

Wasn't that on purpose? I thought they directly changed the "3 spaces of a hero" to "adjacent to a master". But both?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what the original intention was. As far as I know, the original "Reinforce" card was changed once, not twice. The original card

 

"Play this card at the start of your turn and choose one of your monster groups in this quest (except for a lieutenant).

 
You may place monster figures on the map up to the group limit for that monster. These monsters may not be placed within 3 spaces of any hero, but may otherwise be placed in any empty space"
 
Became in the errata
 
“Play this card at the end of your turn and choose a master monster on the map.
 
Place minion monsters of that monster’s group in empty spaces adjacent to that monster, up to the group
limit.”
 

but in the actual reprinted version of the game (around the same time) it became

 

“Play this card at the end of your turn and choose a master monster on the map. 
 
Place minion monsters of that monster’s group in empty spaces adjacent to that monster, up to the group
limit. These monsters may not be placed within 3 spaces of any hero, but may otherwise be placed in any empty space."
 
Based on that, it looks to me like the last sentence was just left out of the errata, I assume unintentionally. If the reprint of the card was incorrect, it would seem the errata wouldn't have changed, but new printings of the card would omit that last sentence.
 
The argument can be made that this makes 'Reinforce' much weaker than its original version, but I don't see that as a bad thing. In its original format, 'Warlord' was THE upgrade path to take. It still has quite strong level 1 and 2 cards, but its level 3 is not so great.
Edited by Zaltyre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's actually weird... If the errata was actually wrong, that's.... bad.

 

Anyway, with both restrictions, I find the card being very limited in use. You can only Reinforce a "lonley" master far from the heroes. If the minions are dead on the first place, the heroes usually will be close to the monsters, unless the OL left on the back row that master, wating for using the card. I don't see it very common, actually.

Edited by AndrewMM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway, with both restrictions, I find the card being very limited in use. You can only Reinforce a "lonley" master far from the heroes. If the minions are dead on the first place, the heroes usually will be close to the monsters, unless the OL left on the back row that master, wating for using the card. I don't see it very common, actually.

I agree- it's a card you have to plan to use. It's also easier to use with fast monsters, as if you've got a master you can run him away and then play 'Reinforce' at the end of your turn.

 

And like I said, that's just my speculation about how it happened. All I'm really going by is the fact that my copy of Descent (printed in Oct 2013) has 'Reinforce' in the version of text reflected by errata 1.6.

Edited by Zaltyre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
At the end of each hero’s turn, if that hero did not or could not perform the free attack during his turn, he may instead recover 2 .

 

From the two player rules errata... does the free 2 's apply if you're performing the "Stand Up" action?  That would help when all heros are down and the monsters repeatedly knock them out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, It just appeared out of nowhere!

 

Exactly.

 

Okay ... I waited a few days before posting in this thread, as I was trying very hard to control my temper, and provide constructive feedback/criticism, rather than just flaming away ...

 

To begin with, I am once again massively disappointed with FFG as it pertains to this FAQ "effort" - or should I say, in my opinion, lack of effort.  Just like last February's update (2015), this comes across as a last minute, really didn't care to put in the effort, focused on Star Wars, but let's throw them a bone - effort.  Hell, they couldn't even bother to make mention of the fact that it was released on the main News page.

 

This entire FAQ requires someone to make a concerted effort to over haul it all.  Then, they need to actually add content to it ... where are all of the rulings that have been made for the co-ops?  Where are all of the rulings that have been made for Heirs of Blood?  What about all of the other rulings for each and every expansion?  There have to be literally hundreds of items missing.  There is better information to be found on BGG's site in their unofficial FAQ post.  Unfortunately, most players take the attitude that if it isn't in the official FAQ, the ruling doesn't exist.

 

To say that this game has become the lost step child is a massive understatement.

 

The best example of all of this is to just compare the time and effort that has gone into the Star Wars X-Wing FAQ (which I also play) and compare it to Descent.  Descent has actually been around longer, but it looks like its FAQ was created by a 5 year old when compared to that of X-Wing.

 

If you have never actually played that game or looked at the FAQ, download it.  It will take you 2 seconds to recognize that true effort has gone into that FAQ.

 

I am so frustrated and angry right now that I am once again getting heated just thinking about this ...   :P   :D   :lol:

 

It is getting to the point for me that I want to put as much effort into being a community asset as FFG puts into the game ... that is to say NONE ... and that is really, really sad.

Edited by any2cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where are all of the rulings that have been made for Heirs of Blood?

 

I couldn't believe there wasn't any for Heirs of Blood.  Just played two missions this weekend that it seems are so much in favor of OL, they seem broken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well, It just appeared out of nowhere!

 

Exactly.

 

Okay ... I waited a few days before posting in this thread, as I was trying very hard to control my temper, and provide constructive feedback/criticism, rather than just flaming away ...

 

To begin with, I am once again massively disappointed with FFG as it pertains to this FAQ "effort" - or should I say, in my opinion, lack of effort.  Just like last February's update (2015), this comes across as a last minute, really didn't care to put in the effort, focused on Star Wars, but let's throw them a bone - effort.  Hell, they couldn't even bother to make mention of the fact that it was released on the main News page.

 

This entire FAQ requires someone to make a concerted effort to over haul it all.  Then, they need to actually add content to it ... where are all of the rulings that have been made for the co-ops?  Where are all of the rulings that have been made for Heirs of Blood?  What about all of the other rulings for each and every expansion?  There have to be literally hundreds of items missing.  There is better information to be found on BGG's site in their unofficial FAQ post.  Unfortunately, most players take the attitude that if it isn't in the official FAQ, the ruling doesn't exist.

 

To say that this game has become the lost step child is a massive understatement.

 

The best example of all of this is to just compare the time and effort that has gone into the Star Wars X-Wing FAQ (which I also play) and compare it to Descent.  Descent has actually been around longer, but it looks like its FAQ was created by a 5 year old when compared to that of X-Wing.

 

If you have never actually played that game or looked at the FAQ, download it.  It will take you 2 seconds to recognize that true effort has gone into that FAQ.

 

I am so frustrated and angry right now that I am once again getting heated just thinking about this ...   :P   :D   :lol:

 

It is getting to the point for me that I want to put as much effort into being a community asset as FFG puts into the game ... that is to say NONE ... and that is really, really sad.

 

 

That's a high level of frustration.  Please help me understand what you're expecting.

Are you expecting FFG to post each question pertaining to the game/equipment/quest etc. they've received, to the FAQ?

 

-Cursain

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah so... I'm not going to change how I've been doing the Campaign Phase. Spend Experience, then Shop. Not honestly sure why they switched the steps. I suppose maybe it depends on what items your carrying for the abilities a hero wants, but I've never had a problem with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah so... I'm not going to change how I've been doing the Campaign Phase. Spend Experience, then Shop. Not honestly sure why they switched the steps. I suppose maybe it depends on what items your carrying for the abilities a hero wants, but I've never had a problem with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

 

My group has always done both at the same time and I've never felt it was inappropriate.  It allows heros to consider the items they buy (or may buy) in their skill decisions.   For example, the skills for Rune Master typically require a weapon that has "Rune" trait.  They maybe wouldn't buy one of those skills if they knew they were going to upgrade their weapon to a bow or something else.   Furthermore, Rune Master has a skill that makes another weapon HAVE the Rune trait (thus allowing you to use those other skills with any weapon).   It would be real nice to be able to decide to buy that based on actually having a weapon to use it on rather than a 'wait and see'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a high level of frustration.  Please help me understand what you're expecting.

Are you expecting FFG to post each question pertaining to the game/equipment/quest etc. they've received, to the FAQ?

 

-Cursain

 

The purpose of an FAQ is to answer frequently asked questions.  That is to say, when there are issues with a game that fundamentally break the way it is suppose to be played, or alter the game experience for the worse, then rulings (answers) are made that fix or resolve those situations.

 

This game is INUNDATED with those situations.  There have been questions that have been asked over and over and over and over again, sometimes with slight differences, and yet while there are "unofficial" answers that have been provided, they never make it into the FAQ.  And this situation exists not only for the core game, but for each expansion that has come out since the core - and it is made even worse by the fact that the number of interactions between cards, abilities, game mechanics, quest rules, etc. only grow exponentially as expansions are put out.

 

As I have suggested above, if you want to see an FAQ that has been developed properly, and has been maintained properly, with the correct effort, all you need to do is download the FAQ for FFG's X-Wing game.  Then compare that to what is provided for Descent.

 

It's not even close.  Also be aware that the number of updates that officially occur for the Star Wars games dwarfs what occurs for Descent.

 

Cursain ... I have no idea how much you do or do not play Descent, but even some of my noob friends that have played for no more than a few hours, have generated questions ... and those answers, while having already been provided, are no where to be found in the FAQ.  And these are questions that have been asked a hundred times if they have been asked once.

 

Another great example is the effort that Zaltyre (and myself for that matter as a reviewer) have put into his Glossary of Terms,  We should never, ever had to have created this document.  It should have been done by FFG.  It should be maintained by FFG.  It should exist in either a modified rule set, or within the FAQ itself (once again, see Star Wars Imperial Assault - Rules Reference Guide).  But if we were to wait for FFG to create a key definitions of terms document for Descent, I would be in my grave before I would see it.

 

There is a distinct pattern that exists with FFG's behavior.  They have great games like Mansions of Madness and/or Descent 2e, but they allow them to flounder, without putting in even a matching effort of what their own customers invest in the game.

 

If you have even spent 2 minutes with this game, and have reviewed the FAQ, then you know what I am saying is accurate.  There is no hyperbole here, it is plain facts.

Edited by any2cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I went to see how this X-Wing FAQ looked like. I literally had to pick up my chin from the floor. If only few % of that kind of effort could be utilized on the Descent FAQ then it would probably double its current value if not more. I really agree with the general disappointment.

 

Without continuous support from our community members, my playgroup would have certainly dropped interest in that game very quickly as there are simply too many situations that require referring to the rules or an interpretation of these one way or another. The game is like this by design and is not alone on that fact, and that's perfectly fine, but you got to give these kind of tools to the gamers so they can sort out these situations in the most practical manner. A game shouldn't be a hassle to play. Descent can be like this at times, even more so that it is a campaign driven game so the resolution of said situations often have an impact on the long term, leading to rewards that shouldn't have be given, or quests played wrong leading to other quest being wrongly chosen. Things can go fast with a hero getting KO:ed for the wrong reason and an additional card being dealt to the OL allowing him/her to win on the next turn. The opposite is also true with heroes steamrolling because of simple rule mistakes. A campaign-articulated game has to be clean, or at least suggest a way for its players to handle rules conflicts. A bunch of paragraphs in a bad formatted document, badly organized so the information is even harder to find (by expansion, really?), that only represent a % of all rules being clarified officially and unofficially, cannot possibly be that solution?

 

So yeah, as the rules master in my playgroup and the person trying to put this together for our own personal needs, I literally do not know what to do with this FAQ. I want to print out something giving me all answers we would ever need, like I do with all of my other games. Why would it be different with Descent? I can't either use the unofficial FAQ on BGG because... it's unofficial. A text found on the internet is hardly evidence of anything these days. The good old alternative is to google up the question on my cell phone and hope for the best. How can this possibly be the way FFG intended their customers to look for answers for this game?

 

I want to be able to get or even purchase (I´m that desperate) an updated quest book and errata:ed cards. I cannot possibly refer to a half dozen of large side documents to figure out if a given piece of text has been errata:ed or not at any point in time, or subject to other rules. I NEED to be able to pick the game where we left it. I don't want to be forced to make several sources of information converge to make my own interpretation of the rules. My players wouldn't believe me anyway and honestly why would they?

 

And then you have stuff that is not even controversial that got changed, like the campaign steps. I mean fine, no big deal here, but it makes the game less stable overall to swap steps in a procedure without any real idea of its justification. Like it was ever a problem for my heroes to choose their skills before or after the shopping phase. Hitting a particular item with strong affinity with a skill for a class you happen to have chosen is minimal anyway. Have people actually complained about the campaign phase order? Where from if not on these forums? How could we have missed it?

 

I am also of the opinion that FFG could do much better than this, so the problem has to be their willingness to commit to such task. Not doing so only confirms the general feeling/fear that Descent has become a product whose life only gets sustained by the (few) community members here (any2cards and Zaltyre come directly to mind, but there are others). Yeah they release new stuff, but they don't try to consolidate the core rules/game so there is no real evolution for the main issues this game has.

 

Also the co-op quests, I mean this is so blatant now.  I am puzzled by these. They really threw them on the market and then that was it. Some people actually welcomed the initiative as a bowl of fresh air to the Descent franchise, but it really turned up being just a variant of the game packed in an overpriced box with no real intention of raising interest into said franchise. So much for that new branch of the franchise, now fading into mediocrity like the rest of it. Because it could have been a possibility that the co-op success kind of drove the whole franchise upwards and led to quality work being done on things like the FAQ, or increased support.

 

It's "funny" because this would never be allowed in my branch, where everything has to be normalized. You wouldn't be able to throw out such difference in quality even if the layout has to differ because of game theme. I don't know, somebody from quality assurance should have picked up the things that went missing. It's really not hard. Somebody should have INSTANTLY picked up the wrong document version. Somebody should have made the remark that it should be on the news. I would have waited and worked on a better FAQ instead of releasing this?

Edited by Indalecio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indalecio ...

 

Thank you.  Very much.  It is nice to see that I am not completely going insane, feeling like I was the only one bothered by all of this.

 

The sad thing is, if Descent was "licensed" like Star Wars is from Disney, I flat out guarantee there would be far more attention paid to this product by FFG.

 

It really is sad, because I do feel that Descent is a sweet game.  Much like Mansions of Madness.  Unfortunately, I guess I am going to have to decide whether or not I continue to purchase and invest my time in both playing the game, and supporting it through these forums, when we can't get FFG to do the same.

 

One more point.  Sometimes, people state that rather than complaining, you should help do something to fix the issue.  Fine.

 

********************************************************************************************************

FFG: I am retired.  I have plenty of time on my hands.  I hereby volunteer to help maintain an effective FAQ.  If you are willing to share all of the rulings that have been made, officially or otherwise, and if you support me in this effort, I will do the work to revise your FAQ and make it a more effective tool for everyone.

Edited by any2cards

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Yeah so... I'm not going to change how I've been doing the Campaign Phase. Spend Experience, then Shop. Not honestly sure why they switched the steps. I suppose maybe it depends on what items your carrying for the abilities a hero wants, but I've never had a problem with it. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. 

 

My group has always done both at the same time and I've never felt it was inappropriate.  It allows heros to consider the items they buy (or may buy) in their skill decisions.   For example, the skills for Rune Master typically require a weapon that has "Rune" trait.  They maybe wouldn't buy one of those skills if they knew they were going to upgrade their weapon to a bow or something else.   Furthermore, Rune Master has a skill that makes another weapon HAVE the Rune trait (thus allowing you to use those other skills with any weapon).   It would be real nice to be able to decide to buy that based on actually having a weapon to use it on rather than a 'wait and see'.

 

Honestly, It would just probably be better to just officially combine the steps. Just make it the Experience and Shopping Step. The Shop cards are first shuffled and revealed on the table, any Shopping Phase Rumor cards can be played before this step and then the heroes may spend Gold or Experience at any time. The OL can then use this step as well to buy any OL or Plot Deck cards. I honestly don't see the harm in doing it this way. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My wife got me the Descent base game for Christmas.  We've played a few times.  Once with a false start where I had selected two heroes and she was playing the OL.  I quickly realized that this was not balanced and so we started again later with me controlling three heroes.  This seems to work better.  I'm new to the game and my level of excitement and enthusiasm is pretty high.  I picked up Lair of Wyrm, Labyrinth of Ruin, Heirs of Blood, all three co-op packs, and several Lieutenant Packs.  I'm assuming that each printing of these things are fairly small so I'm trying to get stuff while they're available and reasonably priced (I don't want to have to buy things on eBay and Amazon when they're out of print and for twice their MSRP).  I probably won't open the expansions until later as they're still shrink wrapped.

 

I've spent some time looking through the forums, FFG news posts, etc. and it's clear that they put out a LOT of games many of which have larger communities on these forums (that's anecdotal based on post and reply counts, yes I should be looking at stats over a period of time).  Anyways, my point is that I'm assuming they invest their time and effort where they have the most sales.  This makes sense from a business standpoint.  Their staff probably works on many games simultaneously and they only have so much time they can invest to the general fitness of their products. 

 

Yes this is disappointing but makes sense.  They're going to focus their efforts on the growing and more successful products of their company.  Of course, this is all conjecture on my part.  I have no sales data of their products.  I can just see where they're placing focus based on their posted news blurbs: https://www.fantasyflightgames.com/en/news/

 

Here's hoping that the game gets a resurgence and more attention from FFG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think there are a lot of important points raised in this topic, but at the same time this is the internet. It's incredibly easy for a discussion to turn into something more destructive than constructive. To that end, I'd like to ask a general question:

 

Without assigning blame to particular parties, what specific things would you like to see done differently with the FAQ/Errata document? For example, it's one thing to question its layout by expansion- but how would you prefer it?

 

Again, I'm not trying to minimize the concerns that have been voiced- I'm simply trying to maintain a constructive conversation as opposed to a long list of complaints. I also think (while the common opinion is certainly that the FAQ could be much more) that it's important not to belittle the effort that has gone into this game. Maybe it's my experience as a researcher, but there's little more frustrating than putting a lot of effort into a project and- not just having the outcome be less than you'd hoped- but having others assume because of the result that effort was non-existent. Rather than framing the discussion of the FAQ as an attack on FFG, let's stick to the document (or the involvement of the company as a whole) and what we'd like to see.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×