I don't recall seeing this specifically stated, but I would assume that the hybrid classes start with no equipment of their own, but rather JUST the starting equipment of the secondary class chosen? I.e a battlemage / knight would start with sword and shield.
Yup.
I'm almost sure that thoses classes are going to break the small and fragile balance of the game
i don't like the idea of a Knowledge 5 (e.g Leoric) Mage with "By the book" (Marshal). An Overlord 'without cards' is absolutly no fun.
That's why you might want to consider taking the plot deck of Kyndrithul to help counter that obnoxiousness.
These are the initial cards (0 skill cost) from some hybrid classes:I don't recall seeing this specifically stated, but I would assume that the hybrid classes start with no equipment of their own, but rather JUST the starting equipment of the secondary class chosen? I.e a battlemage / knight would start with sword and shield.
But the hybrid class (i.e. monk) does not have any starting equipment of its own, correct?
Edited by tomkat364These are the initial cards (0 skill cost) from some hybrid classes: https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/12/a7/12a78d98-bf97-4295-b905-265eb085753f/dj44_cards_arcane-veteran.png https://images-cdn.fantasyflightgames.com/filer_public/9d/d5/9dd5b86f-457c-4d49-8a58-143f2dbc1964/dj44_caI don't recall seeing this specifically stated, but I would assume that the hybrid classes start with no equipment of their own, but rather JUST the starting equipment of the secondary class chosen? I.e a battlemage / knight would start with sword and shield.
But the hybrid class (i.e. monk) does not have any starting equipment of its own, correct?
Correct.
Grey Ker Monk-Spiritseeker.
Enough stamina, and then you can do Mist every turn at the end.
Kudos to some of the interesting thoughts I've seen here. I particularly liked Challara as a Beastmaster, Grey Ker as a Spiritspeaker, and Lyssa as a Berserker.
I've got a few threads of interest in these hybrid classes. I don't think they'll be game breaking just, hopefully, interesting.
Corbin -> Necromancer suffering heart for his reanimate
Alys Raine -> as a Geomancer or Conjurer for these fatigue intensive classes
Ravaella Lightfoot -> as a Knight, damage sponge
And pending new hybrid classes:
Jonas the Kind -> A less vulnerable early game treasure hunter
Ispher -> Seems tanky to begin with
Brother Gherrin -> any class that has cards with "resolve an attack that dealt at least 1 heart"
Ashrian -> As a shadow walker
Nara the Fang -> As any scout class... probably treasure hunter
Vyrah the Falconer -> As a runemaster
Lindel -> As any warrior, basically impervious to overlord cards
The monk has the ability to be unarmed but in combat what does that translate to?meaning what dice would he roll for an unarmed attack
one blue dice
Rules of Play, pg. 12, middle of first column:
Heroes may either attack with one equipped weapon or their bare hands. A hero attacking with his bare hands can only target an adjacent space and rolls only the blue attack die for his attack.
While underwhelming in itself, the utility of the Monk's abilities makes it powerful, in that you can attack bare-handed even when you have weapons equipped .
This means that you can use one action to attack a monster, leaving him with only a few points of health. Using Iron Flail. I cannot stress enough how insane the Iron Flail is as a starting weapon for the Monk. Not only does it give you a Surge to Weaken, but it's got Reach, it's Exotic (and thus works with the Monk's Vow of Freedom), and it turns the 1-2 damage of your unarmed attacks into 2-3 , increasing unarmed damage by 50-100%!
Especially Logan Lashley taking advantage of the even higher boost to exotic weapons, allowing you to also move 1 step every time you use that flail (as well as having an insane heroic feat), Tinashi the Wanderer capitalizing on those killing blows and helping to keep Fatigue down, or Grey Ker splitting up his turn(s) for prophet actions and getting an extra action as a heroic feat would work very well with this setup, I believe.
Edit: Another super-awesome combo would be Lindel using Inner Balance. For any important check, take a Rest Action first, and you'd have all Attributes at 4, while rolling only two Grey dies. The odds of rolling a 5 or a 6, the only times you'd fail, would be extremely small. As a Monk-Prophet, Lindel would be able to use Sage's Tome , too, turning the odds from "extremely small" to "practically insignificant".
The odds of rolling two 3's, which would result in a 5 - the only result that'd make you fail - is 2,78%.
Edited by LuckmannI also like about the Monk that he has a skill to remove conditions (Inner Balance). This makes the Prophet and Spiritspeaker way more attractive as they can now compete with the other healer classes in this regards.
Judo Chop!
I also like about the Monk that he has a skill to remove conditions (Inner Balance). This makes the Prophet and Spiritspeaker way more attractive as they can now compete with the other healer classes in this regards.
Can Inner Balance be used on yourself? On one hand, I think it'd be odd if it couldn't, but on the other hand, it seems written in such a way as to exclude yourself.
Not that it changes anything. It's still a very nice skill. Not only do you get rid of a condition from a friend, but you get the benefits of a regular rest action too, and it's got extra utility in helping you succeed on tests.
if it would be written to exclude then it would say 'another hero'
if it would be written to exclude then it would say 'another hero'
Implicit vs. explicit. Therin lies the confusion. Usually it says another hero , or including you . This time it says neither.
Regarding combos and condition-removers: one could combine Inner Balance with Peaceful Rest from the Bard class set. This way you could afford to avoid Rehersal and spend in total 2 XP as well.
if it would be written to exclude then it would say 'another hero'
Implicit vs. explicit. Therin lies the confusion. Usually it says another hero , or including you . This time it says neither.
Sorry to be blunt, but no. Sort of, but no.
"Another hero" is indeed an explicit way to exclude the hero himself. "Including you" is in no way needed. It's silly redundant text that really only serves to produce confusion when it's not included. For example, here are a sample of abilities which mean "including you" (referring only to range abilities here to keep the list short) without saying it:
Understudy
Song of Mending
Rehearsal
Peaceful Rest
Dissonance
Concentration
Tempest
Augur Grisom's heroic feat
Roganna the Shade's heroic feat
Jonas the Kind's heroic feat
Is there an equally long list of abilities that explicitly state "including yourself"? Yes, there is. That's why I dislike the text so much.
Edited by Zaltyre
if it would be written to exclude then it would say 'another hero'
Implicit vs. explicit. Therin lies the confusion. Usually it says another hero , or including you . This time it says neither.
Sorry to be blunt, but no. Sort of, but no.
"Another hero" is indeed an explicit way to exclude the hero himself. "Including you" is in no way needed. It's silly redundant text that really only serves to produce confusion when it's not included. For example, here are a sample of abilities which mean "including you" (referring only to range abilities here to keep the list short) without saying it:
Understudy
Song of Mending
Rehearsal
Peaceful Rest
Dissonance
Concentration
Tempest
Augur Grisom's heroic feat
Roganna the Shade's heroic feat
Jonas the Kind's heroic feat
Is there an equally long list of abilities that explicitly state "including yourself"? Yes, there is. That's why I dislike the text so much.
I don't see how it can be "in no way needed" or "silly redundant text" . It's not really confusing, but in fact clarifies beyond a doubt the intent of the text. The issue is really that it's not consistent .
And I would definitely have preferred it if the inclusion of "including yourself" had been the consistent default, since it is more clear than leaving it out.
Is it ever clarified that you count as being "withing # spaces" of yourself, anywhere? Or in regards to Augur Grisom's Heroic Feat (him being one of the examples you cited that I checked), that you are within line of sight to yourself?
Yes. This has been clarified in a number of rules response questions from FFG. I need to check through the FAQ to see if it is there.
The reason I say it is redundant is because "within N spaces" already means "range is less than or equal to N." To add "including yourself" is to say "range is less than or equal to N, including 0."
Additionally, any time you want to exclude N=0, all you have to do is say, "another hero" rather than "a hero".
EDIT: The only example I can actually find in the FAQ is the Hexer's skill, Enfeebling Hex:
Yes. This has been clarified in a number of rules response questions from FFG. I need to check through the FAQ to see if it is there.
The reason I say it is redundant is because "within N spaces" already means "range is less than or equal to N." To add "including yourself" is to say "range is less than or equal to N, including 0."
Additionally, any time you want to exclude N=0, all you have to do is say, "another hero" rather than "a hero".
Not all have the benefit of having seen all the rules questions, though, and can only go on what's in the rulebook and the FAQ. This might somehow be entirely clear to you, but not all think of this in a mathematical fashion.
"Within N spaces" means "Within N spaces", which implies, but is not explicitly the same, as "range is less than or equal to N". Had it said the latter, it would've been a lot clearer, but that's not what it says.
From a more human perspective, taking the rules-reading goggles of autism +5 off for a moment, "Within N spaces" to me implies that it's within reach *from* me, starting to count squares at 1 (the adjacent square), not even considering that there's such a thing as "space 0" (the space currently occupied).
Since this is never clarified within the rules themselves (that I've seen), pointing out when this is the case is helpful, but being inconsistent about it creates a ton of ambiguity.
Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it's hardly helpful when it comes to rules texts. Being as clear as possible is a lot more helpful than being stingy with the clarifications and relying on implications and logical extrapolations.
EDIT: The only example I can actually find in the FAQ is the Hexer's skill, Enfeebling Hex:
Q: Can the Hexer use the [surge] ability from “Enfeebling Hex” to hex the target
monster?
A: Yes
(In other words, does "within 3 spaces of the target" include the target? Absolutely.)
That's not the question, though. You're extrapolating, and I'm not saying that you're wrong in doing so, but equating the question and the answer to your "in other words" is shaky at best.
Being consistent in the use of adding "including yourself", as well as saying "any hero" rather than "a hero", as well as clarifying this in the rules themselves would probably have been the best, but alas, that'll never happen.
The inconsistency and lack of clarification really grinds my gears. This should've been in the errata a long time ago.
In particular I find the idea of being in line of sight of yourself to be a bit preposterous and more than a bit unintuitive.
Edited by LuckmannLuckman, if you look down, do you not see your own body?
An additional rules question/ answer:
The list is a little one-sided, but it's certainly not consistent. There is some variation within classes, and "Inspiring Presence" even varies between its two sections.
You could add various Relics to this issue as well, such as Staff of Light.
It has been stated before by others, but the thing that bothers me the most is simply the lack of consistency when it comes to text on various cards.
It really would not be that hard for FFG to create a database of key phrases, and when they go to create a new card, make sure that the text adhere's to one of those phrases, and not something that is close or could be interpreted the wrong way.
When you have a lack of consistency, people (especially rules lawyers) tend to read each card literally, meaning that in this case, if it does not specifically say "(including you)", then it must mean it does not. And this is the case even if the basic rules of the game contradict this position.
This is what makes this lack of consistency so annoying ...
Does it literally say it does not include you? No? Then it must mean it does include you..
Edited by Atom4geVampireDoes it literally say it does not include you? No? Then it must mean it does include you..
I agree which is why it is annoying when cards like motivating charge say "each hero within 3 spaces of you (including yourself)...". It makes some people want to second guess every card that doesn't include the (including yourself) part, which is completely understandable.
Edited by quartersmostlyThanks, Zaltyre, the answer really leaves no room for interpretation. It's strange in regards to RAW, though, since you can't trace an uninterrupted path from one of your corners to another corner you're on, since you'd block your own LoS. But c'est la vie.
Luckman, if you look down, do you not see your own body?
Yes, but if I'm measuring out a space that is within 10 meters from me, I'm generally not included in the measurement.
Does it literally say it does not include you? No? Then it must mean it does include you..
That's a stretch, really. Like I said, it's pretty unintuitive, especially since it's never made clear within the rules, and the wording of individual cards is inconsistent, sometimes clarifying, sometimes not clarifying.
You could add various Relics to this issue as well, such as Staff of Light.
It has been stated before by others, but the thing that bothers me the most is simply the lack of consistency when it comes to text on various cards.
It really would not be that hard for FFG to create a database of key phrases, and when they go to create a new card, make sure that the text adhere's to one of those phrases, and not something that is close or could be interpreted the wrong way.
When you have a lack of consistency, people (especially rules lawyers) tend to read each card literally, meaning that in this case, if it does not specifically say "(including you)", then it must mean it does not. And this is the case even if the basic rules of the game contradict this position.
This is what makes this lack of consistency so annoying ...
Exactly. It's really the lack of consistency that is problematic. If it had been clarified in the general rules that you always have LoS on yourself and that you are within range of yourself, "including you" would never have been strictly necessary, but the lack of those rules likely created an element of uncertainty for the writers themselves, prompting them to add clarification, while some other writer was certain of how it was supposed to work and just assumed that everyone sorta knew how it's supposed to work.
Ultimately, I always prefer added clarification in the interest of clarity, but consistency is so, so, so much more important.
