Would these two skills actually work in conjunction with each other? I'm wondering if a player could kill a skeleton, control it, then have it run in, attack and explode for the free action? It seems that the skeleton wouldn't have this ability, as it states, "All of *your* normal skeletons gain the ability to explode," as I can't think of any other instance a skeleton wouldn't be yours.

Ion said:

I think they would. An animated monster is exactly the same monster as it was when killed. If it had an ability when it dies then it has that ability when reanimated. Just as a reanimated skeleton has 'pierce', I think it should have 'deaths head' as well.

I would say no, since it specifies 'your' skeletons. A monster who has is no longer under your control no longer your monster.

It gained the ability to explode when it was "your" skeleton. The Death Head card does not say that skeletons lose this ability on death. Therefor they still have ability when reanimated, since they used to belong to the OL.

Badend said:

+1 I think that's the way it works, the skeletons should still have Death's Head when they reanimate.

I disagree.

The power is not part of the skeleton, the power is an Overlord upgrade. The Overlord chooses to kill his skeletons using his "Death Head" power. You don't get access to the Overlord power. Once you steal the skeleton, the Overlord can no longer blow it up, because it no longer belongs to him. Likewise, the player cannot blow up the skeleton, because the player doesnt not have the Death Head power.

Fizz said:

I agree here. The ability is generated by the Avatar upgrade card, not something inherent to the Skeleton. I sadly don't have the exact text of the card to back that up.

"Upgrade (Captain Bones only): Death Head (13)

All your normal (i.e. non-master) skeletons gain the ability to explode. They may do this at any point during their activation for free, dealing one red die of damage (ignoring armor) to all enemy figures in adjacent spaces. Skeletons that explode are instantly killed and cannot be prevented from dying by any means."

Thanks.

To me, this a power granted solely by the Avatar Upgrade, not something that is inherent to the Skeleton. So once the skeleton isn't "yours" anymore, ie controlled by the Avatar, it loses the ability.

I don't know if this is along the same lines or not, but when the SK in Road to Legend had the Sniper upgrade for his skeletons could a hero use it if they got a hold of his skeletons with Necromancy? It seems odd that things like Ironskin and Leech carry over for the Count or other similar type upgrades of Avatars, but this wouldn't. Yet, I can see the argument of people who believe that RAW would say it doesn't.

Big Remy said:

The upgrade says that the skeletons 'gain the ability'. If it said "All you skeletons may explode..." then you would be right. But they have gained the ability and dying does not remove abilities.

Corbon said:

Actually, it says "All your normal (i.e. non-master) gain the ability....". I read this as possessive, if it isn't *mine* anyone (and hell, it did die!), how does it still have the ability?

Corbon said:

But how do the skeletons gain the ability? Have the skeletons actually changed, or does the avatar have an "aura" effect (with infinite range, that can reach any location in the campaign) that gives skeletons the ability? (This is just a way of thinking about it. I"m not actually saying it's an aura; please don't say "the aura couldn't pass through walls" or other such nitpicking.)

If the skeletons have magically changed and are the source of their own exploding power, that would seem to support the view that a reanimated skeleton can still explode.

However, if the Avatar is the source of the skeletons' exploding power, a reanimated skeleton should not be able to explode.

I think of it the second way, but both possibilities are interesting, and I don't think either of them is really "wrong".

mahkra said:

If it was the first way then it would say that the (your) skeletons gain the ability.
If it was the second way it would say that you (the OL) may explode your skeletons.

It says the (your) skeletons gain the ability . I don't see the 'your' as being important because all skeletons are yours - even the necromancied ones are yours, they just happen to be controlled by the hero. Reanimation (necromancy) does not change anything about the monster it reanimates except control (and hence timing). No abilities are lost, no stats are lost, no dice are lost.

How the skeletons gain the ability is unimportant. It is the fact that the skeletons gain the ability, not the OL gains the ability, is what counts.

I understand, I just have the feeling that this is one of those things that if put to FFG is going to come back as the opposite of what we think (so that no, heroes can't make them explode)

I did forget to go read Necromancy:

When a hero with the Necromancy ability deals the killing blow to a small (no bigger than one space), normal, unnamed monster (and it stays dead, in the event of Undying or other such effects) he may choose to animate the monster. The monster stays on the board and is returned to full health, but falls under the control of the hero. A hero cannot control more than one monster at a time, but may choose to let a monster under his control die in order to animate a new one. An animated monster moves just after the controlling hero’s turn ends. The monster activates just like it does for the overlord player, save that it is under the direction of the controlling hero. However, after the monster completes its activation, the controlling hero must roll one power die. If he rolls anything other than a power enhancement, the animated monster falls apart and is killed.

You could argue that the bolded statement covers the situation, even with the view that its the Avatar giving the ability to the skeletons since they activate just like they do for the overlord player.

Either that or my brain is just starting to lose the ability to think after dealing with so much confusion with the FAQ update.

Could we not also think of it this way?

It is technically the overlords/avatars power. Right? Maybe this is being over thought - BUT - does the overlord not get to CHOOSE to use the ability on said skeletons?

Therefore - if one uses the skeletons normally - could they just not be normal skellies? And the OL could then CHOOSE to use the ability? Therefore giving the ability? I dunno. It just seems like me as the OL would just use my incredible evil powers and explode my little minions!

I personally see this as just an option/skill for the OL - I don't feel it would transfer to the heroes with necromancer.

Essentially - I as the OL would PAY XP to upgrade MY skeletons. It's an OL benefit. Otherwise - I likely wouldn't take the upgrade if one of my heroes had necromancer.

That's how I feel!

SoylentGreen said:

No, we can't think of it that way, as has already been explained.

It is not 'technically the overlord's power'. The 'overlords power' gives the skeletons the ability. The ability then belongs to the skeletons - not the overlord. The OL player still gets to choose to use the ability or not - because he is controlling the skeletons, not because he has the ability.

[dry humour (something that translates poorly through this medium)]
Feeling is nice, but we are looking for thinking when discussing rules.
[/dry humour]

I think this is completely ambiguous. I see nothing definitive that would cause me to lean one way or the other. Another one for the endless FAQ.

Corbon said:

Why can't we think of things any way we want to? Since the rules are not rigorously written, the verbatim rules (even when not totally ambiguous) are often not the 'best' choice. In these discussions, I care more about the possible intent of the designer, not the letter of the rules, and I'm sure at least some others on these forums feel the same way. It's interesting to hear how people think the rules should work, regardless of exactly how they're written.

I'd rather play with a loose reading of the rules that actually works than a strict reading that seems broken. In this case, both readings 'work' in-game, so I find them both worth considering.

So do you consider it the intent of the designer that if the OL buys an upgrade that say, gives razorwings bleed that they will no longer have bleed when reanimated? Or that if he upgrades his monsters to silver, they will only be copper monsters when reanimated? After all, "it costs the Master of the Hunt 25 XP to upgrade his humanoid monsters" so that must also mean that only the OL monsters benefit from the improved statistics of silver level. There is no reason that the exploding skeleton ability should be treated differently.

Badend said:

Consistency is not Descent's strong point, so I don't think everything has to work the same way by default. Also, exploding is an active skill, whereas your examples are both passive. Active and passive skills could easily be treated differently. When an OL plays Dark Charm to control a hero, the OL can use passive abilities (Prodigy) but cannot spend fatigue on active skills (Quick Casting). Reanimation is not the same thing as Dark Charm, but it could function in a similar way.

mahkra said:

This is a very good point! But again - conversely - the hero controlling the skeleton would not have to spend any fatigue to use the Dead Head skill.

(Would have been nice if they would have put in some line like "Overlord must spend 1 fatigue to make his skellie go boom boom." Would have made it really cheap to activate - but would have removed any arguments like this thread. )

And @ Corbon - I can certainly read and see it your way as well... but I still think it's broken - and I as an OL would think twice about purchasing the upgrade if one of my heroes had the necromancy ability... if they were to get wise to the combined use. It would also suck as eldritch are commonly the group upgraded to the next level up in the campaign. (What I mean is the one group of monsters you can upgrade to silver while still in copper... I hear a lot of people pick Eldritch first.)

SoylentGreen said:

What's broken about it? It does no damage to the integrity of the game, does no major balance damage and doesn't create any 'impossible situations'. If anything it barely makes a weak skill come up to 'middling' in the skill ranks.

Please don't take offence, because I'm not meaning this as a personal dig or anything, but It seems that what you really mean is "I don't like it". Now you are free to make house rules, but not liking a rule is not a reason to claim it isn't how the rule works.

Mahkra wrote:
Why can't we think of things any way we want to? Since the rules are not rigorously written, the verbatim rules (even when not totally ambiguous) are often not the 'best' choice. In these discussions, I care more about the possible intent of the designer, not the letter of the rules, and I'm sure at least some others on these forums feel the same way. It's interesting to hear how people think the rules should work, regardless of exactly how they're written.

I'd rather play with a loose reading of the rules that actually works than a strict reading that seems broken. In this case, both readings 'work' in-game, so I find them both worth considering.

You can - when you make house rules. But when discussing how the rules actually work with other players you aren't actually free to just make stuff up because you want to. You are restrcited by what the rules say rather than by what you would like them to say.

Next there is intent.
[sarcasm]deleted[/sarcasm]
First, the discussion is about what the rules say, not about what they could say if we changed them to what we wanted. Suggesting house rules is fine, claiming they are RAW during a 'what do the rules say' discussion is ... not. Discussing 'intent' is fine (though often pointless), claiming your opinion of 'intent' as the RAW counter to the RAW is... not.
Second, the whole intent thing is just a joke. Anyone can make any claim they like and say they think it is the 'intent' - as they see it. It simply isn't a viable way of figuring out solutions. One side says "the intent is clearly that only the OL can explode skeletons" the other side says "the intent is clearly that skeletons have the explode ability, so whoever controls them can explode them". Progress = 0.
Third, as above, it isn't broken. You just happen to not like it. Broken is things like the Gauntlets of Power/Rapid Fire combo before they nerfed gauntlets. Or Nanok with 10 armour. Or the Staff of Knowledge with Lots of free surges and gold/silver power dice - things that truly break down the entire game structure. This little rule is extraordinarily minor. One hero skill, which is already on the weaker side of average, gets an occasional bonus amounting to a red dice worth (through armour), and even using this has a cost. That's it. Big deal!

Its all good to make house rules or discuss potential house rules. But you do need to flag them as such, especially , in a discussion about RAW.

Corbon, please get off your soapbox and stop telling everyone else that they're reading the rules incorrectly. Because the rule book is not rigorously written, there's really no such thing as pure RaW. Many rules are ambiguous, and the interactions between many rules are ambiguous. And many clearly worded rules simply do not work as written. I don't understand why you (and some others here) can't accept that. You've made assumptions in your own reading of the rules, and you fault anyone who does not make those same assumptions.

What the rules say is often ambiguous, so what we're usually discussing is not what they say but what they mean . If someone does not interpret the rules the same way you do, that does not make them wrong. And that does not make their interpretation a "house rule".

How do you define 'progress' in these discussions, anyway? Forcing your opinion on others is never going to create consensus among the group. Nothing will ever create consensus. There will always be differing opinions, and that's okay. I think that 'progress' is made by letting each person explain the reasoning for his own view, then letting every reader make up his own mind about the rules. Most of us are not even playing the game with each other, so why does it matter if we disagree?

mahkra said:

Consensus is usally FAQ'ed in.