Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Moneseki

Dark charm and rapid fire

Recommended Posts

zealot12 said:

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.

Thematically, would you allow a skeleton at the end of the hall to shoot a hero in a pit at the other end of the hall?  Because per RAW that is allowed.  Pits only affect the LOS of figures in them, they don't affect the LOS of other figures to the figures in the pit.

Thematically, would you allow a monster using Soar to block the path for other figures (enemy or allied) who are on the ground?  Because per RAW, walking creatures are still not allowed to end in spaces occupied by a Soaring figure, and enemies still can't walk through him.

Thematically I agree with you, the hero should not be able to use Rapid Fire after a Dark Charm, however, the rules as written seem to lean the other direction, and this would hardly be the first time Descent failed to make sense thematically.  If you want to house rule things for your own game, no one here is going to stop you.  But at this point I think it's pretty unlikely that we'll get an official ruling to go that way, short of getting a "no it won't work" answer in the FAQ.

IIRC, spending fatigue to gain movement points is the only thing a hero explicitly can't do in the OL's turn.  Spending it to use skills is still fair game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea, you're right, the game doesn't make a lot of sense thematically, and the balance between mechanics and thematics is nowhere to be found, which is why house rules are needed.

I wouldn't allow a figure to end its movement in a space occupied by a creature with Soar, simply because physically, it's not possible to position two plastic figures on the same space. For the same reason, I wouldn't, say let two figures  be flung into the same one-space  pit;  since there's no way to represent that on the map. 

As for figures passing through a space containing a soaring creature, sure, why not; makes sense to me-it's hovering above ground at a considerable altitude(4 range is required to reach it).

The rule regarding figures inside pits would have made more sense had it been true that some part of the body is sticking out and visible to others, but since the hero in the pit only has LOS to figures adjacent to him and he can't be killed by a boulder rolling over the pit, then the rules shouldn't suggest him as such an easy target for a remote sniping monster.

 There are definitely many thematic inconsistencies in the game, allowing for a myriad of housemade  micro-rules and exceptions for every conceivable situation, but these would only complicate and bog down gameplay had they been put in writing and made official by the developer. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ispher said:


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.

 

+1.

Better argued than I could. I always viewed that the "change of control" belonged to the resolving of the DC card itself and was not necessary to be explicitly spelled out.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ispher said:

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.

 

 

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.

 

<sigh> saying your logic is faulty is not calling you dumb. It is saying there is a fault in your logic - in your 'logic chain' if that makes you fell better.

I'm sorry you were mistaken about when an attack ends. Your reasoning was reasonable, but simply not correct.
Just in case you are being sarcastic and still don't get it (apologies if you do), check out the attack sequence in DJitD on pgs9-11. Step 6 is inflicting wounds, and part of the inflicting wounds step is placing wound tokens on the attacked monster. And a monster is killed when the number of wound tokens equals or exceeds its wound rating. Therefore the monster dies during step 6, which is during the attack and not after the attack.
For further evidence of this you have effects that can happen after a figure 'dies' which still happen 'during' the attack, not after. See FAQ pg9 which states that  "A: Other effects take place after wounds are dealt... " and includes knockback and divine retribution. Yet death happens during the dealing of wounds, so these other effects happen after death (in the case of divine retribution, obviously!).

If you think any OL is always going to ask the heroes if he is done with all his possible options, at all points in the game, you need to put away whatever it is you are smoking! (note: this is a joke, I'm not accusing you of being a pothead!)

Ispher said:

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.

 

 

Ok, that is at least a reasonable argument that addresses the actual issue rather than going off on a tangent.
I don't think it stands up to scrutiny though, for two reasons.
First, you are artificially defining things that are 'important' (with respect to 'immediacy') as being only stuff on the game board. That means, for example, that if the OL plays a Dark charm before his spawn step, and the hero wishes to 'hold' his Rapid Fire in case something nastier gets spawned, then when the OL spawns nothing and activates his first monster, before anything has changed on the board the hero can activate his Rapid Fire and shoot. I don't think that is reasonable and I surely don't think that is 'immediate'! But by your definition it is. Frankly, immediate means immediate and affects timing and sequencing, not 'game board changes'. I've played, often, in games where the entire OL turn consists of draw two cards and 4 threat and say 'your turn'. Nothing on the game board changes! No, I think your definition is artificial, fundamentally wrong and horribly flawed.
Second, I see your 'immediacy' definition failing the A->B->C test. If C must happen immediately after A, yet cannot happen until B happens, which is also after A, then C cannot, by definition, be 'immediately' after A. This, to me, is a fundamental of immediacy. I have yet to see anyone even try to address this point.

'My definition' of 'immediate' says 'everything' blocks immediacy, with the exception of things which are 'simultaneous'.
Simultaneous things must have the same trigger (this goes to timing) and be resolvable in any order (this goes to sequencing).
If something cannot be resolved before something else, then the two are not simultaneous. Again, I think that is a fundamental of simultaneity.

Is this definition of immediate not as close to 'immediate' as can be gotten? No artifical exceptions (I think the one exception is necessary to avoid even more potential mess with multiple things which must happen and must be immediate)?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've been lurking on these forums for a while and never really had the urge to contribute to any discussions being done or people already made my arguments for me so there was no need. I feel I have a couple things to say about this though that haven't been said (or last appear to not have been). This'll probably be a long post too, so bear with me.

@Corbon: If I'm interpreting what I've read correctly, you are of the position that the attack sequence ending (after step 6) is the triggering condition for Rapid Fire. This is your definition of Attack. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

One interpretation of Attack in this game could be after the dice have been rolled and finalized (re-rolls have been done, fatigue used, etc.) after Step 5 but before damage (and wounds) is dealt , ie before Step 6. The dice have been rolled so the attack has happened, regardless of the result. I believe others do interpret it this way, especially Ispher, and I see it as a valid way of interpreting the rules. I don't view it this way, but I see it as valid. English does allow for this interpretation if I understand my English lessons correctly.

Assuming that I'm correct with my assumption about your definition of attack I'll continue.

1) The passing of control back to the hero player never needs to happen after the attack sequence ends. It could be the last part of Step 6. It's never defined when it happens. By your definition of Attack, it would still be valid to use Rapid fire if control is passed back during Step 6.

2) I have always been under the assumption that the Hero Player always has control of the Hero. Dark Charm is an exception to the rule. The things the FAQ say the Overlord may NOT do are just clarifications. They also do not state that a hero is restricted in his fatigue use. This would mean a hero could spend fatigue to add dice to the Dark Charm attack (for example). The Overlord would get final say in how it's used, but the hero could (I can't think of a time a hero would want to, but it's still possible). As for the FAQ entry, I believe that using control in the first sentence means that the overlord determines how the surges and enhancement get used. Not that he gets complete control of the hero. Note: Abilities like Inner Fire or Landrec's ability are always on and must be used whenever that Hero makes an attack regardless of who attacks with him. Hero abilites and skills are tied to the hero, not the hero player. (Clarification in case people want to argue against the Overlord being able to use them.)

3) Is it my imagination or does Rapid Fire not specify when the extra attack can be use? Could a hero make a Guard attack and spend 2 fatigue to make an attack later during the Overlord's turn thereby getting more, essentially, Guard Attacks? I had another #3, but it's late and I've forgotten.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that Rapid Fire should not be allowed solely because I feel it undermines Dark Charm. Of course I may be influenced by the fact that I play it almost every session and have it work at best half the time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solairflaire said:

I've been lurking on these forums for a while and never really had the urge to contribute to any discussions being done or people already made my arguments for me so there was no need. I feel I have a couple things to say about this though that haven't been said (or last appear to not have been). This'll probably be a long post too, so bear with me.

@Corbon: If I'm interpreting what I've read correctly, you are of the position that the attack sequence ending (after step 6) is the triggering condition for Rapid Fire. This is your definition of Attack. Correct me if I'm wrong here.

Welcome de-lurker!
Rapid Fire: After making a Ranged attack, you may immediately...
So yes, Rapid Fire triggers after the attack ends. I can;t see how anyone can reasonably claim Rapid Fire triggers before an attack ends.

Solairflaire said:

One interpretation of Attack in this game could be after the dice have been rolled and finalized (re-rolls have been done, fatigue used, etc.) after Step 5 but before damage (and wounds) is dealt , ie before Step 6. The dice have been rolled so the attack has happened, regardless of the result. I believe others do interpret it this way, especially Ispher, and I see it as a valid way of interpreting the rules. I don't view it this way, but I see it as valid. English does allow for this interpretation if I understand my English lessons correctly.

Check DJitD pg9. The attack rules specify a 6 step attack sequence. I can't see how anyone can reasonably claim that an attack ends before all 6 steps have been completed,, regardless of whether general english would allow for that. General english is over-ruled by specific rules sequences.

Solairflaire said:

1) The passing of control back to the hero player never needs to happen after the attack sequence ends. It could be the last part of Step 6. It's never defined when it happens. By your definition of Attack, it would still be valid to use Rapid fire if control is passed back during Step 6.

Sorry, I can't see how that is possible. If we are still in step 6 then the atack has not been completed. If the attack has not been completed, not only is RF not yet triggered, but the hero is still controlled by the OL.

Solairflaire said:

2) I have always been under the assumption that the Hero Player always has control of the Hero. Dark Charm is an exception to the rule. The things the FAQ say the Overlord may NOT do are just clarifications. They also do not state that a hero is restricted in his fatigue use. This would mean a hero could spend fatigue to add dice to the Dark Charm attack (for example). The Overlord would get final say in how it's used, but the hero could (I can't think of a time a hero would want to, but it's still possible). As for the FAQ entry, I believe that using control in the first sentence means that the overlord determines how the surges and enhancement get used. Not that he gets complete control of the hero. Note: Abilities like Inner Fire or Landrec's ability are always on and must be used whenever that Hero makes an attack regardless of who attacks with him. Hero abilites and skills are tied to the hero, not the hero player. (Clarification in case people want to argue against the Overlord being able to use them.)

The FAQ clearly and specifically says, in two separate answers, that the OL controls the hero (for the attack) - which means that the hero player does not control the hero and the trigger for returning control is the end of the attack. The hero player is also specifically allowed to retain control of 'defensive options', which basically means the hero player does not get to retain control of any non-defensive options! So no, I don't think the hero can legitimately spend fatigue to add extra dice. He does not have control of that option.

Solairflaire said:

3) Is it my imagination or does Rapid Fire not specify when the extra attack can be use? Could a hero make a Guard attack and spend 2 fatigue to make an attack later during the Overlord's turn thereby getting more, essentially, Guard Attacks? I had another #3, but it's late and I've forgotten.

It is not your imagination (I don't think). Paying for the attack must be immediate, but using it does not. However, without a Guard action to trigger an 'interrupt' I don't see (for sure) how the hero can use the attack during the OL's turn. He doesn't automatically have the right to make attacks during the OLs turn even if he can acquire them.

Thanks you for contributing, even if I think your points were wrong, mostly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbon said:

If you think any OL is always going to ask the heroes if he is done with all his possible options, at all points in the game, you need to put away whatever it is you are smoking! (note: this is a joke, I'm not accusing you of being a pothead!)

Not at all points; only at the points where it would be obvious that the hero (or someone else) wants to do something. If a Rapide Fire attack were allowed after a Dark Charm attack, then it would be such a point.

We actually ask quite often "are you done?" to the OL, and he also asks the question to us. Maybe we are too polite.

Corbon said:

Ispher said:

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.

 

 

Ok, that is at least a reasonable argument that addresses the actual issue rather than going off on a tangent.
I don't think it stands up to scrutiny though, for two reasons.
First, you are artificially defining things that are 'important' (with respect to 'immediacy') as being only stuff on the game board. That means, for example, that if the OL plays a Dark charm before his spawn step, and the hero wishes to 'hold' his Rapid Fire in case something nastier gets spawned, then when the OL spawns nothing and activates his first monster, before anything has changed on the board the hero can activate his Rapid Fire and shoot. I don't think that is reasonable and I surely don't think that is 'immediate'! But by your definition it is.

It indeed isn't. But change my definition to "immediate = before someone (one of the 5 players) does something" instead of just the hero, and it works perfectly. The OL doesn't even need to ask the hero whether he's done any more (since you wanted to avoid that)!

Corbon said:

 

 

Frankly, immediate means immediate and affects timing and sequencing, not 'game board changes'. I've played, often, in games where the entire OL turn consists of draw two cards and 4 threat and say 'your turn'. Nothing on the game board changes! No, I think your definition is artificial, fundamentally wrong and horribly flawed.

 

By "game board" I didn't mean only the board placed on the table, but every material aspect of the game: dice rolling, card drawing, threat gaining... You're just not trying to get my point at all, and even worse, with your "I think your definition is artificial, fundamentally wrong and horribly flawed" you sound like a religious integrist. When nothing changes materially in the world, it is not "fundamentally wrong" to say nothing has happened.

Corbon said:

 

Second, I see your 'immediacy' definition failing the A->B->C test. If C must happen immediately after A, yet cannot happen until B happens, which is also after A, then C cannot, by definition, be 'immediately' after A. This, to me, is a fundamental of immediacy. I have yet to see anyone even try to address this point.

 

Let us imagine that a hero is equipped with a cursed armor that would say, "After any attack you make, you lose 1 Health." He would make his attack, lose 1 Health... And then, according to your definition, he wouldn't be able to use Rapid Fire because something already happened after his first attack, thus the use of Rapid Fire wouldn't be immediate any longer!

Maybe you will argue that this is how you'd play it, but I think most Descent player would agree that the hero in question can use Rapid Fire as many times as usual, losing 1 Health after every attack.

This is only one example, but because of such kind of possibilities, I think "immediacy = before one of the players does something else" is a better definition than "immediacy = before something else happens", regarding the use of skill cards like Rapid Fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ispher said:

By "game board" I didn't mean only the board placed on the table, but every material aspect of the game: dice rolling, card drawing, threat gaining... You're just not trying to get my point at all, and even worse, with your "I think your definition is artificial, fundamentally wrong and horribly flawed" you sound like a religious integrist. When nothing changes materially in the world, it is not "fundamentally wrong" to say nothing has happened.

Not everything in the game is recorded physically, though. When a hero ends his turn, he flips over a physical marker. But when the OL ends his turn, nothing "materially" changes. Does that mean a hero ending his turn ends immediacy but the OL ending his turn does not?

 

Ispher said:

Let us imagine that a hero is equipped with a cursed armor that would say, "After any attack you make, you lose 1 Health." He would make his attack, lose 1 Health... And then, according to your definition, he wouldn't be able to use Rapid Fire because something already happened after his first attack, thus the use of Rapid Fire wouldn't be immediate any longer!

Actually, by Corbon's definition of immediacy (which I haven't really put any thought into analyzing, but at a glance it seems like a pretty good one) there's not a problem because those things happen simultaneously. The important thing to realize here is that one effect is not dependent on the other; they could  be resolved in any order without breaking anything. The DC/RF issue is different because two things (transfer control and rapid fire) have the same trigger but can only be resolved in one order. That means they're not simultaneous; they're consecutive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mahkra said:

Ispher said:

 

By "game board" I didn't mean only the board placed on the table, but every material aspect of the game: dice rolling, card drawing, threat gaining... You're just not trying to get my point at all, and even worse, with your "I think your definition is artificial, fundamentally wrong and horribly flawed" you sound like a religious integrist. When nothing changes materially in the world, it is not "fundamentally wrong" to say nothing has happened.

 

Not everything in the game is recorded physically, though. When a hero ends his turn, he flips over a physical marker. But when the OL ends his turn, nothing "materially" changes. Does that mean a hero ending his turn ends immediacy but the OL ending his turn does not?

 

Oops. I feel stupid. The OL doesn't have an "I'm done with my turn" marker, but all of the hero markers flip back. So my example is blatantly wrong.

Despite my poor example, though, the point remains that not everything is recorded physically. And I do have a better example:
When a hero declares an action (Battle / Advance / etc.), that doesn't actually change anything physically in the game, but I can't imagine it's not "something happening" in terms of game mechanics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mahkra said:

Ispher said:

 

Let us imagine that a hero is equipped with a cursed armor that would say, "After any attack you make, you lose 1 Health." He would make his attack, lose 1 Health... And then, according to your definition, he wouldn't be able to use Rapid Fire because something already happened after his first attack, thus the use of Rapid Fire wouldn't be immediate any longer!

 

Actually, by Corbon's definition of immediacy (which I haven't really put any thought into analyzing, but at a glance it seems like a pretty good one) there's not a problem because those things happen simultaneously. The important thing to realize here is that one effect is not dependent on the other; they could  be resolved in any order without breaking anything. The DC/RF issue is different because two things (transfer control and rapid fire) have the same trigger but can only be resolved in one order. That means they're not simultaneous; they're consecutive.

That's a problem that has been debated in length in another thread: when two simultaneous things occur, you can choose which happens first. That would mean that the player could fire his second attack before losing his Health point consecutive to his first attack, and threfeore be able to go on firing even though he should be dead.

My opinion in this other thread was that players should let things that are triggered (that "just happen") take place first, after which they have the option of doing things ("let things trigger before acting" so to say). That would avoid bizarre shenanigans like described above, or stuff like reequipping at the beginning of one's turn before damage tokens like Bleed resolves. I don't remember if an official decision was taken about this debate though. Most probably not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ispher said:

Corbon said:

 

If you think any OL is always going to ask the heroes if he is done with all his possible options, at all points in the game, you need to put away whatever it is you are smoking! (note: this is a joke, I'm not accusing you of being a pothead!)

 

 

Not at all points; only at the points where it would be obvious that the hero (or someone else) wants to do something. If a Rapide Fire attack were allowed after a Dark Charm attack, then it would be such a point.

We actually ask quite often "are you done?" to the OL, and he also asks the question to us. Maybe we are too polite.

We did too, for a while, but it quickly became tiresome and pointless, especially as the 'opportunities' to do stuff expanded with Feats. Now we just butt in when we want to do something and rewind, after assesing whether it was reasonable.
For example, last session I had a card ready to play during teh OL's start of turn phase (which means any time before he activates his first monster). I was actually holding it up ready to play, but waiting to see if the OL spawned or not, since that would clue me in to whether he was going to act this turn and my Feat (Sparks of Pain) would be useful. As he played the spawn, another discussion happened and I forgot to play the card. When he activated his monster with a charge card, I asked if I could still play my card, winding back. Since I had been obviously prepared to play it, and had a logical reason to do so, he generously allowed me to. We play nice, but excessive politeness started to slow us down too much...

Ispher said:

It indeed isn't. But change my definition to "immediate = before someone (one of the 5 players) does something" instead of just the hero, and it works perfectly. The OL doesn't even need to ask the hero whether he's done any more (since you wanted to avoid that)!

It doesn't work perfectly. Indeed, I already posted more than one an example where it would fail.
The OL plays DC after his draw phase and before his spawn phase ( a good time to play it as if he kills a hero his spawning opportunities are improved). After the attack the hero doesn't immediately activate Rapid Fire because he want's to see if the OL spawns or not. The Ol goes through his entire spawn step without spawning and when he enters his activation step the hero, under your definition of 'immediate' still activate Rapid Fire because nobody has done anything. Yet an entire step has been done since the attack. Attack during Step 1, activation during Step 3, with no player doing anything in between. Sorry, that is not immediate. Your definition still doesn't work IMO.

Ispher said:

By "game board" I didn't mean only the board placed on the table, but every material aspect of the game: dice rolling, card drawing, threat gaining... You're just not trying to get my point at all, and even worse, with your "I think your definition is artificial, fundamentally wrong and horribly flawed" you sound like a religious integrist. When nothing changes materially in the world, it is not "fundamentally wrong" to say nothing has happened.

I am gettin your point, I just insist that you articulate it correctly. I will only respond to the actual 'rule' you make, not the rule you are trying to make. Anything else is both guesswork on my part and unfair on the part of anyone in the furture should a 'rules says A but means B' get accepted.
You, OTOH appear to have pretty much ignored half of mine, since your example of what why mine wouldn't work (next paragraph) is completely wrong.

I don't actually know what a religious integrist is, although it sounds like an insult. It does seem disturbing though, that any sort of integrity could be a bad thing.
To answer your last point there, somethin has happened in the world (change of control), you are just choosing to count it as unimportant because it isn't a change activated by a player.

Ispher said:

Let us imagine that a hero is equipped with a cursed armor that would say, "After any attack you make, you lose 1 Health." He would make his attack, lose 1 Health... And then, according to your definition, he wouldn't be able to use Rapid Fire because something already happened after his first attack, thus the use of Rapid Fire wouldn't be immediate any longer!

Maybe you will argue that this is how you'd play it, but I think most Descent player would agree that the hero in question can use Rapid Fire as many times as usual, losing 1 Health after every attack.

This is only one example, but because of such kind of possibilities, I think "immediacy = before one of the players does something else" is a better definition than "immediacy = before something else happens", regarding the use of skill cards like Rapid Fire.

As pointed out by Mahkra, you got my definition all wrong.
I'm not sure why it is so important for a bunch of people that something happening that is not directly caused by a player shouldn't be able to break a sequence? Why not? Really?
(unless the result is driving the logic, rather than the logic driving the result)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ispher said:

 

That's a problem that has been debated in length in another thread: when two simultaneous things occur, you can choose which happens first. That would mean that the player could fire his second attack before losing his Health point consecutive to his first attack, and threfeore be able to go on firing even though he should be dead.

My opinion in this other thread was that players should let things that are triggered (that "just happen") take place first, after which they have the option of doing things ("let things trigger before acting" so to say). That would avoid bizarre shenanigans like described above, or stuff like reequipping at the beginning of one's turn before damage tokens like Bleed resolves. I don't remember if an official decision was taken about this debate though. Most probably not.

My understanding was that when things happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is can choose in which order to resolve them.


The thing about Rapid Fire and DC is that two things both have the same trigger. The trigger is the attack ending, and the two things are control reversion and Rapid Fire activation.

Now in theory, since they appear to be simultaneous (since they have the same trigger) you can resolve them in any order. Fine, no problem. We try to resolve the Rapid Fire first. Wait, we can't because if control hasn't reverted, then the OL still has control and the hero can't exercise Rapid Fire.

Therefore, the two things, although they have the same trigger, must be sequential. And if they are sequential, they are not simultaneous.

With control reversion required first, then Rapid Fire is no longer 'immediately' after the end of the attack. Control reversion is immediately after the end of the attack and only things that are simultaneous with control reversion can also be immediately after the attack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, this "control passing" that seems to be the crux of this discussion, why are people viewing it as separate from the attack?  Sure, you can say that Rapid Fire requires hero control and thus, because the attack passes control back to the hero, the order of events is  A->B->C and rapid fire is no longer immediate, but the problem with that argument is that the hero receives control back from the overlord as part of the resolution of the attack. 

At every point before the attack is over, the overlord is in (admittedly limited) control.  At every point after the attack is over, the hero is in control.  There is no in-between point where control "changes hands" like some sort of discrete interrupting event.  Furthermore Descent rules have never defined such a control change as any kind of actual game-recognized event.

It's obvious that any number of immediate events will fire off of the same trigger and can all occur at once: Cleaving + Master Monster bounty, for example.  Thus, the only way that Rapid Fire would not be legal is if something happened after a Dark Charm attack that preempted the skill's trigger.  This "control change event" you guys have put forward (I'm assuming imported from other games where such things are important and thus defined?) doesn't actually exist as per the rules of Dark Charm or the rules of Descent. If you could point to an example where the Overlord's control extended past the point of the attack resolving, I would be convinced, but that control ends at the exact moment that the attack ends, without requiring some kind of hand-off.  Thus, at the moment the attack ends, the hero player is in control of the hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thundercles said:

So, this "control passing" that seems to be the crux of this discussion, why are people viewing it as separate from the attack?  Sure, you can say that Rapid Fire requires hero control and thus, because the attack passes control back to the hero, the order of events is  A->B->C and rapid fire is no longer immediate, but the problem with that argument is that the hero receives control back from the overlord as part of the resolution of the attack. 

At every point before the attack is over, the overlord is in (admittedly limited) control.  At every point after the attack is over, the hero is in control.  There is no in-between point where control "changes hands" like some sort of discrete interrupting event.  Furthermore Descent rules have never defined such a control change as any kind of actual game-recognized event.

It's obvious that any number of immediate events will fire off of the same trigger and can all occur at once: Cleaving + Master Monster bounty, for example.  Thus, the only way that Rapid Fire would not be legal is if something happened after a Dark Charm attack that preempted the skill's trigger.  This "control change event" you guys have put forward (I'm assuming imported from other games where such things are important and thus defined?) doesn't actually exist as per the rules of Dark Charm or the rules of Descent. If you could point to an example where the Overlord's control extended past the point of the attack resolving, I would be convinced, but that control ends at the exact moment that the attack ends, without requiring some kind of hand-off.  Thus, at the moment the attack ends, the hero player is in control of the hero.

Your argument is that the change of control is the attack ending, rather than triggered by the attack ending?

I'm not sure if I agree, but it is an infinitely better argument than any other yet proposed.
I don't think I can come up with any real argument against it other than the obvious, "umm, the two things are different, they can't be the same thing. Simply can't. They can trigger at the same time, but they are not the same thing."

Incidentally, the 'change of control' isn't imported from anything (at least to my knowledge). It is just a fundamental. At one point, the OL has control. At another point, the hero has control. Ergo, there must be a change of control happening somewhere in between those two points. You can't get from X to Z without passing through Y - even if Y is an abstract event that hasn't been defined or isn't discreet.

Although the change of control hasn't been defined as a game-recognised event, that doesn't preclude it from existing and affecting the game.
I don't, for example, think that spending surges to boost a blast area results in a game-recognized event that makes the area affected by the attack bigger before the surges are actually spent* - yet we expect to allow surges to be spent on Fear that isn't part of the attack until surges are spent because the Fear-ed monster is in an expanded blast area. Clearly, we consider there to be a non-recognised game event that expands the area of the attack before the surges are spent, if the player announces he plans to spend those surges that way.
*We generally believe that surges are all spent together at the end of step 5 because we do not allow spending surges for fatigue and then using that fatigue to add extra dice - after all, the OL can still play a dodge and you could lose those surges you already spent!
I'm sure there are other non-game-recognised events scattered through the game that we use without thinking about.

Note also that "any number of immediate events will fire off of the same trigger and can all occur at once" is covered already by using the simultaneous exception as previously shown.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMO, what dark charm says,

"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."

cleary states to me that the overlord never takes control of the hero. If you read it word for word, he only forces the hero to make 1 attack that he declares, which is the first step in the normal attack rules, which the card also refrences.

I know the FAQ/errata states the overlord in fact does "control" the hero, but per the words of the card he would in fact only control the first step. I'm only saying this because the card states the attack follows the rules of normal attacking, and declare attack is step 1.

As for Rapid Fire, with reference to the FAQ/errata, the hero is making the attack (whether under control of the overlord or the "hero" player), and the card does state,

"After making a Ranged attack, you may immediately spend 2 fatigue to make 1 additional attack with the same weapon this turn. You may use this ability multiple times, paying its cost each time."

This again clearly states to me that you do not need to control the attack or the hero, but simply must be in control of the skill, and it be attached to the hero making the attack.

Even though the player may lose control of the hero, he does not lose control of the skill, ergo if the hero attacks (regardless if it is controlled by the "hero" player or the overlord) the player controlling the rapid fire skill may use it.

Again, just my opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lordviper69 said:

IMO, what dark charm says,

"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."

cleary states to me that the overlord never takes control of the hero. If you read it word for word, he only forces the hero to make 1 attack that he declares, which is the first step in the normal attack rules, which the card also refrences.

I know the FAQ/errata states the overlord in fact does "control" the hero, but per the words of the card he would in fact only control the first step. I'm only saying this because the card states the attack follows the rules of normal attacking, and declare attack is step 1.

As for Rapid Fire, with reference to the FAQ/errata, the hero is making the attack (whether under control of the overlord or the "hero" player), and the card does state,

"After making a Ranged attack, you may immediately spend 2 fatigue to make 1 additional attack with the same weapon this turn. You may use this ability multiple times, paying its cost each time."

This again clearly states to me that you do not need to control the attack or the hero, but simply must be in control of the skill, and it be attached to the hero making the attack.

Even though the player may lose control of the hero, he does not lose control of the skill, ergo if the hero attacks (regardless if it is controlled by the "hero" player or the overlord) the player controlling the rapid fire skill may use it.

Again, just my opinion.

The FAQ, as you admitted, clearly states that the OL controls the hero for the attack. It not only doesn't say that he only controls step 1, it also doesn't work if he only controls the first step of the attack. He has to control the whole attack - he rolls the dice, chooses how to spend surges, (both explicitly specified by the FAQ) etc.
Further, the FAQ explicitly says that the hero player retains control of defensive options. That very strongly implies, without outright saying so, that the Hero player does not retain control of anything else. Since Rapid Fire is not a defensive option, the hero player does not retain control of it.
However that is slightly beside the point since Rapid Fire does not trigger until after the attack anyway. At which point the hero player is back in control.
The issue is that Rapid Fire must be immediately after the attack. So it is the timing/sequencing of Rapid Fire vs control change that is the defining issue I believe (and for some, the very existence of 'control change').
The whole 'who is in control of what' thing was a complete red herring caused because people were desparately flailing at any argument they could find, whether relevant or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If that is true corbon, than the overlord can in fact use rapid fire.

As far as the hero player is concerned it seems to be a moot point, seeing as how your gonna be dark charmed at the start of his turn, before monster activation, and you were gonna rapid fire a monster down, you would have done it on your turn.

only in very specific situations, say with mordrog, could i even see the use of rapid fire by the hero even coming up on a dark charm. Every hero i have seen with rapid fire mows down whatever is near him on his turn, every time.

again, just opinion on my part.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lordviper69 said:

1. If that is true corbon, than the overlord can in fact use rapid fire.

2. As far as the hero player is concerned it seems to be a moot point, seeing as how your gonna be dark charmed at the start of his turn, before monster activation, and you were gonna rapid fire a monster down, you would have done it on your turn.

3. only in very specific situations, say with mordrog, could i even see the use of rapid fire by the hero even coming up on a dark charm. Every hero i have seen with rapid fire mows down whatever is near him on his turn, every time.

again, just opinion on my part.

1. No, because the OL cannot spend fatigue, and it costs fatigue to activate Rapid Fire. Further, Rapid Fire triggers after the attack and the OL controls the hero only for the attack. So by definition, Rapid Fire cannot trigger while the OL controls the hero due to both cost and timing.

2. There are many situations in which the Rapid Firing hero has not already wiped out every monster in sight. The hero may have Run, and had no attacks with which to activate Rapid Fire. The OL may have spawned more monsters (he can play Dark Charm any time before he actvates his first monster as 'start of turn' includes everything before the Activation Step) - usually he could not spawn within Hero LOS, but if the Hero had Precision or Crack Shot monsters could have spawned in locations the hero can attack but not see.

3. In general, I think the whole point is a little bit silly, even if a very interesting discussion, because a Hero wih Rapid Fire is almost always not the best hero to Dark Charm anyway. Generally speaking Melee heroes do more damage (even to themselves through their own heavy armour) and magic heroes often have AoE weapons - there is nothing better than a Dark Charm which catches multiple heroes in an AoE attack!
So a hero with Rapid Fire not only has one less 'combat bonus' skill option (he has used one up with Rapid Fire, which doesn't add to a single attack), but also naturally has the lowest damage potential per attack generally anyway!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbon said:

 

 

1. No, because the OL cannot spend fatigue, and it costs fatigue to activate Rapid Fire. Further, Rapid Fire triggers after the attack and the OL controls the hero only for the attack. So by definition, Rapid Fire cannot trigger while the OL controls the hero due to both cost and timing.

2. There are many situations in which the Rapid Firing hero has not already wiped out every monster in sight. The hero may have Run, and had no attacks with which to activate Rapid Fire. The OL may have spawned more monsters (he can play Dark Charm any time before he actvates his first monster as 'start of turn' includes everything before the Activation Step) - usually he could not spawn within Hero LOS, but if the Hero had Precision or Crack Shot monsters could have spawned in locations the hero can attack but not see.

3. In general, I think the whole point is a little bit silly, even if a very interesting discussion, because a Hero wih Rapid Fire is almost always not the best hero to Dark Charm anyway. Generally speaking Melee heroes do more damage (even to themselves through their own heavy armour) and magic heroes often have AoE weapons - there is nothing better than a Dark Charm which catches multiple heroes in an AoE attack!
So a hero with Rapid Fire not only has one less 'combat bonus' skill option (he has used one up with Rapid Fire, which doesn't add to a single attack), but also naturally has the lowest damage potential per attack generally anyway!

1. The FAQ entry only states the Overlord may not spend fatigue to add to the attack. It never states he can't spend fatigue for other things, like Rapid Fire, which does not add to the attack. Unless I missed another entry which prohibits it somewhere.

3. This discussion also applies to Quick Casting and one of the Marks from SOB and possibly Cleaving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solairflaire said:

1. The FAQ entry only states the Overlord may not spend fatigue to add to the attack. It never states he can't spend fatigue for other things, like Rapid Fire, which does not add to the attack. Unless I missed another entry which prohibits it somewhere.

3. This discussion also applies to Quick Casting and one of the Marks from SOB and possibly Cleaving.

1. Good point. Raid Fire does not add to the attack. Stll, it is not triggered until after the attack so the OL still can't trigger it.

3. The same timing issue applies to Quick Casting - it Triggers after an attack so not at a time when the OL has control.
Cleaving is a little more complicated as it is badly worded. It doesn't say 'after' the attack but it does say that you immediately make an extra attack. Since you can't interrupt in the middle of one attack to make a second one, clearly the trigger for cleaving is also (immediately) after an attack, meaning the OL shouldn't have control.
The Mark's are an interesting new angle that is not addresses in any way.
It is my judgement, based on nothing more than general gaming principles, that the OL should be prevented from using any limited resource (fatigue, wounds, one use items etc) while in temporary control of a hero - including (especially) when enslaving a hero.
Note that Parathion previously supplied this quote from Dan Clarke (official FFG rules source) about enslavement that was apparently lost during the change over to the current forum.
Most of the restrictions that apply with "Dark Charm" also apply here.

The overlord may declare an action for the hero. He may move the hero and make attacks as allowed by that action. (He may even place and spend order tokens such as Aim!)

He may not force the hero to do any of the following: spend fatigue, spend health, drink potions, and (? - discard?) items. He may also not force the hero to make an attack that includes himself in the area of effect. He may, however, re-equip the character following normal rules provided he does not violate any of these restrictions.

~Dan Clark
Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally agree the Overlord should not be allowed to use those hero resources either. I was mostly just pointing out that it is allowable with what most people have available. I think I may have seen that letter in a different post at one time.

Your chain of reasoning follows as such.

A ) DC Attack > B) Overlord relinqueshes control > C) Other Things can now happen (like Rapid Fire, except it can't)

B) interupts the chain so immediate after attack effects may not happen.

Why can things not happen between A and B? There are things that can interupt at any time (like spending fatigue for certain abilities). Why not then?

You mentioned that Rapid Fire would allow extra attacks after a guard order but the hero couldn't use them because he could no longer interupt the overlord. Technically, this would negate the use of Rapid Fire on guard orders, which is expressly allowed in the FAQ.

Also, your interpretation of Attack forbids the use of the Overlord card Dodge and probably a couple feat cards (Blocked and Evade?). Dodge must be used after a hero has attacked. Unless I'm mistaken, by your definition, it would have to be used after Step 6 of the attack sequence, which will be after the attack is over and re-rolls on that attack couldn't happen anymore. The attack is over. Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere in that reasoning. (This was supposed to be my #3 before.)

Also, I would like to officially state that this Forum Software is really really bad. (I would say harsher, but there are kids out there, somewhere.)

I know there was a favorite site you guys use for looking up the cards and stuff. Could you provide a link for me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Solairflaire said:

I personally agree the Overlord should not be allowed to use those hero resources either. I was mostly just pointing out that it is allowable with what most people have available. I think I may have seen that letter in a different post at one time.

1. Your chain of reasoning follows as such.

A ) DC Attack > B) Overlord relinqueshes control > C) Other Things can now happen (like Rapid Fire, except it can't)

B) interupts the chain so immediate after attack effects may not happen.

Why can things not happen between A and B? There are things that can interupt at any time (like spending fatigue for certain abilities). Why not then?

2. You mentioned that Rapid Fire would allow extra attacks after a guard order but the hero couldn't use them because he could no longer interupt the overlord. Technically, this would negate the use of Rapid Fire on guard orders, which is expressly allowed in the FAQ.

3. Also, your interpretation of Attack forbids the use of the Overlord card Dodge and probably a couple feat cards (Blocked and Evade?). Dodge must be used after a hero has attacked. Unless I'm mistaken, by your definition, it would have to be used after Step 6 of the attack sequence, which will be after the attack is over and re-rolls on that attack couldn't happen anymore. The attack is over. Correct me if I'm wrong somewhere in that reasoning. (This was supposed to be my #3 before.)

4. Also, I would like to officially state that this Forum Software is really really bad. (I would say harsher, but there are kids out there, somewhere.)

5. I know there was a favorite site you guys use for looking up the cards and stuff. Could you provide a link for me?

1. Things can happen between A and B. Just not things that can only happen after B. And, until the attack ends, not things that happen after the attack (which may or may not be simultaneous with B).

2. Good point. Perhaps because the hero player is in control (interrupting the OL's turn) at the time, he gets to declare when his interrupt attack is over and therefore can choose the order of things triggering off that event? Obviously he choose to resolve his 'immediate' attack before handing over control. Perhaps this is, in fact, a good back up point for the whole hand over of control/trigger/timing concept. Alternatively, the hero gets to use Rapid Fre because the rules/FAQ specify he can, so actual sequencing and resolution is immaterial. 
I'm starting to tire and get fuzzy now, so there could be holes I'm missing (I get the feeling there are, and you are making some interesting new points that have relevance, only it's relevance to 2-3 steps back into the discussion and my brain won't go there now...)

3. Yes, these cards are very badly worded. They are clearly triggered sometime during step 4 or step 5 of the attack sequence (ie after dice have been rolled but before step 6 is started), by their very nature.
I don't think that the inept wording (that we see often from FFG*) on these cards is enough to stop the basic fact that an attack is a 6 step sequence and anything that happens definitively 'after' the attack cannot happen before the end of the 6 steps. ...Unless it obviously happens mid-attack! gran_risa.gif
DJitD pg9
Whether the attacker is a hero or a monster, all attacks follow these steps:
* I feel these are similar in nature to Tahlia's special. Clearly, and clarified by FFG, her ability actually gives MP rather than allows her to move X spaces, but the people writing some of the extra stuff aren't technically capable or are working from out-of-date rulebooks (see the pdf rulebook's explanation for orders, which ses this incorrect language for movement, contrary to the same rulebooks language for actually moving). Another example of this was a Hellhound boss in RtL who was given '1 additional Burn' - yet hellhounds dont get burn (bosses get Aura), so he couldn't possibly get 'additional' burn - obviously the writer used an out of date (pre-release) set of rules where Hellhounds did have burn.

4. That makes you forum user #908263827 to say so.

5. http://www.descentinthedark.com/index.php
It isn't entirely error free, but it is pretty close, an excellent resource.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just to continue arguing an increasingly moot point: the transfer of control from OL to Hero player must happen as part of the resolution of the attack, or there would be some discrete moment after the attack where the OL has control.  Neither the FAQ nor the original card say that the OL has any control over the hero at any point after the attack.  We could (and, in fact, should) say that the transfer of power is simultaneous with the end of the attack, not with Rapid Fire itself.

The way simultaneous events off the same trigger work is that they are handled in whatever order the controller chooses: this is not in question (and could sink my entire argument, now that I think about it).  However, there is a lot of precedent that shows that a stack of simultaneous events can trigger something without preempting and nullifying any subsequent events: using the Skull Shield on a damaging lingering effect, for example, or the Guard action interrupting any of the OL's "start of turn" events, or even Aura, Lava, and the Skull shield preventing damage from one of them.  In fact, if a hero triggers a stack of effects (like lingering bleed and fire tokens) and has a response that triggers off of one or any number of them, he can wait to see how they all play out before committing to responding to one of them.  If you had two bleed tokens and the Skull Shield and wanted to negate bleed damage, you could reasonably wait until both are rolled before deciding whether to use the Shield and on which token (if the first one rolls one wound and the second rolls an X, for example).

Though one could argue that the transfer of control must happen after the attack ends (in the same way that it must happen before Rapid Fire), it's not actually true.  The OL's input ends at determining how surges and power enhancements are spent: when we're determining wounds (step 6), there is nothing to control.  Furthermore, like I said before, there's no point before the attack ending that the OL does not control, and there's no point after the attack ending that the Hero player does not control: thus, the control transfer and the attack ending are simultaneous and inexhorably linked.

To reiterate, the attack resolves and control is transferred simultaneously, according to the way the rules and FAQ are written.  Thus, triggering Rapid fire off of the attack "ending" is legal, because the hero is in control at the moment Rapid Fire would be triggered, even if the OL says that the attack resolves before he relinquishes control, since simultaneous events don't preempt each other.  I still don't believe that the control change event even exists, but if it does, it's simultaneous to the attack ending and thus cannot preempt Rapid Fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thundercles said:

 

To reiterate, the attack resolves and control is transferred simultaneously, according to the way the rules and FAQ are written. Thus, triggering Rapid fire off of the attack "ending" is legal, because the hero is in control at the moment Rapid Fire would be triggered, even if the OL says that the attack resolves before he relinquishes control, since simultaneous events don't preempt each other.

 

 

The control change is a point of discontinuity. Yes, it's a point, which means it does not take up any finite amount of time. So for all time leading up to that, the OL is in control. For all time after that, the hero is in control. RF is an ability that the hero must trigger at that exact point of discontinuity, though, and any reasoning that would (erroneously) claim the hero has control at that exact point could also be used to (erroneously) claim the OL has control at that exact point. As a point of discontinuity, it's impossible to define who has control at that exact point.

I think that if you can't say the hero has control, then you can't use RF, even if you can't say the OL has control, either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mahkra said:

The control change is a point of discontinuity. Yes, it's a point, which means it does not take up any finite amount of time. So for all time leading up to that, the OL is in control. For all time after that, the hero is in control. RF is an ability that the hero must trigger at that exact point of discontinuity, though, and any reasoning that would (erroneously) claim the hero has control at that exact point could also be used to (erroneously) claim the OL has control at that exact point. As a point of discontinuity, it's impossible to define who has control at that exact point.

I think that if you can't say the hero has control, then you can't use RF, even if you can't say the OL has control, either.

At the end of the attack, during step 6 where only defensive options can be used such as Shields or Ghost Armor, the hero has de facto regained control, since he controls all his defensive options. Consequently, a control change would de facto happen just before step 6, thus before the end of the attack... And consequently, Rapid Fire would be legal, because the hero player is already in full control of all possible options of his hero before the end of the Dark Charm attack.

Of course, the FAQ says that "The overlord controls the hero for that attack", and an attack is supposed to be an entire attack. But, since it also says "The hero retains control of any of her defensive options such as shields or Ghost Armor", it either contradicts itself (since the OL is not in control of step 6 of the attack), or it is written as if "attacking" was only the "firing off" part (the "cause" as I wrote a dozen messages earlier, the wound inflicting being the effect).

Neither the Dark Charm card itself nor the FAQ are written clearly enough to forbid the use of Rapid Fire after a Dark Charm attack, so we do need an official FAQ answer if we can't.

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...