I just got Serena as my first plot deck and I'm looking for tips on how to use the deck effectivly with the shadows of nerekhall campaign. Also anything else I might need to know about using a plot deck for the first time. Thanks.

I don't have any specific experience with Serena's deck. Things to note about plot decks in general:

Read the rules about obtaining them/ spending them. Heroes only get to keep fortune until the end of a quest- you get to keep threat until you spend it.

When a plot card says "hero," it ONLY means the 4 heroes in the party. Reanimate, allies, wolf, NPCs treated as heroes- none of those are affected.

While I don't have Serena's Plot Deck myself, I can say that while most of her cards are underwhelming, Brethren seems particularly excellent. In every campaign, including Nerekhall, there are many times when you want your creatures to move quickly across the map to accomplish objectives. The ability to, at the cost of a single threat and a monster action, effectively give a monster in the same group the Dash card is just *huge* . You can even use this in conjunction with Dash for ludicrous results (e.g. Razorwing moving 24 squares). This could potentially swing many quests in the Overlord's favor dramatically, particular any quests which are races or where you are ferrying an objective, as the action can be used to pick up the objective as well.

Even better, Brethren can also allow any of the monster Action abilities to be used more frequently, so it is not just useful for rapid movement. (e.g. Bashing a hero 3 times with the same troll sounds like fun!)

Of course, if the monster isn't Civilized (which is likely..), then its one additional threat at the start of the quest to trigger Diplomatic and you're golden. Make use of this card!

Most of her other cards seem too threat intensive to be worthwhile. Its important to consider that every time you spend threat you are also giving the Heroes valuable fortune. The rerolls alone can be a big deal, but if you end up giving them entire actions or multiple shop cards you could be sealing your doom. This is why I favor plot decks which are either low threat expenditure (or 0 threat expenditure: Bel'thir!) or have cards that are truly game changing like Gargan Mirklace's Crushing Exhaustion.

I do like the look of Oath of Silence if given to the right monster, like an Ironbound. Positioned well, that could be pretty potent healing for your whole attack force and will definitely frustrate Hero parties that deal efficient spread damage (e.g. Parties with Andira Runehand, parties with Bard's Dissonance, etc.)

Pacify isn't bad either. 1 threat for a clutch Stun without trait limitations, nor requiring damage dealt (unlike normal condition attacks) is neat! If timed right, this could save a quest for you.

All in all, Serena looks fun. I think I might pick her up at some point, even if just for Brethren alone.

Let us know how you fare with her.

I have a question about Brethren.

If a monster has Ravage, and I give him a 3rd action, can it be an attack action?

BTW, I think Traveler's Rest is an excellent card.

I have a question about Brethren.

If a monster has Ravage, and I give him a 3rd action, can it be an attack action?

That's a good question. Personally, I'm inclined to say "no." The traditional wording of Ravage says "both actions may be attacks." Both implies 2, so a third action granted by any effect would be excluded, to my mind.

If the ability said "All actions may be attacks," that would be different.

I agree with Steve-O. The word "both" clearly implies that it is only 2 attack actions regardless of how many additional actions are granted.

BTW, I think Traveler's Rest is an excellent card.

I like the card, but its very expensive. 3 threat to buy, and another 2 threat every time it is used, and only lasts a single turn, so it could only be used sparingly..

On further consideration though,I can recall situations where if the party couldn't fatigue move for even one turn, it would have really hurt them, such as when monsters with melee Ravage are around, or if they are just shy of an objective with normal movement.

Good point. Pretty cool.

The word "both" clearly implies that it is only 2 attack actions regardless of how many additional actions are granted.

Well, but the Ravage definition was made a long ago, maybe before they even thought monsters could perform more than two actions for some reason.

Nope. "Frenzy" and "Dash" both came out with the base game. A monster with Ravage very definitely could attack, attack, and then frenzy could let it attack a third time, but that is only because frenzy specifically allows an additional attack. If a monster is just allowed an additional action, it is still bound by the 1 attack per turn limit- or in the case of a monster with Ravage, 2 attack limit.

What Frenzy and Dash have to do with this topic? Those cards give an additonal action thas is specifically one type of action with no restrictions. Brethren gives and adittional free (in the sense of do-whatever-you-want) action, wich is a completely (in my mind) different thing.

What Frenzy and Dash have to do with this topic? Those cards give an additonal action thas is specifically one type of action with no restrictions. Brethren gives and adittional free (in the sense of do-whatever-you-want) action, wich is a completely (in my mind) different thing.

The difference is that "Frenzy" specifically allows an attack above and beyond the restrictions. When it just says "one more action" that does nothing to remove the restriction on the number of attacks a monster can perform per turn. Therefore, that third action granted by brethren can't be an extra attack - it could be a move, open or close a door, or a special action that doesn't contain an attack. My comment about "Frenzy" and "Dash" was in your response to your suggestion that maybe "Ravage" came before the possibility of monsters performing more than 2 actions, since they are a way for monsters to perform extra actions that were around from the release of the game.

My point in all of this is that "Ravage" only raises the "number of monster attacks per turn" limit from 1 to 2. Granting the monster "an extra action" does not raise that limit any higher.

So what abaut Splig "Get them" action?

What Frenzy and Dash have to do with this topic? Those cards give an additonal action thas is specifically one type of action with no restrictions. Brethren gives and adittional free (in the sense of do-whatever-you-want) action, wich is a completely (in my mind) different thing.

The difference is that "Frenzy" specifically allows an attack above and beyond the restrictions. When it just says "one more action" that does nothing to remove the restriction on the number of attacks a monster can perform per turn. Therefore, that third action granted by brethren can't be an extra attack - it could be a move, open or close a door, or a special action that doesn't contain an attack. My comment about "Frenzy" and "Dash" was in your response to your suggestion that maybe "Ravage" came before the possibility of monsters performing more than 2 actions, since they are a way for monsters to perform extra actions that were around from the release of the game.

My point in all of this is that "Ravage" only raises the "number of monster attacks per turn" limit from 1 to 2. Granting the monster "an extra action" does not raise that limit any higher.

I don't see it that way. For me, Ravage doesn't increases the limit from 1 to 2, but from 1 to all . The use of the word both could be just for being two the normal amount of actions a monster can do, as so was all the way until Serena Pack was released. It's just a way of redaction, not a restriccion of any kind. At least, in my mind, as I said... Not only that, but the word both has only sense when we are talking of two actions, no more. Yo can't say normally "you have three actions, both of them can be attacks". It's just a nonsense. If they say "Ravage: two of your actions can be attacks", or "Ravage: all of your actions can be attacks", there is no question, two different meanings completely accurate worded. But saying both , I see a problem when you increase the normal two actions per activation to three. Maybe I'm being just too complicated, but one attack more could make a big difference!!

So what abaut Splig "Get them" action?

With "Get Them", every monster affected performs an attack out of his activation , so there is not a problem. This special skill goes over the rules specifically.

And now, I have another question regarding other Serena's card: Oath of Silence. It says that, when activated, the selected monster can't perform actions that are not move actions . What about special actions that grant a move action ? I think the answer is no, but I prefer to see more opinions, just in case.

Pretty sure that If the action is not a 'move' action you cant do it. Gaining MP or gaining a move action as a result of another action is inherently not a move action.

I don't see it that way. For me, Ravage doesn't increases the limit from 1 to 2, but from 1 to all .

I don't see how you can get 'all' from the word both. Since RAW isn't 100% airtight in its wording (a common issue in these rulebooks..), you have to also consider intent. Normally monsters only get two actions, one of which may be an attack. Ravage allows both of those two actions to be an attack. Yes, they didn't have any cards/abilities that would allow additional actions without caveats in the base set, but that doesn't change the intent.

As cards like Frenzy and Flurry have demonstrated, any time the game wants to grant additional actions that can be attacks, they specify it clearly. You are welcome to e-mail FFG about this one, but I'm nearly certain they will corroborate this. If they wanted it to work differently they could have easily said:

Ravage: All of this monster's actions may be attack actions.

And now, I have another question regarding other Serena's card: Oath of Silence. It says that, when activated, the selected monster can't perform actions that are not move actions . What about special actions that grant a move action ? I think the answer is no, but I prefer to see more opinions, just in case.

I think the rules are pretty clear here. Even if all a special action did was simply: "The monster performs a move action", it still can't be used. This is because the special action in itself is not a move action, and thus violates the Oath of Silence.

I agree with Charmy on both counts here. Just like you can't play "Frenzy" on an elemental to perform a "Fire" action, you can't use "Oath of Silence" to perform a special action containing a move action.

I fully support asking FFG whether the intent of the "Ravage" keyword is to completely remove the 1 attack limit, or to raise it from 1 to 2. However, until such time as I see otherwise, my reading of "both" equates to "two instead of one."

Luckily, just like Splig's "Get Them," Rylan's "Influence" also operates outside the limits of that monster's activation, so it isn't an issue there, either.

There is base game precedent for a monster having 3 actions during a single activation in the base game- Lady Eliza can sometimes perform 3 actions in encounter 2 of "Blood of Heroes." In that case, the rules explicitly specify that up to 2 of those 3 actions can be attacks (though she does not have the "Ravage" keyword.)

So can a monster use an attack action and a special ability that grants an attack such as Bandits "pillage" or elemental's "fire"? Rule wise it would be an attack action and a special ability action so it seems like you could.

Well, as I'm not english, maybe my translation of 'both' is not very precise, but for me, 'both' doesn't mean "exactly two", but "all of them in the case there are two", that's my point. I think I'll better ask FFG. Sorry for not trusting you, folks.

So can a monster use an attack action and a special ability that grants an attack such as Bandits "pillage" or elemental's "fire"? Rule wise it would be an attack action and a special ability action so it seems like you could.

Rules specifically state that a special action that contains an attack counts as the only attack action a monster can normally perform during one activation.

I constantly re-evaluate plot decks for use in campaigns, and Serena's plot deck has never been a problem for me to ditch straight away.

First of all, plot decks based around a monster type are automatically threat-heavy unless you´re lucky to pick the correct monsters in every quest. Giving a free re-roll per encounter and 1 less threat token to spend on abilities just to "enable" one monster group for MAYBE receiving another threat-heavy effects has never seemed appealing to me.

For this particular plot deck, most effects are highly situational, but that's a common trend for many other plot decks. Brethren seems the best by a good shot, though, to make one monster cover a large distance in one turn, but that also requires a civilized monster, so that restricts the usability of the card quite a bit unless you´re willing to pay the extra threat on Diplomatic. That's a lot for an extra move, but if it can grant you a win then why not.

Traveler's Rest is too expensive and is not fun card to play. Denial or discard abilities should not be in that game. Players should have choices and ways to interact with abilities instead of suppressing them alltogether.

Power in Mourning seems like a must-have if you plan on using this deck. You need a lot of threat tokens.

Lifegain effects in the case of monsters have always seemed underwhelming to me, bar Mend on Skarn maybe since he´s a big guy so keeping him alive is a big deal. But giving back 2HP on a monster? Is the 2HP significant enough to force more than one attack to defeat the monster? Not in most cases. 2HP is a nothing if the monster is still alive.

I would typically pick this plot deck if I wanted to give myself access to these effects for some reason, but do not actually plan on using them unless I fell into one of these very situational moments. What you can do however is planning on using the Agent, since she "only" replaces one master monster. Serena seems very fragile to me though, but if you play with Infector class maybe you could use her surge. Still, a shooter with only 3 move points doesn't seem very strong to me.

You need to know that I am very sceptical to the plot decks concept though, because of the Threat/Fortune system, but if you have no problems giving free re-rolls and actions to your heroes then it certainly opens up for more plot decks including this one.

The actions are pretty hard to doll out using fortune, in a 4 payer game you would have spend 5 threat without any being used by the heroes before anyone got an action out of it.

Re-rolls are pretty **** good though.

Plot decks are extremely useful tools to have but unfortunately a lot of them are not created equally

The actions are pretty hard to doll out using fortune, in a 4 payer game you would have spend 5 threat without any being used by the heroes before anyone got an action out of it.

Since Fortune tokens are automatically carried over from encounter 1 to encounter 2, it's not really a marginal situation as you think it is, but it wouldn't be honest for me to tell you that it happens on a regular basis. It depends on the plot deck and your own playstyle (conservative or not) I suppose.

The blue cross is a god send from the OL perpective. Remove that (by providing a reroll) and the heroes are certain that every attack they make will matter. But as the OL, you have to count on that fact anyway. Since I started playing Basic II, I´m more concerned about re-rolls on attribute tests.

Ok, Nathan answered, and Ravage allows only two attacks per activation. You win this time!!

Thanks for your answers!!!

Ok, Nathan answered, and Ravage allows only two attacks per activation. You win this time!!

Thanks for your answers!!!

I did not mean for the tone of my responses to be adversarial. I do my best to read the rules as accurately and without hero/OL bias as I can. Glad we got to the bottom of it.

Ok, Nathan answered, and Ravage allows only two attacks per activation. You win this time!!

Thanks for your answers!!!

I did not mean for the tone of my responses to be adversarial. I do my best to read the rules as accurately and without hero/OL bias as I can. Glad we got to the bottom of it.

I've read ton of your answers, and you're always gentle and helpful. Not much else to say.