Even when charmed, heroes have fatigue.

On what are you basing that conclusion?

If I had to guess it's the same thing I'm basing it on, which is the fact that nowhere in the rules are monsters "required" to have no stamina value. It just so happens that monsters are designed without stamina. The hero isn't, and nowhere does it state that his stamina disappears when he becomes treated as a monster (or that any of his other attributes change.)

It's very similar to how monsters (in general) auto-fail attribute tests because they don't have attributes. However, LT's do have attributes so they don't auto-fail, yet they're still monsters- they're just a special type of monster.

From what I got, a DCed hero is treated as a monster, and monsters have no stamina/fatigue, therefore they cannot receive, lose nor spend fatigue. So technically speaking the hero's fatigue/stamina level has no relevance for the duration of Dark Charm. That's how I would interprete the rules.

From what I got, a DCed hero is treated as a monster, and monsters have no stamina/fatigue, therefore they cannot receive, lose nor spend fatigue. So technically speaking the hero's fatigue/stamina level has no relevance for the duration of Dark Charm. That's how I would interprete the rules.

That is my conclusion as well, but we are still debating and waiting for an official word from FFG.

Even when charmed, heroes have fatigue.

On what are you basing that conclusion?

If I had to guess it's the same thing I'm basing it on, which is the fact that nowhere in the rules are monsters "required" to have no stamina value. It just so happens that monsters are designed without stamina. The hero isn't, and nowhere does it state that his stamina disappears when he becomes treated as a monster (or that any of his other attributes change.)

It's very similar to how monsters (in general) auto-fail attribute tests because they don't have attributes. However, LT's do have attributes so they don't auto-fail, yet they're still monsters- they're just a special type of monster.

No monster is named Elder Mom. But he doesn't change his name. The no spending stamina is clearly to avoid using the card to burn out their staminan and do a more powerful attack. For a hero, that is a good/bad tradeoff. For an overlord controlling a hero, it's only good/good.There's no reason to extend that any farther than that.

There's no reason to believe the syllogism of, "monsters don't have stamina. Therefore, heroes as monsters don't either."

The syllogism would be:

P1: All monsters have no stamina value.

P2: DC'ed heroes are treated as monsters.

C: Therefore DC'ed heroes are treated as having no stamina value.

The argument is valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be), and according to the rules as written, there is no specific evidence suggesting that it is not also sound (all premises are true). So we are waiting on the ruling from FFG, whether or not P1 or P2 is in fact false.

There's no reason to believe the syllogism of, "monsters don't have stamina. Therefore, heroes as monsters don't either."

The syllogism would be:

P1: All monsters have no stamina value.

P2: DC'ed heroes are treated as monsters.

C: Therefore DC'ed heroes are treated as having no stamina value.

The argument is valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be), and according to the rules as written, there is no specific evidence suggesting that it is not also sound (all premises are true). So we are waiting on the ruling from FFG, whether or not P1 or P2 is in fact false.

No monsters have hero abilities.

Leoric, when DC;d is treated as a monster.

Therefore, DC'd Leoric does not have a hero ability.

However, this conclusion has been officially ruled false.

EDIT: Probably a poor example, because monsters have "monster abilities." However, I agree with BentoSan (below,) monsters are not required by definition to have no stamina, they simply happen to not have any.

Even when charmed, heroes have fatigue.

On what are you basing that conclusion?

The fact that no where does it in the rules, cards or erratas does is say they have no fatigue.

It can "feel" like they have no fatigue but that does not necessarily mean they do not have fatigue.

Unless is in the rules clearly states monsters do not have fatigue, then i am mistaken.

There's no reason to believe the syllogism of, "monsters don't have stamina. Therefore, heroes as monsters don't either."

The syllogism would be:

P1: All monsters have no stamina value.

P2: DC'ed heroes are treated as monsters.

C: Therefore DC'ed heroes are treated as having no stamina value.

The argument is valid (if the premises are true, the conclusion must be), and according to the rules as written, there is no specific evidence suggesting that it is not also sound (all premises are true). So we are waiting on the ruling from FFG, whether or not P1 or P2 is in fact false.

P2 isn't false. As others have said, the rules don't define monsters as being things without fatigue. They just don't have it. You're just using certifiably bad logic.

I don't get Christmas gifts on the 4th of July. I didn't get a Christmas gift today. Therefore, today must be July 4th?

1. Let's suppose I, as the overlord, DC a hero who is bleeding. I force him to move one space during a move action. Moving to one space does not cost a fatigue. The bleeding effect causes the hero to suffer one fatigue. Therefore I, as the overlord, did not force the hero to suffer a fatigue.

2. Now suppose, with the DC hero, instead I force him to use a skill (which is against the RAW). To do so would require him to suffer a fatigue caused only by the Overlord. Since I cannot force the hero to suffer a fatigue I cannot use the skill.

3. Suppose I use a move action for the DC hero that moves him into a *swamp* tile (see note below). The *swamp* tile causes any figure to lose 2 stamina. The tile causes the hero to lose the stamina, not the Overlord. The Overlord merely performed a move action which does not cost stamina.

4. Using no. 3 change the wording to hero. The *swamp* tile causes any hero to lose 2 stamina. The figure would not lose any stamina because the DC hero is being treated as a monster while under DC.

Note: Swamp tiles don't exist....yet.

I think it can be understood as simply as:

Heroes have options to improve their actions (move, attack) by using up a limited resource. The limited nature of the resource is the trade-off for them to achieve their benefit. If an Overlord assumes temporary control, that trade-off doesn't exist. They benefit by improving the action and by using up the hero's resource. So you disallow it.

There's nothing special about stamina as such. You can walk a hero into a lava pit, causing them to take damage. In the example above where you entered a swamp, I see no reason why that would not be totally fine.

You can walk a hero into a lava pit, causing them to take damage. In the example above where you entered a swamp, I see no reason why that would not be totally fine.

It depends on if you're using #3 or #4. In #3, it refers to any figure (the same way lava does), in #4, it only refers to heroes, so a hero treated as a monster wouldn't fulfill that condition. That's the key point he was trying to make.

P2 isn't false. As others have said, the rules don't define monsters as being things without fatigue. They just don't have it. You're just using certifiably bad logic.

I don't get Christmas gifts on the 4th of July. I didn't get a Christmas gift today. Therefore, today must be July 4th?

Your example is committing the categorical syllogistic fallacy of exclusive premises , and is therefore invalid. My argument as presented is committing no fallacies, and is ostensibly valid and sound, if both premises are true.

The reason I have asked FFG for clarification is because the quote above from page 13 of the core rules can be interpreted as implying P1. This implication may be unintended or false, we just have to wait and see.

I received a response and have corresponded back an forth with Nathan Hajek Creative Content Director of FFG. The conversation went as follows:

Me:

There is a spirited discussion about Dark Charm going on at the moment: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/106509-dark-charm-and-monster-auras/

My understanding now is that a DC'ed hero is considered a monster for one action, which can only be a move action or an attack action. And that the DC'ed hero otherwise has all of the properties and restrictions of a monster, so can only be affected by affects that target monsters, and cannot be affected by any affect that targets a hero. Also, a DC'ed hero, being treated as a monster, temporarily has no stamina value, and so cannot suffer fatigue to use skills or hero abilities, and will suffer damage whenever affected by an affect which targets a figure or monster and causes fatigue loss.

Essentially Dark Charm, changes a hero into a monster for all intents and purposes, for one move or attack action only.

Is this correct?

Best Regards

Nathan Hajek:

There you have it folks. P1 is indeed false, according to FFG, and my above argument is invalid. My esteemed colleagues are correct that a DC'ed hero is essentially considered a monster that happens to have a Stamina value.

Cheers to all.