I am indeed suggesting that if you have the "you and your wolf gain +4 health" skill, the wolf may be knocked out when you are knocked out because it loses 4 health (if it had fewer than 4 health remaining.) I am also suggesting that the reanimate would lose his yellow die, the stones would lose speed and a gray die if you have stone tongue, etc. That is, your skills are not active when you are knocked out- even the ones that don't cost anything to activate. The only exception to this are skills which say "while you are knocked out..."

And you do think this makes for a better game than the reverse?

Do you think this is how most people would read the rule?

You feel fine with such results as the elixir token being discardable, because that part is stated in the rules themselves, but potent remedies not working?

Would you then also not make the positive effects of the Disciples skills work if, after healing another hero and thus providing him the extra yellow / extra brown he gets knocked out by a trap in his own turn?

I personally think the rules SHOULD be so that Leoric's or Andira's Hero abilities and similar "while within x spaces of your hero" do not work, but passives like Vampiric Blood, Potent Remedies and the ability to discard valor tokens do.

Then again, I also think the rules should be so that movement is more streamlined and does not run into the issues of movement points VS moving X spaces or Immobilize only stopping some but not all movement.

There are luckily still houserules for that.

I do not think that passage of rules you quoted applies when the apothecary is knocked out- it;s restating what is on the apothecary's skillcard.

The fact that radial abilities don't work is very clear- the hero has been ruled consistently as being "off the map." Therefore, no one is "within X spaces" of you. We are in agreement on this point.

While it's not in the rulebook or FAQ explicitly, I do actually think that the game might be better if this is the case in that it makes the knocked out state a bit more significant. However, it also makes the game a bit more confusing (oh no, actually the stone only has 2 speed this turn, not 3, because the geomancer is off the map.) Usually, I'm in favor of rules that make he game simpler. However, in this case, I'm trying to determine what the rules are, rather than I'd like them to be. I'm searching for responses that have given me this impression about hero skills from past (unofficial) rulings.

For example:

...and I find exactly those , yet unofficial, answers extremely problematic.

The intent that the overlord cannot extensively spent resources while having the hero under dark charm is good, making arbitrary lines between which sort of passive ability works (weapons, certain items likely) and which not on the other hand is not.

I have played a lot of Pen and Paper RPGs, I am very familiar thus with rule bending, rule abuse and rules which are done badly.

Curently, the Descent rules are the kind of bendable, abusable and argument inducing ones which cause dissent at the table, and that equals players who may not want to play anymore which again equals either houserules or no more expansions or other things bought.

We already have with the latest FAQ a completely nonsensical rule for pit spaces with the sole saving grace that it hardly ever shows up in play (pit spaces are rather rare and few occasions to enter them).

I do not think that passage of rules you quoted applies when the apothecary is knocked out- it;s restating what is on the apothecary's skillcard.

Actually, the rule text states it is the other way around.

Thus without changing the current rules, there is actually no way to forbid it.

As I posted before, the rules say to remover the hero figure from the map but not the hero himself. He's on the map represented by his Hero Token.

I put the question to Fantasy Flight.

I'll let you all know if/when I get an answer.

You and I disagree about the meaning of that section of text. I also am quite familiar with rule bending, and that is part of why I try to be certain about what the rules mean. I hope we can figure this out.

The pit space rule change- while you call it nonsensical- was very, VERY necessary. As written previously, heroes could fatigue out of pit spaces and it was a disaster (the change closed that loophole)- no one seemed to notice because as you say, pits don't come up much.

Zyla never has to deal with pit spaces.

You and I disagree about the meaning of that section of text. I also am quite familiar with rule bending, and that is part of why I try to be certain about what the rules mean. I hope we can figure this out.

The pit space rule change- while you call it nonsensical- was very, VERY necessary. As written previously, heroes could fatigue out of pit spaces and it was a disaster (the change closed that loophole)- no one seemed to notice because as you say, pits don't come up much.

Zyla never has to deal with pit spaces.

And by closing that loophole, they opened wide a whole lot of other loopholes.

See, when I read the original pitspace rules, I, even if not necessarily correctly, assumed that fatigue move or moving by non action effects was out too, no nimbling out or such.

Now it has been changed to not allow fatigue moving out, but nimble, charge, advance, etc. ALL work to get out.

So, no, I think the rule change is actually worse.

We now have the move action and fatigue VS other types of movements issue worse than before, where it only affected immobilize.

Currently, it makes it a very big strategic aspect of playing a melee warrior to get skills that grant you movement that is not fatigue move or a move action to for example avoid immobilize (and now to get over pit spaces without more than the damage suffered).

And I think it is a big no of gamedesign to make it so that proper strategical choices run counter to the concept of the game.

Descent does already draw such criticism because many people dislike the fact that defeating monsters / defeating the heroes is not always the primary goal.

I can personally say that that has not been my experience, meaning, I never found combat to end up being a waste of time in Descent as many of my best overlord victories were due to putting great combat pressure on the heroes and a good couple of missions also were decided on the heroes getting ridd of the monsters quickly and thus being able to pursue their main objective without being ganged up on or blocked.

Still, it does not help the game when it uses a not small number of rules that run counter to what the game simulates, this really, really gets players at the table confused, it leads to a higher than necessary learning curve, it rewards gaming the system.

And what the heck does Zyla have to do with anything? ^^ ;

I brought up Zyla because this is a topic about "Treaty of Champions."

For starters, all of those other loopholes- charge, skirmish, advance, jain's heroic feat, etc, all already existed before the loophole close. Sure, when you found yourself in a pit you couldn't begin a charge action, but if you had started one before the pit you could just cross over the pit during the action and suffer a mere 2 damage.

Secondly, while you might not have assumed you could fatigue out, it was RAW allowed- which is the same sort of problem you've been talking about- what the rules should allow and what they did allow was different, and that led to confusion. The questions of immbolize, charge, skirmish, etc in the first place are part of the larger problem of the movement system rules- not the pit spaces. Those mechanics will require a significant overhaul to change, and affect a wide range of abilities- not something that is wise without a hefty amount of forethought.

In general, I favor clarity in rules over sensibility. It might not make sense that "prey on the weak" will increase a hybrid sentinel's damage against a high might hero just because a low might hero is the target of the fire breath attack- but it is clearly explainable why that is the case. The game is made up of triggers and effects- knowing how those triggers and effects connect to each other is more important to me than the triggers and effects always making realistic sense (for example: you are immobilized, but with certain abilities you can still move. I'm fine with that as long as the movement triggers which are blocked and which are not is clearly defined- which they are.)

So having Crow Hags around can result in a failed stand up action? Seems a bit OP.

I think since a hero would be a token at that point, it wouldn't affect them.

EDIT: I guess my answer came a bit late and and a result of me somehow failing to see the discussion on previous pages. Hope we get a FF answer on this soon.

"A hero cannot use skills or abilities while knocked out, unless an effect

specifically allows it."

The hero is knocked out, so he/she cannot use skills, that's crystal clear.

But the skills are not just "gone", they´re just unavailable to the KO hero, which makes sense. But I don't see any reason why other heroes who are not KO at the time wouldn't be able to use the effects described on the skill cards of the dead hero. Like drinking an Elixir, or use a Valor token. I don't see why these objects would suddenly lose their properties. The skill card is still there to qualify what the actual object is. The fact the KO hero cannot use it is not relevant in that aspect.

I would think familiars are different and I would totally get behind the idea that they lose all bonuses when the hero dies, because they are owned/activated by that hero, who is dead, and who has no access to any skill card. So yes, the Wolf loses 4 life, the Reanimate loses its yellow dice etc.

But Hero lambda should still be able to use an Elixir or a Valor token.

See though- now we are back to rules vs reality. It doesn't make sense that the elixir no longer helps, sure. But if one passive skill grants a yellow dice and one grants an elixir healing, what is the functional difference? What about instead of discarding the elixir to heal, you discard it for a green die? Is that allowed? Grouping as you suggest forces a case by case assessment of what is valid and what is not. Rather, a much simpler distinction is this" if it says "while knocked out" it can be used while knocked out. If not, it can't. Simple.

The difference is that there are passive skills that belong to the a hero, but are actually triggered by a seperate hero. For instance, when heroes discard Elixir Tokens and the added effect is remove a Condition. The passive effect belongs to the Apothecary, whom could be knocked out. But does that mean the removed condition effect doesn't happen when the Token is removed? By in large, perhaps that's why there are tokens to begin with... the tokens themselves actually grant the effect.

But then you have actual triggered abilities, some oh which are heroic abilities. If some hero attacks for instance, then the effect is add a Surge, or add +X hearts. Does that trigger when the hero is KOed? I myself think that it wouldn't, because it comes directly from the hero.

I think what it really comes down to is where the source of the abilities come from. If Knocked out heroes are really removed from the map, then the only thing that can effect them are Revive, Stand Up Actions and effects that can directly recover their hearts. If they are removed from the map, then all passive abilities that they have are removed as well. The same for tokens... The Token is the actual source of the effects listed on the class card, so even if a hero is Koed, any hero can use the token to heal, remove conditions or gain a damage buff.

Except that the source of the token abilities is ALSO a passive.

My point being the source of the token's abilities is the token itself. The class cards just list the effect of what it does. But if the class card's effect is a required fatigue/action, the source then comes from the hero.

I personally don't see such card as having a passive ability such as sourcing each token generated by it. A passive ability for me is the +4 Health to the Wolf. This +4 health is not an object and is subject to the status of the class card atv any point in time. If the OL disables it during a quest then the +4 goes away.

Rather, I´ve always interpreted Brew Elixir as "Create An Elixir token. This token has the following abilities: <insert all skill effects>". To me the token has all rules imprinted on it and is no more correlated to the cards that has granted effects to it. It has these effects, period. The token IS the passive effect, not the card, except it's not convenient to write it all up on a piece of cardboard.

My point being the source of the token's abilities is the token itself. The class cards just list the effect of what it does. But if the class card's effect is a required fatigue/action, the source then comes from the hero.

I do agree here, definitely for how it SHOULD be played because otherwise you would also end up with the prayer of healing buffs disappearing after a knock down of the disciple.

No more armor of because the last attack knocked down the disciple?

The gist of it really is that the whole issue of what works and what doesn't when a hero is knocked down needs an actual Errata that leads to rules which both make sense AND are easy to use.

Having rules that are too counterintuitve and cumbersome for people to actually play correctly is very bad design.

I personally don't see such card as having a passive ability such as sourcing each token generated by it. A passive ability for me is the +4 Health to the Wolf. This +4 health is not an object and is subject to the status of the class card atv any point in time. If the OL disables it during a quest then the +4 goes away.

Rather, I´ve always interpreted Brew Elixir as "Create An Elixir token. This token has the following abilities: <insert all skill effects>". To me the token has all rules imprinted on it and is no more correlated to the cards that has granted effects to it. It has these effects, period. The token IS the passive effect, not the card, except it's not convenient to write it all up on a piece of cardboard.

In this case a simple question for you:

When a hero is revived with a healing potion, his +X health skills would not be in effect while he is knocked down.

Does he then only recover up to his printed health value?

If familiars lose their benefits, so do the heroes.

The hero is knocked down until he recovers health. the healing potion recovers his full health.

Do you see why this would make it a really bad idea to disable the passive skills that affect the basic statistics?

In other words, Familiars themselves are represented by tokens. They are the source of the class ability. If the class card says the Wolf has +4 Health, then the Wolf is treated as having +4 health even if the hero is knocked out. That's why you have class cards that say "even when this card is exhausted".

In this case a simple question for you:

When a hero is revived with a healing potion, his +X health skills would not be in effect while he is knocked down.

Does he then only recover up to his printed health value?

If familiars lose their benefits, so do the heroes.

The hero is knocked down until he recovers health. the healing potion recovers his full health.

Do you see why this would make it a really bad idea to disable the passive skills that affect the basic statistics?

1) The reanimates passive statistics (attack pool) are already confirmed to be affected by who is controlling the reanimate- that is, Vampiric Blood has been ruled as a hero specific effect as opposed to a global one. It requires the necromancer to be actively supplying it, even though it is "passive." (As seen by neith Sahla nor the dark charmed reanimate getting its benefits.)

2) You have hit on an interesting (though possibly academic only) mechanical issue. If health is recovered one at a time, then after a hero recovers his first wound, he has his printed health augmented by his skills, and recovers all. If wound recovery happens all at once, then the question of how much health a KO hero recovers is indeed more questionable. I am not suggesting that he recovers less than his full (let's call it "potential health"- the health from his hero sheet + all skills, hero abilities and gear). I am however, suggesting that in the instant of recovery, his values change back from his printed health to his potential health.

I also agree that whatever is the case, the text for knocked out should be augmented. If it truly is only that the KO hero can't use his abilities but everyone else can, that should be clarified. If the abilities are nullified, that should also be stated. The fact that the hero is "not on the map" is I think enough to justify things like being unaffected by attribute tests, monster attacks, monster abilities, and non-healing hero abilities.

Maybe the Reanimate should keep his yellow dice after all, and the Wolf his +4 Health. If the familiar card doesn't state that the familiar is removed from the game upon death of his owner, then any skill card affecting them should still apply. I can see that now (not that it has happened in the past).

Otherwise about the health potion issue. The health bonus is relevant whenever the hero is alive. If the hero is revived then he/she is alive by definition, so his full health should be taken into account. Anything else makes no sense ibn my mind.

I still believe skill cards stay in-game even when their owner has been knocked out, and any effect in game (token for instance) should still apply to other heroes. However any effect requiring the presence of the hero ("within X squares of the hero" and the likes) should not apply as the hero is not on the map anymore.

About passive Heatlhs buffs while reviving. When you use a Health Potion, waht you do is discard ALL the damage tokens on your hero sheet, or at least that's how I see it. This way, it doesn't matter if those skills are or not active at the moment of reviving. You become anyways fully healed, and now you're up, your skills do apply and you can take again your full buffed damage.

I don't think there is any clear rule giving a straight answer to all of these questions currently. Maybe some of them have already been clarified on BGG, but I´m too lazy to check that out, and then truth is that I don't really trust any clarification made years ago which lead to no entry on the current FAQ. So I went ahead and asked FFG to clarify some of these points. Maybe they´ll get multiple queries from different persons but hopefully the demand will make them consider releasing more clarifications regarding this, especially since the "KO-topic" has become more actual due to the latest product releases.

But on the other hand, I mean... how are people playing this on a normal day? Because the theory is one thing, like explaining passive and triggered abilities (whoses notions aren't even referred to in the rules, but we do make anologies to other games we know that seem pretty close in order to explain the technicities of a game whenever there is no rule to cover these specific cases).. It can be a can of worms too, because the mindset of the people designing Descent may have been totally different.

I play as the OL exclusively and I have never denied a hero using a Valor or Elixir because the Champion/Apotecary was lying dead at the time. But I have also been wrong on multiple instances before and I don't claim to have the ultimate answer to everything, this said I am expected to have it as the rulesmaster in my playgroup.

I guess misconceptions of the rules can be called house rules until the house rule in question gets ruled out upon consensus from the players. But there are tons of situations that are not crystal clear in the rules that we handle very easily with help from common sense. The health potion situation is a good example. It doesn't mean we´re necessarly correct, but Descent is a heavy game and we cannot stop looking for rules every time we come across a situation like this. Then some situations never occur in practice because they require very specific combinations of skills/abilities which seem contradictory.

But let's say that between saying:

1- Class cards are as if they were returned to the box, none of their effects apply anymore, and any token/effect/bonus generated by them are ignored while the hero is being KO.

and

2- The hero cannot use any skill while being KO while he's off the map, but the effects from these cards still apply in the game for all relevant parts referring to them.

Number 1- feels like a hell of an interpretation and leads to situations that make no sense at all, and 2- while technically split between the passive versus triggered ability seems like the closest guess by a fair mile, and a decision I´d be taking over the first one in a vacuum. Then of course you´d need to add the rule that any skill referring to the hero figure, like the ones that define a range or an area from the hero, cannot apply because the hero is not on the map while being KO.

But even that... A hero is normally killed during the OL turn, unless a OL card was played which made an attack or dealt damage, which is not a huge % of the kills situation. It means heroes start the heroes turn with X heroes being KOed, and they can sequence/tailor their turn depending on that. So if we said the Elixir token would not apply and this Treasure Hunter absolutely needs it this turn, the heroes would plan for reviving the Apotecary before the TH taking his turn. If I said to my playgroup option 1- above is the way the game should be played, then they would come around that restriction very easily for most situations. Heroes are normally revived the next turn unless there's carnage going on. But it wouldn't make any sense.

If I'm following this correctly, if FFG were to enter into the errata:

Class specific tokens retain all abilities and effects from their corresponding class cards while the hero of said class is knocked out.

Would that satisfy everyone? I am also of the opinion that it makes no sense that a hero possessing an elixir can't use it while the apothecary is knocked down. I do however, believe a familiar should lose passive bonuses while it's hero is knocked out. A reanimate exists due to the will and magical power of the necromancer that created it, if the necromancer should be knocked out, it makes thematic sense that the power and fortitude of his creation would decrease. But that's just my narrative preference of course.

If I'm following this correctly, if FFG were to enter into the errata:

Class specific tokens retain all abilities and effects from their corresponding class cards while the hero of said class is knocked out.

Would that satisfy everyone? I am also of the opinion that it makes no sense that a hero possessing an elixir can't use it while the apothecary is knocked down. I do however, believe a familiar should lose passive bonuses while it's hero is knocked out. A reanimate exists due to the will and magical power of the necromancer that created it, if the necromancer should be knocked out, it makes thematic sense that the power and fortitude of his creation would decrease. But that's just my narrative preference of course.

As I've said before- mechanics are more important to me than narrative. A narrative based explanation is hairy because then you need to determine the justification for each skill- so something like "skills depending on the hero that is KO are not allowed, but skills independent of the hero are" would not be satisfactory.

"Class specific tokens retain all abilities and effects from their corresponding class cards" would probably work. That would mean skills like (let's look at the prophet for example):

Grim Fate

Soothing Insight

Battle Vision

Would still work. There would need to be another addendum about familiar skills (if we're assuming the default is "skills don't work." If the default is that skills do work even while knocked out- and just the KO hero can't use his or other hero's skills, or any skills that depend on counting spaces from him except for healing ones (am I the only one who thinks that already sounds like a mouthful?,) that raises questions about why "Vampiric Blood" doesn't apply to a dark charmed reanimate.

Again- I'm not dead-set against skills working while a hero is KO. Rather, I'm interested in a consistent way to determine which skills are and are not active while a hero is knocked out. It seems to me the simplest way to do that is "if you're knocked out, none of your class skills are active" (as if they were all face down.)

As I've said before- mechanics are more important to me than narrative. A narrative based explanation is hairy because then you need to determine the justification for each skill- so something like "skills depending on the hero that is KO are not allowed, but skills independent of the hero are" would not be satisfactory.

I feel this is somewhat the crux of the issue. Using narrative to justify/explain rule mechanics is a slippery slope indeed. However, I feel dismissing narrative completely in the interest of easier to understand rules or more consistent rules can be just as detrimental to the game. To use the apothecary example from above, if a player asks why they can't use their elixir while the apothecary is down, its very easy and convenient to respond by saying "if you're knocked out, none of your class skills are active". It's short, it's sweet, it's easy to remember. However, in my experience, that almost always gets a response the likes of "are you serious? That can't be right. Get the rulebook and show me because that makes no logical sense". So sometimes the consistent, blanket ruling designed to reduce confusion creates the most confusion and concessions to narrative have to be made for the sake of the overall experience at the table.

Zaltyre, on 15 Aug 2015 - 1:40 PM, said:

I'm not dead-set against skills working while a hero is KO. Rather, I'm interested in a consistent way to determine which skills are and are not active while a hero is knocked out. It seems to me the simplest way to do that is "if you're knocked out, none of your class skills are active" (as if they were all face down.)

This seems a little dismissive to me. It's like going to the HR rep at your work about an issue your having with another employee and the rep responding with "your both fired. There, issue resolved". But this IS just a board game and we're all free to play it whichever way we'd like

If it were up to me, I'd errata in the bit about class specific tokens I mentioned earlier and give the familiars the shaft on skill cards while the hero is down. We use this rule at our table and it works 99% of the time. Which i guess is really the key. Finding a balance that works for your playgroup. If your someone who absolutely *must* use official rules and official rules only, this probably becomes a much more frustrating issue for you.

If one just goes by "use skills", it would indeed make ALL passive skills be still in effect.

Then we have the problem though that so far, it is not yet in the official Errata and FAQ that a hero is not on the map while knocked out, the rule text is not unambiguously stating so.

Bard songs are specifically explained to not work when the bard is knocked out, it does not give a justification based on the Basic rules though (as in "because the bard is not treated as being on the map while knocked out").

It leaves the issue that it seems very nonsensical to make Dark Charm not take into account vampiric blood and similar, dark charm.

Dark Charm specifically forbids any fatigue use and any use of potions, nothing more. It seems sensible to also not allow any other cards to be exhausted or the hero be forced to suffer damage (Brother Gherin), but if Vampiric Blood is a no, would this also apply to Sleight fo Hand for example, or he Star of Kellos?

And to the one important question: Can Crow Hags affect heroes who are knocked out and stand up / are revived?

If yes, it is a bit silly than to not allow other monster abilities or overlord cards.

If no, it makes it a weird situation of "this heal is not prevented but all others are".

I really see no reason though, either from the point of theme, nor from the point of easier / better rules to not allow monster abilities or overlord cards to affect knocked out heroes.

If I'm following this correctly, if FFG were to enter into the errata:

Class specific tokens retain all abilities and effects from their corresponding class cards while the hero of said class is knocked out.

Would that satisfy everyone? I am also of the opinion that it makes no sense that a hero possessing an elixir can't use it while the apothecary is knocked down. I do however, believe a familiar should lose passive bonuses while it's hero is knocked out. A reanimate exists due to the will and magical power of the necromancer that created it, if the necromancer should be knocked out, it makes thematic sense that the power and fortitude of his creation would decrease. But that's just my narrative preference of course.

As I've said before- mechanics are more important to me than narrative. A narrative based explanation is hairy because then you need to determine the justification for each skill- so something like "skills depending on the hero that is KO are not allowed, but skills independent of the hero are" would not be satisfactory.

"Class specific tokens retain all abilities and effects from their corresponding class cards" would probably work. That would mean skills like (let's look at the prophet for example):

Grim Fate

Soothing Insight

Battle Vision

Would still work. There would need to be another addendum about familiar skills (if we're assuming the default is "skills don't work." If the default is that skills do work even while knocked out- and just the KO hero can't use his or other hero's skills, or any skills that depend on counting spaces from him except for healing ones (am I the only one who thinks that already sounds like a mouthful?,) that raises questions about why "Vampiric Blood" doesn't apply to a dark charmed reanimate.

Again- I'm not dead-set against skills working while a hero is KO. Rather, I'm interested in a consistent way to determine which skills are and are not active while a hero is knocked out. It seems to me the simplest way to do that is "if you're knocked out, none of your class skills are active" (as if they were all face down.)

Actually, by your example Zaltyre, When we are talking about passive skills being in effect, Grim Fate and Battle Vision would still work if the Insight Token was already on a hero. Soothing Insight would NOT work because the Prophet has to exhaust the class card to give a hero the Insight Token, which of course he would not be able to do in the state of being Knocked Out.

http://descent2e.wikia.com/wiki/Vampiric_Blood

This is also a passive effect. The effect targets the Re-animate, not the actual hero itself. Even if the hero is Knocked out, the Re-animate still gains the effect.