Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Moneseki

Dark charm and rapid fire

Recommended Posts

mahkra said:

 

Are you saying that you agree the rule as written works the way I'm saying it does, but claiming FFG simply didn't realize it when they wrote the rule that way?

 

 

As for the general statement about the FAQ, I'm just saying that if a FAQ ruling uses language that makes the language on the original card no longer accurate, the FAQ is a rule change, even if they don't explicitly say the old rule is no longer valid. In this case, I can't even begin to imagine what the problem is. The original wording is completely vague, and the FAQ clarifies it. (It may not clarify it perfectly, but it's certainly much more specific than the original text.)

 

 

 

Are you saying that you didn´t get the irony of my post? Of course I do not agree that it works the way you are saying.

The original wording is "normal attack rules" and I accept the clarifications/modifications regarding the respective aspects in the FAQ. But this means all other aspects that are not mentioned in the FAQ still follow the original card text.

And my arguing has nothing to do with (virtual or real) testicles, both of which are seeing a lot of use. cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parathion said:

The original wording is "normal attack rules" and I accept the clarifications/modifications regarding the respective aspects in the FAQ. But this means all other aspects that are not mentioned in the FAQ still follow the original card text.

Original card text:
Play at the start of your turn and choose one hero. The chosen hero player must roll one power die. If the result is blank, nothing happens. If the result is not a blank, the hero must make one attack that you declare. This attack may target any hero, including the attacking hero, but is subject to the normal attack rules, including range and line of sight.

FAQ:
The overlord controls the hero for that attack, including the hero’s use of surges and power dice. The overlord may also play cards such as “Aim” with the attack. However, the overlord player cannot move the character, or force the hero to spend fatigue to add to the attack. The overlord may not force the character to use any orders. The hero retains control of any of her defensive options such as shields or Ghost Armor.

 

What, exactly, does "normal attack rules" include that is not affected by the fact that "the overlord controls the hero"? Can the hero player still upgrade dice with fatigue? Can the hero player play a Feat card to boost the DC attack? Can the hero player sacrifice wounds to boost the attack with Saj's Mark? Can the hero player choose to use his Aim, if he has one ready? (If so, would his Aim cancel out the OL's Aim?) Can Spiritwalker be used?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, I go away for 5 days and this has become a six page thread?

Doesn't everyone realize that once a thread on this forum reaches 4 pages concerning a rules issue, that throws it into the realm of unresolvable? happy.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mahkra said:

 

What, exactly, does "normal attack rules" include that is not affected by the fact that "the overlord controls the hero"?

 

Why, access to all appropriate skills including Rapid Fire, Quick casting, Cleaving and the like, of course, which all kick in after the OL controlled attack (or any other attack the hero has made) has been resolved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parathion said:

mahkra said:

 

What, exactly, does "normal attack rules" include that is not affected by the fact that "the overlord controls the hero"?

 

Why, access to all appropriate skills including Rapid Fire, Quick casting, Cleaving and the like, of course, which all kick in after the OL controlled attack (or any other attack the hero has made) has been resolved.

partido_risa.gif

Only one of those might be part of the normal attack rules! The others may only 'kick in' after an attack has been completed - immediately after in fact, but after, so they are outsidethe attack rules by definition!
Rapid Fire: After making a Ranged attack, you may immediately...
Quick Casting: After making a Magic attack, you may immediately ...
Cleaving: Each time you kill an enemy with a Melee attack, you may spend 1 fatigue to immediately...
Given that Cleaving allows you to make an extra attack, but only immediately, and you can't interrupt an attack mid way through to do another attack, even cleaving is pretty clearly 'after' the attack sequence is complete even if it isn't specific like the others.

Anyway, this is just another red herring not relevant to the main points...
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parathion said:

 

access to ... skills ... which ... kick in after the OL controlled attack ... has been resolved.

 

 

If we're going back to timing, I don't think much can be added to the two concepts already explained in the thread:
1. Rapid fire and the return of control trigger simultaneously (both at the end of the attack), so Rapid Fire can be used.
2. Rapid fire and the return of control are not simultaneous (because they could only be resolved in one order), so Rapid Fire cannot be used.

But if it's actually a question of timing, why have we spent the last 3 pages of this discussion on who has control?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Remy said:

Wow, I go away for 5 days and this has become a six page thread?

Doesn't everyone realize that once a thread on this forum reaches 4 pages concerning a rules issue, that throws it into the realm of unresolvable? happy.gif

If you read it you will see it is resolved, just Parathion can't accept it and keeps throwing weird objections out there - so weird that it is fun to shoot them down (well, more fun than working).

So far we have had
"the OL controls the Hero" doesn't mean that the OL controls the hero because there are some restrictions on what the OL can do"...
"A specific subgroup of activities that the hero retains control of while the OL controls the hero makes it a fairly reasonable assumption that the hero can control other hero activities that are not listed while the OL controls the hero"...
"We can get from 'the OL controls the Hero' to 'the hero player controls the hero' without any change of control (that one isn't from Parathion to be fair)...
"The normal attack rules include things that happen only after the attack has been completed"...
"FFG wording isn't reliably precise so we can ignore it when we want to"...

those just off the top of my head. Note that these are my paraphrases and will probably be claimed as a misrepresentation. It sure has been entertaining... Apparently it's all about virtual dicks, though what use they are I don't have any idea. cool.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Corbon, how do you come to the conclusion that this is resolved? Six people in this thread were coming to the conclusion that RF is perfectly legal after DC, while only four came to the opposite.

Making fun of my and the others´ arguments doesn´t make them go away, and since you are no official from FFG, please stop telling people about "resolved" issues.

Especially since you tend to ignore other peoples´ arguments if they don´t fit to your invented theories.

Example:
"Your control argument is not backed by the FAQ or the rules beyond the fact that the OL controls parts of the DC attack and the hero controls defensive options, is it? Nowhere it is mentioned that the control switches back to the hero after the DC attack nor that this would require any game state changes which would break a chain that includes the term "immediately". You could rather view it as part of the attack just like the other effects you claimed irrelevant, since with the end of the attack the control clearly goes back to the hero."

I can´t find any answer from Corbon regarding this.

@mahkra: The control issue was argued against by me because "full control" led to "need to give that back to the hero, changing the game state, breaking the RF chain", while in truth it´s only "partial control" (or if you prefer "restricted general control") that switches back automatically (or does anyone think the OL has to actively give back the control to the hero).

@Corbon again:
 Look at the Necromancy ability: "...but is now under the control of the hero." - Now, there is clearly a change of control over the newly Necro´ed monster (change from OL control to hero control). By your reasoning, this is a change of a game state ("control over the monster"), thus it would prevent the use of RF after killing and Necro´ing a monster. Seriously? Are you going to argue that this is some different change of control compared to the change of control after DC?

Still Soaring high, you probably need more range... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parathion said:
how do you come to the conclusion that this is resolved?

I think the timing question is pretty much resolved. There are certainly two sides, but I think we've fully developed the reasoning on each side and agreed to disagree. (Potential future rule changes notwithstanding, of course.)


Parathion
said:
The control issue was argued against by me because "full control" led to "need to give that back to the hero, changing the game state, breaking the RF chain", while in truth it´s only "partial control" (or if you prefer "restricted general control") that switches back automatically (or does anyone think the OL has to actively give back the control to the hero).

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm more confused than anything by all of your control arguments. You seem to think the extent of OL/hero control is important, but then your actual reasoning is that RF happens after OL control ends, which is really a timing question. I still haven't figured out why the control arguments actually matter. (I'm curious about the extent of OL vs. hero control for other reasons, but none that really affect this discussion.)


Parathion
said:
Look at the Necromancy ability

Necromancy was discussed already back on page 2. It can very easily be considered to work either way (again, depending on your interpretation of timing issues), so I don't think it's a stumbling block at all in this discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Reply #20:

mahkra said:

I'm not sure how Rapid Fire would work with Necromancy. At first glance, I see two plausible but conflicting possibilities:

  1. Necromancy ends a Rapid Fire chain, because the reanimation occurs after the attack. After that, it's too late for Rapid Fire.
  2. The attack is not fully resolved until after the reanimation occurs (reanimation happens as part of resolving monster death, which is part of step 6 in the JitD attack sequence), at which point Rapid Fire can "immediately" be used.

Sure, this doesn't actually address "the control issue of Necromancy", but I don't know why it's significant that control of a monster changes from the OL to a hero. Yes, that's a change in "game state", but so is applying wounds to a monster, or performing the movement part of knockback, or adding a stun token to a monster. If you consider any of those things part of the attack resolution, then there's no issue with RF. If you consider those as not part of the attack but rather something that happens after the attack, then there is an issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parathion said:

@Corbon, how do you come to the conclusion that this is resolved? Six people in this thread were coming to the conclusion that RF is perfectly legal after DC, while only four came to the opposite.

Making fun of my and the others´ arguments doesn´t make them go away, and since you are no official from FFG, please stop telling people about "resolved" issues.

Especially since you tend to ignore other peoples´ arguments if they don´t fit to your invented theories.

Example:
"Your control argument is not backed by the FAQ or the rules beyond the fact that the OL controls parts of the DC attack and the hero controls defensive options, is it? Nowhere it is mentioned that the control switches back to the hero after the DC attack nor that this would require any game state changes which would break a chain that includes the term "immediately". You could rather view it as part of the attack just like the other effects you claimed irrelevant, since with the end of the attack the control clearly goes back to the hero."

I can´t find any answer from Corbon regarding this.

Making fun of them doesn't make them go away, but I did think that if they were shown in their full glory, together, it might make some realise just how silly some of the objections being raised were.

I apologise. Apparently responding to "your control argument is not backed by the FAQ..." with "The OL controls the hero..." (direct FAQ quote) is not a direct counter. (That was the very next post). Here, I'll explain it to you again.
1. The OL controls the hero - not the not 'the attack', not 'part of the DC attack' - yes, there are restrictions on what he can do, and the Hero player gets to retain a specific subset of options, but still, the OL controls the hero.
2. Agreed, nowhere does it mention that the control of the hero switches back after the attack. OTOH, as italicised in reply #57, you simply can't get from OL control of the hero to hero player control of the hero without there being a handover (whether you call it a handover or return to nomral or some other term). This 'handover is a necessary precondition to using Rapid Fire, since the hero player clearly cannot use Rapid Fire while the hero is under OL control (unless you consider Rapid Fire to be a 'defensive option').
3. If there is a necessary precondition B for item C, and the necessary precondition must happen after A and before C, then C cannot be said to be immediately after A.
4. You can't view it as part of the attack. The OL controls the Hero for  the attack. Control does not revert until after the attack, not during the attack. Similarly, Rapid Fire is not part of the attack, it triggers after the attack.

Parathion said:

@mahkra: The control issue was argued against by me because "full control" led to "need to give that back to the hero, changing the game state, breaking the RF chain", while in truth it´s only "partial control" (or if you prefer "restricted general control") that switches back automatically (or does anyone think the OL has to actively give back the control to the hero).

@Corbon again:
 Look at the Necromancy ability: "...but is now under the control of the hero." - Now, there is clearly a change of control over the newly Necro´ed monster (change from OL control to hero control). By your reasoning, this is a change of a game state ("control over the monster"), thus it would prevent the use of RF after killing and Necro´ing a monster. Seriously? Are you going to argue that this is some different change of control compared to the change of control after DC?

Still Soaring high, you probably need more range... 

The Necromancy issue was covered in posts 20 (Mahkra's option 2, option 1 is incorrect) and 37. Necromancy triggers on monster death, which is during the attack, so the control handover is resolved before the attack is complete. Necromancy has no impact on Rapid Fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mahkra said:

If we're going back to timing, I don't think much can be added to the two concepts already explained in the thread:
1. Rapid fire and the return of control trigger simultaneously (both at the end of the attack), so Rapid Fire can be used.
2. Rapid fire and the return of control are not simultaneous (because they could only be resolved in one order), so Rapid Fire cannot be used.

But if it's actually a question of timing, why have we spent the last 3 pages of this discussion on who has control?

Because 2 negates the use of Rapid Fire and 1 is impossible - it has already been proved that Rapid Fire can't be used while the OL has control, so it can't be used simultaneously with 'return of control' because 'return of control'  initiates with the OL having control (and ends with the hero having control). If you can't initiate C until after B has been completed, then B and C cannot be simultaneous.

The only option available is that somehow the OL having control doesn't negate the hero player initiating Rapid Fire. So that is the angle attempting to be argued.

Which is just not possible to do logically, which is why we are off on tangents all the time. I don't think it is deliberate, just desperate.

 

People still trying to claim 1, need to understand the difference between simultaneous events, which happen at the same time and can be done in any order (but all happen simultaneously), and simultaneous triggers, which lead to events that must be done in a specific order and therefore the events are not simultaneous even though their triggers are.

An example of the first is effect tokens and abilities which trigger at the start of turn (the true start of turn, not 'after equipping at the start of turn or similar, which is midway through the start of turn 'phase'.
Varikas with 1 health, a Burn token, no fatigue and Ghost armour: Both Varikas' special ability (gain 1 fatigue at the start of your turn) and the Burn token (doing damage) act simultaneously, even though we resolve them one at a time. Because Varikas is allowed to choose the order of resolution, he can gain a fatigue first and then use that fatigue and the ghost armour to prevent the wound from the burn token.

The use of Rapid Fire and return of control from Dark Chamr might trigger simultaneously, but their effective use is restricted in order. Yes, the hero player* can choose to resolve Rapid Fire first, then resolve the change of control, but if he does that he can't activate Rapid Fire because he only controls defensive options. So if he wants to use Rapid Fire he must resolve the change of control first. Then he can use Rapid Fire.
However because there is a required step (or resolution) between the trigger for Rapid Fire and the activation of Rapid Fire he is not activating it 'immediately' and cannot meet Rapid Fire's conditions.

*Actually it would be the OL who chooses in which order to resolve things, since it is his turn... So he resolves the Rapid Fire opportunity first, the hero can't pay for it because he only has control of defensive options, and the opportunity for Rapid Firing is lost.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a logical chain of reasoning to think about.

We know that "immediately" may still happen after a game state change: when you hit a monster with an attack, he is killed or wounded, thus the game state has changed, but you can still use Rapid Fire. It must be so because otherwise Rapid Fire would have no use.

Consequently, the argument of not being able to use Rapid Fire because of a game state change is void.

What is, then, the definition of "immediately" in Descent?

If "immediately" doesn't mean "before something else happens" (which it doesn't, according to the above), it can only mean "before the hero does something else": before he moves, drinks a potion, re-equips, activates another skill, declares the end of his turn, or picks his nose.

After a Dark Charm attack, if the hero wants to use Rapid Fire, we must thus answer the question: did he do something else after his Dark Charm attack? Did he move, drink a potion, re-equip, activate another skill, declare the end of his turn or pick his nose?

The answer is clearly that, if he is well groomed, he didn't, thus he may use Rapid Fire.

However, this line of reasoning would prevent the use of Necromancy in the middle of Rapid Fire attacks: the hero kills a monster and decides to activate Necromancy. Did he do something? Yes, he activated another skill, thus he can't activate Rapid Fire any more. The hero would then be better off activating Necromancy only with his last Rapid Fire attack (and thus risk a miss!).

I am not saying this is the only right answer to the problem; it is, however, a possible answer that follows a logical chain of reasoning, which may satisfy some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why noone came to the obviously conclusion to ask a ffg staff guy? 6 sides of discussion about vague rules (anyone who is really playing descent and no other game...should know that) and noone thought of that? guys guys... really cool down... both versions pointed out by isper and carbon might be valid argumentations but nowhere in the offical rules it is clarified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ispher said:


We know that "immediately" may still happen after a game state change: when you hit a monster with an attack, he is killed or wounded, thus the game state has changed, but you can still use Rapid Fire. It must be so because otherwise Rapid Fire would have no use.

Consequently, the argument of not being able to use Rapid Fire because of a game state change is void.

mahkra said:


If you consider any of those things part of the attack resolution, then there's no issue with RF. If you consider those as not part of the attack but rather something that happens after the attack, then there is an issue.

 

Corbon said:


Necromancy triggers on monster death, which is during the attack, so the control handover is resolved before the attack is complete. Necromancy has no impact on Rapid Fire.

+1

Corbon said:


People still trying to claim 1, need to understand the difference between simultaneous events, which happen at the same time and can be done in any order (but all happen simultaneously), and simultaneous triggers, which lead to events that must be done in a specific order and therefore the events are not simultaneous even though their triggers are.

+1

I agree with you on both of these timing issues, Corbon. But I'm presenting both sides as possible because I think some of the people on the other side of the discussion actually do understand the conceptual difference between simultaneous events and simultaneous triggers; they just don't think the rules differentiate between the two. I don't agree with their reasoning, but I'm not sure there's anything plain enough and explicit enough in the rules to incontrovertibly prove their answer is wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ispher said:

Here's a logical chain of reasoning to think about.

We know that "immediately" may still happen after a game state change: when you hit a monster with an attack, he is killed or wounded, thus the game state has changed, but you can still use Rapid Fire. It must be so because otherwise Rapid Fire would have no use.

Consequently, the argument of not being able to use Rapid Fire because of a game state change is void.

Good effort, but your logic is faulty.
A monster being killed is during the attack so the game state change is not 'after' the attack and is not relevant to Rapid Fire. So basing your argument on being able to use Rapid Fire after a monster dies isn't valid.
Killing a monster might often be the last thing that happens during an attack, but it still does not define the end of the attack. Other things can happen after killing a monster that are still part of 'the attack' (Vampiric Blood resolving, for example - we all understand Vampiric Blood to resolve immediately when a monster dies, and to be useable to gather fatigue to pay for cleaving, which by default triggers after an attack ends, as you must complete one attack before you can interrupt with a new attack).
Just to be clear, for Rapid Fire, 'immediately' is after the attack ends, not after a monster dies.

It also is not required to be so (though I agree that it is, in respect that you can use rapid fire after killing a monster) because Rapid Fire would still have a use if you failed to kill a monster in one attack - in fact arguably it would be a much better balanced skill if that was the case!

To be honest, anyway, the game state change thing was a poor early attempt to describe what is happening. The "B is required between C and A, therefore C is not immediately after A" explanation is a much cleaner

Ispher said:

What is, then, the definition of "immediately" in Descent?

If "immediately" doesn't mean "before something else happens" (which it doesn't, according to the above), it can only mean "before the hero does something else": before he moves, drinks a potion, re-equips, activates another skill, declares the end of his turn, or picks his nose.

After a Dark Charm attack, if the hero wants to use Rapid Fire, we must thus answer the question: did he do something else after his Dark Charm attack? Did he move, drink a potion, re-equip, activate another skill, declare the end of his turn or pick his nose?

The answer is clearly that, if he is well groomed, he didn't, thus he may use Rapid Fire.

However, this line of reasoning would prevent the use of Necromancy in the middle of Rapid Fire attacks: the hero kills a monster and decides to activate Necromancy. Did he do something? Yes, he activated another skill, thus he can't activate Rapid Fire any more. The hero would then be better off activating Necromancy only with his last Rapid Fire attack (and thus risk a miss!).

I am not saying this is the only right answer to the problem; it is, however, a possible answer that follows a logical chain of reasoning, which may satisfy some.

Putting aside the errors in logic that invalidate your conclusions, I suggest that it is not reasonable to define 'immediately' as only relating to one side/figure. That would mean, for example, (assuming Rapid Fire could be used) that the OL could play a Dark Charm, attack with the hero, then spawn monsters, then activate monsters and have them kill another hero, freeing up LOS for the previously DarkCharmed Hero, who could then activate Rapid Fire - after all, that hero has not done anything else....

I've been defining 'immediately' as 'nothing else is required to happen for the 'immediate' action to be valid, and only other things that operate off the same trigger but do not affect the 'immediate' action can be done'.
That sounds complicated, but it is actually pretty simple. It means that the only things that can happen that do not break 'immediacy' must be things that are simultaneous and are not required to be resolved in order for the 'immediate' action to happen.
For examples see the Varikas/burn example from reply #89.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Morthai said:

Why noone came to the obviously conclusion to ask a ffg staff guy? 6 sides of discussion about vague rules (anyone who is really playing descent and no other game...should know that) and noone thought of that? guys guys... really cool down... both versions pointed out by isper and carbon might be valid argumentations but nowhere in the offical rules it is clarified.

Why?
Two reasons. First, it is notoriously difficult to actually get answers back from FFG. Descent rules are such a mess of complex interactions that they recognise that their staff simply are not capable/qualified to give accurate answers for the most part, and so simply don't try.
Second, because much of the time, when they gave/give answers, their answers were/are essentially random! They don't understand the issues, don't know the rules well enough, don't have the time to research their answers and have a long history of answers that are outright contradictory to either the rules or other answers they have given.
Just to add to that, they also answer exactly the questions given, and very few people are capable of building a balanced question that still gets to the root of the issue. So the questioner frequently biases the answer, whether deliberately or accidentally. And they also tend to answer the minimum necessary, which often makes more questions in other areas or creates issues of inconsistancy in rules applications as an answer too one question has relevance to other issues and comes in conflict with other rules or other answers.

And the only heat here comes from the outside temperature, being an equatorial region, not from rules discussions. This sort of thing is fun, not something to get angry about... Why on earth get angry about the way someone else plays their game on the other side of the world?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbon said:

Why on earth get angry about the way someone else plays their game on the other side of the world?

Because they don't play it the same way you do... How dare they!enfadado.gif

Human nature is anything but reasonable...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbon said:

Ispher said:

 

Here's a logical chain of reasoning to think about.

We know that "immediately" may still happen after a game state change: when you hit a monster with an attack, he is killed or wounded, thus the game state has changed, but you can still use Rapid Fire. It must be so because otherwise Rapid Fire would have no use.

Consequently, the argument of not being able to use Rapid Fire because of a game state change is void.

 

Good effort, but your logic is faulty.
A monster being killed is during the attack so the game state change is not 'after' the attack and is not relevant to Rapid Fire. So basing your argument on being able to use Rapid Fire after a monster dies isn't valid.

In that case, it is not my logic that is faulty (which is equivalent to saying "you're dumb", thank you very much enfadado.gif), but my definition of when an attack ends. I did not realize the rules made it end after the consequences of the attack were over, but was reasoning with the general cause (attack) - effect (monster dies) definition, in which the effect always happens after the cause.

Corbon said:


Putting aside the errors in logic that invalidate your conclusions, I suggest that it is not reasonable to define 'immediately' as only relating to one side/figure. That would mean, for example, (assuming Rapid Fire could be used) that the OL could play a Dark Charm, attack with the hero, then spawn monsters, then activate monsters and have them kill another hero, freeing up LOS for the previously DarkCharmed Hero, who could then activate Rapid Fire - after all, that hero has not done anything else....

The OL could avoid this by asking the hero "are you done with all your possible options?" after his Dark Charm, before going on. If the hero answers "yes", he can't change his mind later.

What bothers me is that the end of the OL's control over a hero's attack should be "something happening" that prevents a hero's capability, because nothing on the game board changes. It can be argued that this "change of control" is not something happening in the game, but that the only thing actually happening is the attack of the hero through the OL (which changes something on the game board), and the next two things that could happen would be either a Rapid Fire attack from the hero, or the OL taking his next action for his turn, two actions which would also alter the game board.

It can actually be argued (and herewith I do) that your idea of "change of control" is a non-event in game terms, because it changes nothing on the game board.

That's why, if Rapid Fire should be disallowed in this Dark Charm case, I'd have a FAQ clarification like "the hero is not allowed to use any additional offensive capability immediately after a Dark Charm attack" rather than your reasoning based on a definition of "something happening" that, in game terms, might be wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't get it. Dark Charm can only be cast by the overlord on his turn, whilst Rapid Fire may only be activated on the hero's turn,(by spending fatigue, which is something  a DCed hero can't do),so I don't understand how the two effects/attacks can be combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zealot12 said:

I don't get it. Dark Charm can only be cast by the overlord on his turn, whilst Rapid Fire may only be activated on the hero's turn,(by spending fatigue, which is something  a DCed hero can't do),so I don't understand how the two effects/attacks can be combined.

Rapid Fire isn't limited to the hero's turn.

FAQ:
When making a Guard attack, a hero retains access to all appropriate special abilities unless otherwise indicated. This includes abilities such as Cleave, Quick Casting, and Rapid Fire that may grant an extra attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Umm, okay,thanks, I was wrong; Rapid Fire doesn't specify the timing of the attack, but it does say immediately to spend 2 fatigue to make another attack.

Thematically, I wouldn't allow it. Let's put it this way; A Dark Charmed hero is controlled by the overlord, so he attacks involuntarily, and after the spell wears off has no recollection of what he has done(think of it as mind control or hypnosis). Thus he can't access that skill; he  is not aware of the triggering  condition. Just my interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...