Jump to content



Photo

Necromancer


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Cabello

Cabello

    Member

  • Members
  • 152 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:01 AM

 Hey guys. Our group just got to the interlude, and it has been our experince that that necromancer is REALLY powerful. Far more so that the other characters thus far. I'm not saying that he is too powerful (though that has been suggested in our group), but what do you guys think? What has been your experience with him?



#2 ZXTR

ZXTR

    Member

  • Members
  • 86 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 09:44 AM

Landrec The Wize + Sunburst + Exploding Rune + Rune Mastery

He always will get 2 surges minimum on first attack with blast. Not so bad, even with starting weapon (pierce 2).

I'm waiting for official reply from FFG about Runemaster being able to stun or immobilize a group of monsters with a blast. If yes it is a tough choice for me between Necromancer and Runemaster, because Necro can do a lot damage but Rune can hold packs of monsters with enough luck on rolls. Anyway, Runemaster is about cursing monsters with effects and Necro is about damaging them.

Also, since above combination is not so easy to achieve, Necro is slightly better as it gives one melee figure to the party.



#3 Tromdial

Tromdial

    Member

  • Members
  • 580 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 06:17 PM

Cabello said:

 Hey guys. Our group just got to the interlude, and it has been our experince that that necromancer is REALLY powerful. Far more so that the other characters thus far. I'm not saying that he is too powerful (though that has been suggested in our group), but what do you guys think? What has been your experience with him?

Landrec of the Book was used as the Necromancer and he was powerful. What we clearly wanted to know most of all was if and when Landrec is defeated and has to stand up, does he still get to activate his Reanimate as usual even though he spent both actions to stand? If activating Reanimate before or after standing does not count as an action, we assumed the Reanimate does activate, which makes the Necromancer's hold over his familiar constant even when he just got the wits knocked out of him. I've been pretty skeptical so an answer would be wonderful of what other players think about necromancy.



#4 Antistone

Antistone

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,250 posts

Posted 20 July 2012 - 07:00 PM

I think you're confusing the first edition hero Landrec the Wise with the new hero Leoric of the Book.

Activating a familiar does not require an action, but it's not clear to me whether standing up just takes two actions or also stops you from doing non-actions on that turn (such as moving with fatigue).



#5 Columbob

Columbob

    Member

  • Members
  • 147 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 02:45 AM

I think the intent of the rule is that you're not supposed to do anything other than standing up on your turn. So no using fatigue, no using powers or abilities that don't require an action, etc. Stand up, roll to recuperate fatigue/health, and pass the dice to the next player, that's it.



#6 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,631 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 03:02 AM

Tromdial said:

 

 

Landrec of the Book was used as the Necromancer and he was powerful. What we clearly wanted to know most of all was if and when Landrec is defeated and has to stand up, does he still get to activate his Reanimate as usual even though he spent both actions to stand?

 

 

I'm reasonably certain he can't use it before he stands up, because heroes who are KO'd can't use skills or abilities, and the reanimate familiar as a whole is granted by a skill card (unless I'm gravely mistaken.)  Whether or not he can use it after he stands up is less clear, however I did find this in the section of the rulebook about standing up (pg 10):

"To stand up, the player rolls two red power dice, recovers damage equal to the [Heart] rolled, recovers fatigue equal to the [Fatigue] rolled, replaces his hero token with his hero figure, and then flips his Activation card facedown to indicate his turn is over (he may not perform an additional action)."

Now, I realize that the rules keeps referring to "Actions" and that activating the reanimate during your turn is not technically an "Action" itself, so there is definitely some wiggle room there.  However, the bolded passage above makes it sound (to me, at least) like ending your turn is actually part of the "Stand Up" action.  As Antistone (I think it was) pointed out in another thread, a hero's familiar in 2e acts within the controlling hero's turn, but it must do it's thing either before or after everything else the hero wants to do.  still part of the hero's turn, though.

In other words, if "Stand Up" is the only action you can perform on your turn, then your turn will be over by the time that action is completed.  You wouldn't even be able to move with fatigue, assuming you got any surges on the stand up roll.

At least that's how I read it.  Loathe though I am to invoke "the designer's intent" (because I am neither a mind reader nor a close friend of anyone on the design team), it does seem to me that the intent of the Stand Up action is that it consumes your whole turn.



#7 Tromdial

Tromdial

    Member

  • Members
  • 580 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 05:41 AM

Yeah, I sent them an email about the official ruling. When I get it I will share what was intended.



#8 Antistone

Antistone

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,250 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 06:48 AM

I honestly don't think that was the intent.  The rules don't actually say to end your turn after standing up, they say to flip your card to indicate that your turn is over.  It's not worded as if they were adding a special rule that says you must end your turn, but as if the author thought that some other rule written elsewhere would already make that a required thing and he is just reminding you of it.

Combined with the rules in at least 3 entirely separate places that say it's the only action you can do, with no mention of ending your turn or non-actions, my theory is that the person writing that passage just plumb forgot that there exist non-action things you can do on your turn, and therefore gave no thought at all to whether they are legal.  It is therefore my contention that there is no intent for us to infer, and we just need to wait for an erratum.

Though there is also a potential loophole where creating the familiar requires a skill, but the familiar itself may not count as a skill or ability, and therefore may still be usable while knocked out.  I'm just not sure.



#9 Tromdial

Tromdial

    Member

  • Members
  • 580 posts

Posted 21 July 2012 - 08:49 AM

Antistone said:

I honestly don't think that was the intent.  The rules don't actually say to end your turn after standing up, they say to flip your card to indicate that your turn is over.  It's not worded as if they were adding a special rule that says you must end your turn, but as if the author thought that some other rule written elsewhere would already make that a required thing and he is just reminding you of it.

Combined with the rules in at least 3 entirely separate places that say it's the only action you can do, with no mention of ending your turn or non-actions, my theory is that the person writing that passage just plumb forgot that there exist non-action things you can do on your turn, and therefore gave no thought at all to whether they are legal.  It is therefore my contention that there is no intent for us to infer, and we just need to wait for an erratum.

Though there is also a potential loophole where creating the familiar requires a skill, but the familiar itself may not count as a skill or ability, and therefore may still be usable while knocked out.  I'm just not sure.

Agreed. This question can only be answered by the developer.



#10 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,631 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 03:26 AM

Antistone said:

I honestly don't think that was the intent.  The rules don't actually say to end your turn after standing up, they say to flip your card to indicate that your turn is over.  It's not worded as if they were adding a special rule that says you must end your turn, but as if the author thought that some other rule written elsewhere would already make that a required thing and he is just reminding you of it.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, but how is "indicating that your turn is over" not the same thing as ending your turn?  If your turn is not ended then you can still do things, and if you can still do things then you shouldn't be allowed to indicate that you're done when you're actually not done.

As for the idea that this passage is referencing some other part of the rulebook, perhaps it is referencing the Hero Turn Summary on page 7.  Specifically, this part:

"4. Flip Activation Card: After a hero player has finished performing his
actions, that hero player flips his Activation card facedown to indicate
that his turn is over.
After the player flips his Activation card, another hero begins his turn.
After all heroes’ Activation cards are facedown (showing the overlord
turn summary), proceed to the overlord turn…"

If this is not sufficient evidence for you, Antistone, then I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree.  Fortunately, since it's unlikely that you and I will ever be playing Descent at the same table, this shouldn't be a huge problem for either of us.



#11 Antistone

Antistone

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,250 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 07:46 AM

Do you see a difference between the instructions "make a sandwich" and "tell John that you're making a sandwich"?  It's true that following the second instruction would be lying unless you are also following the first, but if you're writing a rulebook and you come to the part where you intend for the game to require player X to make a sandwich, but all you actually write into the rulebook is "at this point, player X should tell player Y that he is making a sandwich", that is incredibly bizarre.

It suggests that the author thought that there should be a sandwich made, but it also strongly suggests that the author was deeply confused about something when he wrote that.



#12 CitanTim

CitanTim

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:29 AM

Antistone said:

Do you see a difference between the instructions "make a sandwich" and "tell John that you're making a sandwich"? 

I think your analogy uses the wrong tense to falsely strengthen your argument.  Should it not be "make a sandwich" and "tell [indicate to] John that you made a sandwich."  While not literally the same, these are much more closely related than your example, and validate Steve_O's point.

While I'd also rather we just get a direct answer from the developers, I also enjoy speculation.  I personally feel that 'Action' should be considered a proper term specifically covered in the rules under the respective chapters, etc.  I think that when the rulebook states 'actions' in lowercase, as described in the Stand-up Action, it means everything/anything.  

Since I haven't recently combed through the rules to determine if they follow this concept, I'm not sure if it is real.  If not, I'd like to assert it as the way we should do things.  :D

 



#13 Cyan_of_Doma

Cyan_of_Doma

    Member

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:39 AM

Just adding my two cents.  It seems to me (and my hero players) that when one stands themselves up, their turn ends right there.  No wiggle room for doing non-action things and such.  However, since George the Re-Animate doesn't die when his Necromancer is knocked out, we walk more of a slippery slope.  Can a summoned creature act independent of it's masters will?  As an OL, I would allow it, especially given that the creature can't stand it's master up, effectively giving him his/her turn.

Also, I find myself wanting to make a sandwich for some reason.  Curse you, Antistone, you and your delicious analogy :P.



#14 Bindlespin

Bindlespin

    Member

  • Members
  • 286 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 08:40 AM

The only deeply confused person is the guy playing a game that tells him to tell someone that some other chimp is making a sandwich when he thought he was playing a board game.

 



#15 Antistone

Antistone

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,250 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 09:10 AM

CitanTim said:

I think your analogy uses the wrong tense to falsely strengthen your argument.  Should it not be "make a sandwich" and "tell [indicate to] John that you made a sandwich."  While not literally the same, these are much more closely related than your example, and validate Steve_O's point.

 

Sorry, but I honestly do not see how the tense makes any difference at all, either in my analogy or in the original.



#16 Antistone

Antistone

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,250 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 09:16 AM

I suppose I should also address this:

CitanTim said:

While I'd also rather we just get a direct answer from the developers, I also enjoy speculation.  I personally feel that 'Action' should be considered a proper term specifically covered in the rules under the respective chapters, etc.  I think that when the rulebook states 'actions' in lowercase, as described in the Stand-up Action, it means everything/anything.  

The only places in the rulebook I can find where "Action" is captialized is when it is part of a heading (wherein Every Single Word Is Capitalized), and once when it is initially defined (where the word is written in ALL CAPS).  Lowercase "action" is used all over the place in a context where it is, in my opinion, absolutely clear that it is being used as a formal term.



#17 CitanTim

CitanTim

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 09:18 AM

Cyan_of_Doma said:

However, since George the Re-Animate doesn't die when his Necromancer is knocked out, we walk more of a slippery slope.  Can a summoned creature act independent of it's masters will?  As an OL, I would allow it, especially given that the creature can't stand it's master up, effectively giving him his/her turn.

Also, I find myself wanting to make a sandwich for some reason.  Curse you, Antistone, you and your delicious analogy :P.

I would definitely side with you on this view if we were talking about companions, familiars, etc.  But a summoned creature could easily be considered different in this regard.  Obviously I'm aware that we're outside the scope of realism or even standard fantasy canon, and at this point we can just borrow from our favorite fantasy literature with regards to how summoning works.  

So… I'll do just that.  I'd like to think that a summoned monster/creature/whatever would either all together lose the power that has summoned it, or at least lose direction.  

As a follow-up, I most definitely side with you on wanting to make a sandwich.  Cajun Turkey on wheat with colby jack, here I come!

FYI, Bindlespin, you just cracked me up.



#18 CitanTim

CitanTim

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 09:21 AM

Antistone said:

CitanTim said:

I think your analogy uses the wrong tense to falsely strengthen your argument.  Should it not be "make a sandwich" and "tell [indicate to] John that you made a sandwich."  While not literally the same, these are much more closely related than your example, and validate Steve_O's point.

 

Sorry, but I honestly do not see how the tense makes any difference at all, either in my analogy or in the original.

 

I went back and read again.  You're right… it doesn't make as much difference as I thought.  I originally read it as 

"Do you see a difference between "[made] a sandwich" and "tell John that you're making…"

No apology necessary on your part… so I'll do it.  Sorry!  :D



#19 CitanTim

CitanTim

    Member

  • Members
  • 15 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 09:24 AM

Antistone said:

 

I suppose I should also address this:

CitanTim said:

While I'd also rather we just get a direct answer from the developers, I also enjoy speculation.  I personally feel that 'Action' should be considered a proper term specifically covered in the rules under the respective chapters, etc.  I think that when the rulebook states 'actions' in lowercase, as described in the Stand-up Action, it means everything/anything.  

 

The only places in the rulebook I can find where "Action" is captialized is when it is part of a heading (wherein Every Single Word Is Capitalized), and once when it is initially defined (where the word is written in ALL CAPS).  Lowercase "action" is used all over the place in a context where it is, in my opinion, absolutely clear that it is being used as a formal term.

 

 

Damn.  It's going to be a lot harder to assert my decision on all of you now, let alone the developers.  Thanks for checking though!

 

Edit*  Three posts in a row.  I need to take a break!



#20 Cyan_of_Doma

Cyan_of_Doma

    Member

  • Members
  • 44 posts

Posted 22 July 2012 - 09:35 AM

CitanTim said:

Cyan_of_Doma said:

 

However, since George the Re-Animate doesn't die when his Necromancer is knocked out, we walk more of a slippery slope.  Can a summoned creature act independent of it's masters will?  As an OL, I would allow it, especially given that the creature can't stand it's master up, effectively giving him his/her turn.

Also, I find myself wanting to make a sandwich for some reason.  Curse you, Antistone, you and your delicious analogy :P.

 

 

I would definitely side with you on this view if we were talking about companions, familiars, etc.  But a summoned creature could easily be considered different in this regard.  Obviously I'm aware that we're outside the scope of realism or even standard fantasy canon, and at this point we can just borrow from our favorite fantasy literature with regards to how summoning works.  

So… I'll do just that.  I'd like to think that a summoned monster/creature/whatever would either all together lose the power that has summoned it, or at least lose direction.  

As a follow-up, I most definitely side with you on wanting to make a sandwich.  Cajun Turkey on wheat with colby jack, here I come!

FYI, Bindlespin, you just cracked me up.

 

Now, without intending to, you've given me an interesting idea for a houserule.  Say that when George's Necro falls in battle, he "loses direction" as you said.  Instead of just standing there and drooling on himself (or whatever it is re-animates do when they're idleing), George loses his focus and just goes wild, shambling towards and attacking whatever may be closest at the time, be it hero or monster.  I may just have to try that out.

Though, to address something else you said, the Re-Animate is considered a "familiar" per the rules, if that makes any difference to your arguement.  Cheers!






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS