Hey there,

it seems there are quite a few questions floating around concerning the desecrated tomb quest in the shadow rune campaign. Here is another question to which I couldn't find an answer online.

The quest guide says that only Sir Alric can damage Khorayt the dragon, and only if he carries the duskblade relic. What happens if Sir Alric is also carrying the Shield of Zorek's Favor?

From the faqs I gathered that Sir Alric is allowed to carry another relic, since the duskblade card isn't actually in play during this encounter. But can the Shield of Zorek's Favor actually damage Khorayt the dragon?

Common sense dictates that the shield shouldnt be able to. After all it is the duskblade that Sir Alric is using that can damage the dragon, but the quest guide says that Sir Alric can damage Khorayt whenever he carries the duskblade. Then again the shield itself doesn't say that it or its weilder causes the damage, but rather that the attacker suffers damage. It gets even more strange when you think about the fact that it is the dragon who is attacking and causing the shield to fire its ability.

At any rate, if Sir Alric can use the shield it would put the heroes at a huge disadvantage, as he has 5 strength and could possibly cause massive damage to the dragon.

What do you guys think?

Q: In "The Dawnblade" and "The Desecrated Tomb," when the quest book says that a hero or Sir Alric is carrying the Dawnblade/Duskblade, is that character actually wielding the item and allowed to use the abilities associated with the relic? If this is the case, is Sir Alric allowed to have two relics in these quests? For example, could he begin the encounter with the Shield of Zorek's favor and then later pick up the Duskblade?

A: No, carrying the Dawn/Duskblade doesn't give you access to its Relic card abilities; it only functions as an item-objective within the confines of the quest. It also does not count toward Alric's relic limit.

Yeah, I read that part of the errata.

If I understood it correctly it means Sir Alric is allowed to carry another relic like the Shield of Zorek's favor.

What I don't understand is whether the Shield could actually damage the dragon in this scenario.

I would lean towards yes. Sir Alric is the one testing Might and causing the damage to occur, even if it's triggered by someone else's attack.

I would lean towards yes. Sir Alric is the one testing Might and causing the damage to occur, even if it's triggered by someone else's attack.

I agree- I don't see any reason that this shouldn't be allowed. Fortunately, "it works well" is not a reason for it to be against the rules. Consider it good strategy, and a bonus for having won the shield.

Thanks for your input guys. I'll discuss this issue further with my gaming group. Personally I think we ought to rule it the other way, meaning Sir Alric can use the shield against the heroes, but not against the dragon.

Sir Alric has a strength of five, so he already is a huge threat to the heroes while carrying the shield. This quest is going to be extremly tough on the heroes, since part of their goal is to strike down Sir Alric and steal the sword.

The card is pretty clear about who it affect

Anyone attacking the leitenant.. if the dragon is attacking the lieutenant then the dragon gets damaged.

Part of this game is gaining an early advantage that will give you further advantage in later quests, the overlord winning the shield relic is giving him an advantage in this quest; an advantage that he has earned through winning the previous quest.

This advantage happens a hell of a lot with the heroes and far less seldom with the overlord. For the most part gaining relics for the overlord is more about making sure the heroes do not get them as opposed to giving him a big advantage - the heroes get waaay more advantage out of obtaining relics than the overlord does. So by not allowing the advantage of the shield being used to damage the dragon in this quest you are further disadvantaging the overlord for winning the relic which he doesn't get a lot of advantage using anyway.

So far the overlord has made a lot of use of that darn shield. It has been a big advantage to say the least.

Personally, I think it makes this quest unplayable for the heroes, but like I said I will discuss it with my gaming group.

I am not sure if there could be a definite correct ruling without an official word from FFG. The problem lies with the wording in the quest guide. I don't know what the original quest guide says, since we are playing the German version of Descent, but the translation has two things to say about the dragon:

1. Khorayt is not affected by the standard rules for monsters.

2. Sir Alric Farrow is the only figure who can damage Khorayt and only if he carries the duskblade.

My interpretation would be that Khorayt cannot be damaged by anything since damaging a monster would be part of the standard rules for monsters. The only way to damage Khorayt is through Sir Alric Farrow and only if he is carrying the sword.

And this is where the main problem is. The German translation says Sir Alric needs to carry the sword, not use it. Common sense dictates he needs to use the sword to kill the dragon. The sword is what is lethal to Khorayt and nothing else.

But then I am also biased on this issue since I am on the heroe's team. Maybe we should try this scenario twice with both rules just to see how it plays out.

1. Khorayt is not affected by the standard rules for monsters.

2. Sir Alric Farrow is the only figure who can damage Khorayt and only if he carries the duskblade.

My interpretation would be that Khorayt cannot be damaged by anything since damaging a monster would be part of the standard rules for monsters. The only way to damage Khorayt is through Sir Alric Farrow and only if he is carrying the sword.

And this is where the main problem is. The German translation says Sir Alric needs to carry the sword, not use it. Common sense dictates he needs to use the sword to kill the dragon. The sword is what is lethal to Khorayt and nothing else.

You can seek an official answer if you like, but now that you've spelled out your reasoning, I absolutely disagree with it. The use of the shield on Khorayt has nothing to do with "standard rules for monsters," as the shield doesn't specify monsters at all- it's triggered by an attack being resolved- by anyone- hero, monster, figure, whatever. And, since Alric is carrying the shield, it would still be his figure damaging Khorayt, which is specifically allowed by the rules, so long as he is carrying the duskblade- and the quest guide goes out of its way to clarify that the duskblade doesn't count as his 1 relic, explicitly allowing him a relic in addition to the duskblade.

I would, however, grant that the shield has no effect on Khorayt if Alric is not carrying the duskblade. Since he's not carrying the sword, he has no ability to do any damage to the dragon. As the heroes, your job would be to get the sword away from him- immobilize him if you can, his movement is poor. Also, position yourselves appropriately so he can't overpower his way through you all. In terms of the shield, however, I think you just have to deal with it- those are the consequences of letting the overlord get that relic.

Cheers guys, thanks for all the input.

I wasn't actually trying to get an official answer, I just thought it would be great to have some second opinions on this issue.

This is one of the few cases where the Descent rules can feel slightly odd. It just feels thematically wrong to me.

If that darned dragon is allergic to the sword then shouldn't Sir Alric use the sword and nothing else to kill it?

On the other hand this is Descent. I understand that theme and logic are not always first priority here.

Just like when the knight gets immobilized, yet still moves around the board using his skills.

Or Shadow dragons spill fire around corners like cruise missiles.

Or Hell hounds are being parked sideways to block the path for the heroes.

Anyway, thanks again for the help!

The German translation says Sir Alric needs to carry the sword, not use it.

So does the English version.

The German translation says Sir Alric needs to carry the sword, not use it. Common sense dictates he needs to use the sword to kill the dragon. The sword is what is lethal to Khorayt and nothing else.

If that darned dragon is allergic to the sword then shouldn't Sir Alric use the sword and nothing else to kill it?

On the other hand this is Descent. I understand that theme and logic are not always first priority here.

Both of these thoughts are putting too much emphasis on what is effectively a rumor as retold by some long-gone spirit embedded in flavor text in a game and then trying to apply mechanics onto it instead of taking the mechanics and rules as written and applying a theme onto them.

For example, perhaps it's not actually that Khorayt is only vulnerable to the sword, but that the sword provides an aura to the wielder that allows the wielder to harm the dragon. These prophecies always seem to get a bit mangled in the telling and someone (possibly said distressed spirit) may have just noticed that the only person damaging the dragon before was using the sword to do so, so misinterpreted it in the chaos that was their own demise.

As an addendum, almost every time someone references "common sense" they generally only demonstrate that they think everyone else must think exactly the same way they (and possibly their small group of friends) do and that anyone who thinks differently must be an outlier or wrong. They are also almost always wrong about it being such a "common" way of thinking.

Are you the overlord or the player in this instance ?

If you are the player then its possible that you are letting your bias get in this way, this happens a lot, you are no orphan.

As an addendum, almost every time someone references "common sense" they generally only demonstrate that they think everyone else must think exactly the same way they (and possibly their small group of friends) do and that anyone who thinks differently must be an outlier or wrong. They are also almost always wrong about it being such a "common" way of thinking.

If I did think that way I wouldn't have gone to a forum and ask for other people's opinions.

I thought we rules were unclear in this case and I wasn't sure if this issue was due to possible mistranslations, especially since the wording on the shield never said who is dealing damage to whom.

I wasn't trying to prove anybody wrong, nor call them by bad names. If I did, I sincerly apologize.

What I did try to say was that as far as story or theme goes, this ruling seems a bit out of place.

But as the dude would say, that's just my opinion, man. And I'm glad I got some more from you guys.

The last game night was canceled unfortunately, but as soon as we get a chance to play this scenario I will let you guys know how it turned out.

Cheers!

I thought we rules were unclear in this case and I wasn't sure if this issue was due to possible mistranslations, especially since the wording on the shield never said who is dealing damage to whom.The last game night was canceled unfortunately, but as soon as we get a chance to play this scenario I will let you guys know how it turned out.Cheers!

The language is a bit unclear about "who" is dealing damage, but since the item is carried by a particular figure (and that figure tests the might to determine the damage,) I agree with most in this thread that the damage comes from that figure. Do let us know how the quest turns out.

Not to just be a devil's advocate, but I would strongly disagree with Sir Alric being able to equip both relics.

1: It does state in the Quest Guide, that he carries the Duskblade relic. I don't believe this should be open for interpretation. It's quite clear in the rules of what a relic is, leaving no confusion. There is also a blue objective token to represent who has the Duskblade, if he is knocked out and a Hero or Monster picks it up.

2: It states under Relics in the rule book, that a Lieutenant may only equip one relic, and it must be decided during the time of the board being set up. In other words, prior to whomever's first action.

Sir Alric may only equip the Duskblade relic for this encounter, and he may not equip any other relic.

- Would be my interpretation.

I would agree with you, Tasressurect, had there not been a response ( http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/838098/the-desecrated-tomb-can-sir-alric-farrow-use-the ) referenced earlier in the thread, stating that the duskblade doesn't count as his one allowed relic.

I find that just a tad bit bizarre. Certainly they couldn't have renamed the objective relic as something else to avoid confusion?

Call it the Master Sword, or what not.

I actually did, on my first Campaign, wield two relics for a single Lieutenant to discover later on that it wasn't intended. Thus my response.

Yeah, the use of the "relic" keyword in the quest description is a bit misleading. They should probably have referred to it as 'The "Duskblade" token' until you got to the rewards. Based on FFG's responses, that's probably how you should treat it.

Hey guys,

I just wanted to report back from our last gaming night. After some discussion our overlord agreed that the heroes would stand no chance in Desecrated Tomb and decided to just pick a different quest. I don't think I mentioned beforehand that this was our first quest in Act II, so our heroes were relieved to play something that seemed a bit easier.

Thanks for all the help and input, it was greatly appreciated.

mail with ffg

Desecrated Tomb II: Can anything else than Alric's attack harm Khorayt ? For example, what if he wears "Shield of Zorek's Favor" ? Do Khorayts own attacks harm him ?

Answer:

I believe the intent was that only Sir Alric Farrow’s attacks could harm Khorayt. I would play that way.

Thanks,

Nathan Hajek
Creative Content Developer
Fantasy Flight Games

I believe the intent was that only Sir Alric Farrow’s attacks could harm Khorayt. I would play that way.

Thanks,

Nathan Hajek

Creative Content Developer

Fantasy Flight Games

This situation has never arose for me since I always try to avoid Death on the Wing, but I'd still go with RAW in this case. I agree with most of this thread that if the Overlord won the shield, he definitely earned it, and he rarely gets bonuses like this.

Nathan's e-mail is not even a ruling on this matter, merely a statement of preference.

I'm guessing he didn't want to pronounce a definitive ruling with eventual FAQ errata backup since the best person to answer this question would be Adam Sadler, one of the original designers at the time of Shadow Rune.

Hey guys,

I just wanted to report back from our last gaming night. After some discussion our overlord agreed that the heroes would stand no chance in Desecrated Tomb and decided to just pick a different quest. I don't think I mentioned beforehand that this was our first quest in Act II, so our heroes were relieved to play something that seemed a bit easier.

Thanks for all the help and input, it was greatly appreciated.

This is weird to me. I've always viewed Descrated Tomb as essentially a freebie for the heroes - one of the ones that they had almost no chance to lose. You may want to suggest to your heroes that they reconsider their skills and items leading to the finale if they they think that Desecrated Tomb is difficult. Or, you may NOT want to suggest that to them :-)

I agree with amoshias. If obviously depends on several factors, but in general I don't think Desecrated Tomb is that difficult for the heroes. I also don't see a problem with the shield damaging Khorayt, though I respect Nathan's ruling.

The Desecrated Tomb is the wierdest and worst written quest in the whole shadow-rune campaign. There are a ton of unnatural and weird situations, all which are not even mentioned.

1.) Khoryat is treated as a shadowdragon, yet has not even shadow. Why they write specifically "shadowdragon"?

2.) Khoryat is a dragon that attacks bad guys and is activated after the last heroes turn, yet his moves are acted out by the OL who can decide to spend the surges in the weakest way possible. This is such a mess. He activates at the end of the heroes' turn like any allies of the heroes. He attacks the bad guys, like any other ally of the heroes. Yet everything he does is acted out by the OL. Why couldn't they just write that he activates at the start of OL's turn? Would have made things much clearer imo.

3.) As the OL acts out Khoryat, he decides how to spend surges. Luckily the small detail that he has to spend every surge was erratad (I don't see how they could've forgotten to mention that). Nevertheless that's where it gets ridiculous: Khoryat tries to kill the one holding Dawnblade? He only really tries if it's a hero who can't even harm him, the one that tries to kill him suffers the least damage possible. The weilder of the dawnblade nearly kills the dragon? Better use firebreath instead of +dmg to kill the heroes who didn't even scratch the dragons pawns.

4.) There is no restriction of OL cards you can play on the dragon. The dragon attacked the only threat really hard? Better reroll the die and hope for less damage/a miss. The dragon attacks the heroes without the blade? Add surges and +dmg cards to burn them. The lieut. is attacking the dragon and Khoryat makes a good defense roll? Better play a card to reroll that roll hoping for less shields.

how thematic.

I really wish they could write the whole text again and at least mention if these things are legal/intended or not.

btw. I don't think this quest is an easy win for the heroes. If the OL draws good OL cards in the first encounter and this is the first Act II quest (or you don't have an Act II weapon because of poor shop-draws) it gets pretty hard. The way you can reinforce in the first encounter and the fact every hero has to get back to the exit can get extremely problematic if you can't easily kill the monsters and the OL's tripwires do their job.

Then the OL needs only a dash and a frenzy and the quest is nearly won, especially considering all the Khoryat stuff.

It's one of the reasons I don't particularly like The Shadow Rune campaign, I much prefer to play Nerekhall or Labyrinth. It's obvious it's their first try at writing a campaign with their new rule set and they didn't have a great grasp of their own mechanics quite yet.