Hm.. based on RAW I think the promoted Zombie would be Goligeth. The quest rules say that "the master zombie is Goligeth", and Promotion states that the minion zombie becomes a master zombie. I'm not sure it makes sense thematically, as technically the new master monster isn't the same one and shouldn't have the same name..

I'd e-mail FFG about it for a definitive ruling. I suspect this is another one for errata to cover with something like, "Once a named master monster is defeated, it is henceforth treated as a regular master monster."

"Once a named master monster is defeated, it is henceforth treated as a regular master monster."

Without having read the quest in question, and just based on the information provide, Charmy's statement above is exactly how I would expect to play it. You have to keep in mind that it is nigh impossible for them to keep in mind every card, skill, ability, etc. when designing a quest. I think you have to assume that once Goligeth has been defeated, any other master is now just a regular master monster.

This seems like a real reach of a question to me. The master monster you place at the beginning is Goligeth. Why would that make any other master monster also Goligeth?

I agree with amoshias. With the exception of heroes and lieutenants, whenever a figure is defeated and then summoned/reinforced, it's always considered to be a brand new, distinct figure. That's why the Necromancer can discard his Reanimate with 3 damage and poison, and summon one at full health with no poison- it's a different Reanimate- same with the Wolf, and also with all monsters. "The master zombie is Goligeth" is no different than "the master changeling has +2 health per hero" (think of civilian cards.) Those rules apply only to the monster placed at that time. The monster you place when you reinforce is considered to be a different monster alltogether, and follows only the rules on the monster card.

I would only make exception to this if the quest rules said something like "during this quest, minion cave spiders roll a black defense dice when attacked" because that is a blanket statement about the group for the duration of the quest.

I agree with this ruling.

However, I wish that FFG would cut out the half-hearted wording, like "I'm going to say". I've seen it in other recent rulings too, with them saying things like: "what I would do" or "what it seems to be".

You guys make the game, you make the rules, you make the errata. Nail down what it is, and call the shot dagnabbit!

I agree with this ruling.

However, I wish that FFG would cut out the half-hearted wording, like "I'm going to say". I've seen it in other recent rulings too, with them saying things like: "what I would do" or "what it seems to be".

You guys make the game, you make the rules, you make the errata. Nail down what it is, and call the shot dagnabbit!

If you were asking the quest's writer, that would be one thing. However, the game's Creative Content Designer, Nathan, isn't the person who wrote this quest, as far as I know. Therefore, he has to make the call based on his own knowledge of the game and its rules- it's just that his insight into the game is better than most of ours, as he works with the game on a professional basis.

I also don't mind the language. Nathan has admitted in a few answers that he tends to support "RAW" rather than making changes when it comes to questions. His language (to me) just conveys his interpretations in a friendly way- not necessarily an unsure one.

If you were asking the quest's writer, that would be one thing. However, the game's Creative Content Designer, Nathan, isn't the person who wrote this quest, as far as I know. Therefore, he has to make the call based on his own knowledge of the game and its rules- it's just that his insight into the game is better than most of ours, as he works with the game on a professional basis.

I also don't mind the language. Nathan has admitted in a few answers that he tends to support "RAW" rather than making changes when it comes to questions. His language (to me) just conveys his interpretations in a friendly way- not necessarily an unsure one.

Its quite possible to be both amiable and definitive in a ruling.

For example, if Nathan's e-mail had simply omitted the words "I'm going to have to say", then would it be any less 'friendly'?

If the original quest writer no longer works for FFG, or is for some reason unavailable to answer questions, I don't think that is sufficient cause to be indecisive when it comes to rules questions. FFG as a whole is still the only authority to consult regarding the game and should answer the questions as such: an authority.

I don't think Magic players would be pleased if they asked WoTC a rules question and got back, "I think I would do this" as part of an answer. We shouldn't be satisfied with it either.

It's honestly not that big a deal to me, as I cannot compare this game to an ultra competitive tourney game like Magic. Nonetheless, I would like to see FFG take their rules more seriously. The glossary added to their new rulebooks is a good start, and something I'd like to see them build on.

For example, I don't think we should have to have an "Unofficial FAQ" thread on BGG that is many pages long of their compiled answers to e-mail questions. When they make an e-mail ruling why don't they append it to their errata FAQ and make it a regularly updated document instead of something touched once in a blue moon? Meh, I digress...

I don't mean to get picky, but it's a F AQ, not an "AQ." Just because one person has a rules question doesn't make it an ill-defined point that needs official clarification. However, when you've consistently got people asking questions about the same mechanic (such as when to treat a familiar as a hero) it makes sense to take a moment to rehash that part of the rules. Additionally, I find that a good deal of the things that make it into the document are actual errata- decisions that are made based on the RAW, but not necessarily spelled out yet. Clarifications "can a hero make two attack actions during the same turn?" are usually left out, because the rules already cover them.