Just received Kevin's reply to a rules email on this topic:



The question was whether you needed to use the Reinforcement Marker as per RTL and whether monsters spawned with Treachery in LT enounters were brought on to the board via LOS rules...or off the board (Reinforcement Rules).

Thanks for sharing! That changes things alot.

Oh, that IS interesting. The reinforcement marker doesn't surprise me (I'd say the rules were ambiguous on that point), but I'm really surprised that spawns are brought in like reinforcements.

I really like this ruling.

It means that you only have one mechanic for bringing in critters while outdoors, but you may use an alternative rota if you pay for it via Treachery cards. There is no extra threat penalty for the Spawn Token, so all you're really doing is adding to the reinforcement list available to a particular scenario, with no real threat 'hit' for it coming off a card instead of the normal list.

On the other side, the creatures still come on the board in the same fashion, through the same entry points, with the same one-turn delay.

One mechanic for bringing new monsters in, but with a system for adding to that limited list -- if you've paid for the treachery.

Simple and slick, but fair.

Hmm, interesting, very interesting.

I know there are people who will disagree, but there was never any question in my mind about the Reinforcement token - using it would have made more than one point of Red Treachery incredibly useless in outdoor encounters.

Coming in like Reinforcements is a huge nerf for the spawn cards, because it means you need to wait until Overlord Turn 2 for them to arrive. Of course, maybe they were too strong otherwise, especially with the many trees in outdoor encounters making for very easy spawn points.

I agree Jeff...not sure where the confusion on this one was...it was pretty clear to me that the reinforcement marker is not used. I think people are reading way too much into the rules and hence causing confusion.

The rules WERE ambiguous on that point, actually. Personally, I figured it wasn't used in encounters, but that was just my interpretation, based on what seemed to lead to a better balance. There was an equally valid interpretation which said that the reinforcement marker was still used.

It's key to remember, when encountering ambiguities like these, that it's rarely as obvious as you think it is which interpretation is the right one. When you have interpretation A and interpretation B, you may think that interpretation A is OBVIOUSLY right, because it's the first one that occurred to you, but somebody else will likely think that interpretation B is OBVIOUSLY right, because it's the first one that occurred to them. If neither interpretation is directly contradicted by the rules, then who is to say which of you is right?

(Of course, there are places where the seemingly obvious interpretation IS contradicted by the rules. From what I've seen, when the clarification comes down from FFG, it's 50/50 odds on whether the rules as written are correct, or the obvious interpretation is correct. So, I think it's a fallacy to assume that there must be a mistake in the rules when you see that the "obvious" interpretation is contradicted by the rules.)

I like it too.

It streamlines the introduction of replacement monsters and balances powerful treachery spawns like Lone Troll by delaying their introduction.

As it only refers to the reinforcement marker as being used in dungeons I fail to see how that part is in the slightest bit ambigous....

As to where and how the summons come on though that certainly (along with the whole treachery part) is badly worded (or not at all!). FFG really needed to have cheat sheets for what happens in the different sorts of encounters, and how the rules vary from standard descent.

I'd rather not recap all the old debates, since it'd be purely academic at this point. If you're really curious, the forum threads still exist, here and on the FFG forums. You can go and read up on both sides of the argument.



I may be wrong, but I would classify this as an errata, not a clarification. There was no real basis, in the rules, to assert that new spawns, from spawn cards, came in like reinforcements, though some people preferred to play that way for balance reasons.

It's possible that they simply forgot to print this detail in the rules. However, it's also fully possible that they chose to CHANGE the rules on this point, after more play testing revealed that spawning by LOS rules in outdoor encounters was unbalanced.

In addition to the above report, there is heated discussion over there in FFG forums regarding a point, which actually can be important, and myself is interested about the result.

The answer from FFG clearly states, that the monsters should be brought off the as per reinforcement rule, however it does not clearly states if monsters activated the same round or not.

There is a significant difference from OL viewpoint:
- spawn placement is made before monster activation
- reinforcement placement is made after monster activation, at the end of the OL turn.

Checking FFG site clearly shows this can be read either way. After all, expensive treachery cards are literally spawns. So playing it happens before monster activation. It would sounds logical that they can be activated still same round, and this would be a benefit of expensive monster treachery cards.

Somehow I have the gut feeling, if rule is taken that way, that monsters come off the board AND activates only the next turn, then monster treachery is not so good any more in Lt encounters. E.g. for 6 threat you can get a master troll, but an Lt can anytime reinforce a normal one for 6 threat.