Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Siebeltje

  • Rank

Contact Methods

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

Profile Information

  • Location
    Wijchen, Gelderland, Netherlands
  1. I've made up my mind. I'm going to skip Altar of Despair and go for Tomb of Ice. Thank you al!
  2. Hi all, I have vanilla descent for a few years now and I also have the Well of Darkness expansion for about a year. I'd like to buy a new expansion, but I'm not sure which one I should buy... I also play D&D, so I'm not looking for campaign play.. We noticed that with the Well of Darkness expansion everything got a lot tougher on the heroes. Does Altar of Despair tune the toughness a bit down, or would the Tomb of Ice be a better choice?
  3. We found Quest 7 (base game) and WoD Quest 1 the hardest. However, Quest 7 is not that hard anymore when you know the best route to take and let go of your ideals of not *scrambled to prevent spoiler*. The scything blades in WoD 4 do not do 2 damage extra. The pits do (however they ARE not poisonous, that's only flavour text), but only when they are sprung. The scything blades are there from the beginnen, thus do not do the extra two damage (there is no surprise there) .
  4. Big Remy said: For Undying: ... As for lingering effects, I would put forth argument that they stay on the monster. Since an Undying creature is not actually killed until it fails the Undying roll, any effects that are only removed by the figures death would stay. My support for this viewpoint is this statement from the description of Undying: An Undying figure must stay dead in order for effects that take place when it is “killed” to actually occur. Since you don't get the gold for killing an Undying figure until after it fails its Undying roll, it makes sense that other effects that can only be removed by death or a die roll such as lingering effects would stay. If I'm correct, the RaW state that all lingering effects are removed when the monster is 'regenerated'. I see an undying creature more as an undead or a die-hard. It doesn't crumble to death and rises again. It simply wouldn't die when it should have died.. and then it makes sense that the more damage you do, the bigger the chance that he actually dies..
  5. Nope, you will not be able to trace LoS when the figure is on a space with rubble. Above water should not be a problem though.
  6. If monsters would block LoS to their own squares, how could you ever trace LoS to any of their square centres (single square monsters included)? And of course what Corbon says at his second point.
  7. Same here. We sometimes use the Descent tiles for D&D as well. Sometimes we even grab some Descent monsters as well, but that does not happen very often.
  8. Corbon said: The objection relating to two figures in the same space affecting range is that an attack is a singular thing at all times up until it is applied to individual figures in step 6. To get to step 6 it has to have already been determined to have had enough range to affect the space the figures are in. Having done that, removing range is perfectly possible, but utterly meaningless - range has been resolved already. If you choose to make range backdate in step 6, then you create the loop. The attack affects the figure, the attack loses some of its range due to affecting the figure, the attack no longer has the range to affect the figure, so the cause of the range dropping off is removed and the range returns and the attack affects the figure... It just doesn't work. I don't think the range 'returns' after the figure is not a target anymore. Range dropped --> target space cannot be reaced --> failed attack! Saying that the range returns is like saying: "oh, you dodge the attack and I now miss.. hmm.. but if I miss than dodging has no effect, so then I would hit again...". I know that example is very exaggerate (and flawed/untrue), but I can't think of a better comparison. But my point is that once an effect has affected the attack, it should not be removed simply because the criteria for the effect are removed by said effect. EDIT: Ok, an attempt of a better example. Say a creature would have the ability 'cannot be hit by ranged attacks'. In your philosophy a ranged attack can hit the space. Then the figure says you cannot hit me, which means the figure is not affected. This means that the figure will be attacked again, which affects the figure. Then the ability kicks in again so that the figure cannot be affected. etcetera... there is your loop again.
  9. I have a little side-question.. In this topic I see a lot of examples using multiple figures in the same space. I don't think that is possible, is it? Creatures with flying should always end their movement on an empty space (no idea about soaring, as I don't have RtL). I also don't think you can interrupt (guard) to attack a monster when it is in the same space as another monster figure.. and to be a little more on-topic: I'm with thundercles, but I realy hope we get an official answer on this, because I see the logic in both camps.
  10. Paul Grogan said: If I had 5 gold pieces for everytime a new thread appeared with someone saying "Whats happening with the scenario editor", I'd have enough money to hire a programmer to write one! Until then, Adobe Photoshop it is for me. But then again.. Gold is more solid than green these days
  11. Conan said: Two questions, 1) in the JitD manual it says that the heroes may choose in which order they take their turns, in the quest guide it says that the first player begins then the second player , etc... What is now the truth? 2) The monster reference cards have numbers on them for with how many players you're playing, does the overlord count? So level 5 monsters is for 4 heroes and 1 overlord? Many thx we're not supposed to post answers here to prevent discussion, but I believe both questions are covered by the rules. 1) The heroes choose their order. The hero player that goes first is the first player, the hero player that takes up the next turn is the second player. 2) the OL is counted as one of the players, so a 4-hero game will use the 'lvl 5' card.
  12. According to the rules, heroes that attack without wielding a weapon are assumed to attack with their first, resulting in 1 red die (and for melee-fighters their power dice). One fist may make 1 additional attack with its hook, using 1 red and 1 green die. When I would equip one-fist with a shield, could he battle, making three attacks with his hook, or 1 with his hook and 2 times with his fist (which is holding the shield, so let's call it a shield punch to prevent discussion on this part ) This situation happened last saturday, where I played one-fist and one of my friends played the OL. I thought I would be able to make 3 hook attacks. Thematically this would make sense. My OL friend disagreed, because it is against the rules. I couldn't disagree with that, so I played without the green die, but to me it feels strange.. To let it make a bit of sense, I just figured One-fist to be very non-dextrous with his left arm, resulting in only one wild swing per turn. Any thoughts on this subject?
  13. I don't think you should take Osakas post personnel. I think Osaka simply states that the rules are lacking. You are not wrong, but Osaka simply likes the other option better. (s)he's not pushing anyone into his/her school of thoughts either.
  14. Antistone said: By the rules-as-written, I believe figures in a pit still block movement and line-of-sight exactly as if they were not in a pit. correct.
  15. I think a creature or hero with ironskin will just say: "Nice for you that you have sorcery, but I don't care.. Can't touch this" I think sorcery is negated totally, just like fear takes up 1 surge before counting range + damage, ironskin removes the sorcery part of the attack. But I must admit that the rules leave some opening for both interpretations..
  • Create New...