Fizz said:

Point taken. Maybe I should have said "nothing we say" will create consensus. But even the FAQ doesn't always end the arguments...

@ Corbon - "broken" was the wrong word - of course... as it does not technically bring the game to a hault and make it unplayable.

I personally feel there is validity to both sides of the argument. If there wasn't - people wouldn't be arguing both sides of it.

You can still look at it as resurrecting a "normal un-named monster" - The Overlord gives the power to the skeleton - but the skeleton is killed and raised by the hero though the heroes skill of necromancy. And he is not actually resurrecting it - infact just animating it. It is there that I find where one could think that "no" the skeleton would not get it the dead head skill. It is no longer the OL activating it - but the hero reanimating it... I think it just returns to a normal skeleton as the hero obviously does not posess the Death Head ability.

It also brings up another question to me though - which I think I already know the answer - this thread is the first I've really read the skill though - not playing SoB yet.

"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."

Specifically:
"at any point during their activation for free." - does this mean - I can shoot with the skeleton - move up to its movement points - and then explode all in the same turn? I would presume so! That's even cooler than I thought if so.

mahkra said:

mahkra said:

You are taking things beyond liberal interpretation and into house rule territory. For your argument to have any value as an interpretation of the Rules As Written (RAW), you must be able to cite the rules to make your point. Earlier you said "Active and passive skills could easily be treated differently." There is no basis for this in the rules. No where are the terms "active skill" or "passive skill" even mentioned, let alone the idea that different abilities follow different sets of rules.

It is entirely possible to be wrong in your interpretation of rules. If I said that a beastman's +2 damage ability gave him +5 damage on his rolls, I would be incorrect. Similarly, when you offer interpretations that conflict with the rules, while not offering even the slightest RAW leg to stand on, your interpretation is incorrect.

This is a competitive game, not a philosophical debate. Differing opinions on rules are bad. If every football team decided that a touchdown was worth a different number of points, there would be chaos. In football's case there are leagues and refs and the like to enforce the rules, creating consensus on what constitutes a touchdown by forcing their opinions on the football teams. Debating the finer points of the descent rules is useful, as it helps to reveal both areas that are insufficiently described as well as situations that surprisingly are already covered. But the goal of these discussions is to come up with the one answer that best follows the current rules.

There is nothing wrong with playing Descent in a way that matches your mental model of how things should work. Many people allow heroes to walk under soaring creatures, because a creature that is both blocking the ground and 4 spaces in the air does not make sense outside the context of Descent rules. But such changes are house rules, not interpretations in any way, shape, or form.

Badend said:

QFT +1

For whatever it's worth, I would have to agree with Corbon's interpretation of a re-animated skeleton still having the ability to explode while under the control of a hero with the Necromancy skill. The reason being the way the "Death Head" card is worded..."All of your normal skeletons gain the ability to explode." In my opinion, they gained the exploding ability at the moment the avatar upgrade card was purchased, as opposed to on a case by case basis each time the Overlord deigns to use it, and then it is retained going forward. The best analogy, in my opinion (or at least a good analogy), is the condition of a skeleton being upgraded to silver. I think we would all agree that it's silly to think the Overlord could deny a re-animated skeleton the status of his upgrade to silver from copper, just because he (the Overlord) doesn't deign to actively permit the ability to be used because he paid for it after all. Once such an ability or status is gained , it is retained, unless overtly taken away by a clear-cut development of some sort.

That's not to say that FFG won't rule otherwise at some point in the future, but in the meantime attempting to somehow derive their intent is nothing but speculation.

Personally I think it would be self-defeating not to upgrade the eldritch monster class to silver simply out of fear of exploding silver skeletons. Actually they would deal one red die of damage regardless of whether they are copper or silver, etc. But maybe I'm not quite getting that particular point.

Also, I would have to say, SoylentGreen, that it would seem that skeletons could definitely first attack and then go do their suicide bomber mission after their "standard" attack. Their activation can continue after their attack has been made and their ability to explode is allowed at any point during their activation. That does make this (Death Head) skill pretty lethal, no matter whose side the skeleton is on at the moment.

I read it the other way "All YOUR normal skeletons" - I read YOUR as the OLs. I am inclined to agree with the others in this thread.

BUT - I am glad we agree on the Shoot - then run and BOOM! And yes - I overlooked the fact that it was 1 red die - no matter the copper, silver, or gold...

mahkra said:

My 'soapbox' has nothing to do with how the rules work, and everything to do with people in a rules discussion who a) when their reasoning is proven faulty claim 'intent' as their basis (as if they know 'intent' better than others!) and/or b) claim that if they don't like the rules they can make their own up instead (which is practically the definition of a house rule) and they will still be RAW.

Differing opinions are fine. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But anyone who gives an opinion based on a line of reasoning (and an opinion offered in a discussion without a line of reasoning is worthless) opens themselves up to having their reasoning examined - and if it proves faulty, being told so.

If someone asks what the rules say then we are discussing what they say. Sometimes that involves discussiing what that means but the 'means' discussion still must be related to what they say.

Progress towards a single point isn't necessary (though it is useful), but progress at least towards a 'we can agree to disagree over this ambiguous situation' is a good thing.
The point was that that pulling out the 'intent' card in a rules discussion is mostly a worthless exercise, and usually a negative one. If there are multiple sides with differing opinions then the 'intent' will be defined by each side according to their opinion.

If you want to play the 'intent' card then the way to do so is say "I think that the 'intent' of this rule is probably X. What do others think the 'intent' is?" That way you are stating your (subjective) opinion on a subjective subject (intent) and offering others the opportunity to do the same. If you get a general consensus of intent, then you can use that as a basis of interpetation. But without a general consensus (or author's post) you can't use it as a basis of interpretation.
Saying "the rule works this way because that is the intent" is rude and unhelpful (unless you are the author). Rude because you are basically saying "I alone have supreme knowledge of how this game was intended to be played and everyone else's opinion is utterly worthless - regardless of it's basis". Unhelpful because anyone else can post exactly the same thing with a different choice so all we've effectively done is insult the other side.

SoylentGreen said:

"The Overlord gives the power to the skeleton ..." See, this is where I believe your reasoning is faulty. The OL doesn't give the power to the skeletons. The upgrade explicitly gives the ability to the skeletons . Once the upgrade has been bought the OL no longer has the power to give or take the ability, his skeletons simply have it. Then when they die, necromancy doesn't have them lose any abilities, or even change ownership - just control. A reanimated skeleton is identical in every respect (bar friend and foe) to the skeleton it was when it died. Control is different, but that is not an aspect of the skeleton.

And yes, skeletons can definitely move + shoot and then explode.

I'm not sure I buy the distinction between control and ownership. Neither is an explicitly defined game-term, and although "control" has some meaning (in reference to figures) within the context of the game, "ownership" does not, except in perhaps in referring to who the physical owner of the game is. "Your" cannot really mean anything other than "That controlled by you".

But I still think there is no clear answer to the question, as the degree of disagreement in this thread should indicate.

There is a huge difference between the following to statements:

"All your skeletons gain the ability...." (This is how it is written on the card)

-and-

"All skeletons gain the ability...." (This would be akin to having an ability such as Undying or Sorcery on the monster card)

If the qualifier "your" wasnt in the sentence, then I would say that player would also be able to blow them up.

Fizz said:

Their might be a huge difference.

First, it could easily just be conversational language and not mean anything. All skeletons in the campaign are the OLs anyway, at least when they come into play.
Second, there is the question of whether skeletons that 'were' the OL's can lose an ability the have gained just because they are no longer in his control - did the skeleton gain it (permanently) while it was the OL's or did the skeleton (temporarily) gain it due to being the overlords?
Third, there is a question of 'ownership' (yours) and 'control' (reanimated by the hero). Is a reanimated skeleton still belonging to the OL but controlled by the hero? Not really sure, nobody can be.
[i do recall vaguely a discussion a long time ago about figure limits that might be relevant here - figures under control of a hero effectively reduce the pool of figures the OL has available and it might be that the question of 'ownership' was indirectly referenced there - I vaguely recall that the figures were all still 'owned' by the OL even when controlled by the hero so the OL couldn't claim that he should still be able to spawn up to 'his' usual limit (and substitute other figures in temporarily). But my memory is very, very, vague on this and good luck finding that discussion! It was probably only indirectly relevant at best anyway.]

I think there is far too much vagueness going on there to definitively say that the 'your' means anything or not.
The only thing that is sure is that a reanimated skeleton did have the exploding ability before it was reanimated, so in the absence of solid evidence to say that it loses the ability when it dies my default position is that allowing reanimated skeletons to be exploded by the hero is fair.

The fact that it provides a minor boost to a weak skill is just a bonus.

Conversationally, is the skeleton sentient and make it's own decisions, or does the overlord truly pull the strings on his minions actions? Does the skeleton decide to blow up, or does the overlord point his finger, says "BANG!" and the skeleton explodes? If a train leaves Los Angeles at 12:50 traveling 85mph heading 196 miles to San Francisco, and an opposite train leaves San Francisco at 1:10, at what time do they serve drinks?

There might be a huge difference? No, Corbon, there is a huge difference. It may not be intended that way, but you seem adamant that we're out of line when making arguments based on our presumption of the designer's intent.

If you think it's so important to go exactly by RaW, you can't decide to ignore a word because it conflicts with your reading of a rule. This is exactly why I've been saying it's so misguided to worry so much about strict RaW. Whether you recognize it or not, you are making assumptions in your reading of the rules, and your assumptions are no more (or less) valid than anyone else's.

Corbon said:

On a somewhat tangential note - if all of the skeleton figures are already on the board but one is being controlled by a hero via Necromancy, can the OL remove that reanimated skeleton from the board in order to play it as a new skeleton spawn? Or can the OL only remove 'his own' skeletons to re-spawn them in another location?

@ Corbon: Necromancy allows to animate, not to re -animate a skeleton. This is a huge difference in my opinion. Re-animate would strongly suggest that the hero´s skeleton is the same as the one just killed, with all capabilities. The term "animate" I interpret as a dead, empty body / heap of bones (that may or may not used to have the Death Head ability) which the hero forces under his control, using the same stats as it had before being killed.

I´m in the camp of "your" skeletons being exclusive to the OL.

Okay, tired of listening to this...

Here's the question I would like to send to the powers that be hoping for a response (but since the last email I sent last week has gotten nothing don't get your hopes up). This actually is a broader question since it also relates to the the Skeleton King and the upgrade that gives Sorcerers Blast and the Sniper upgrade, as well as a few other Avatars. Please advise, and make an effort to be a non-biased as possible in the wording.

Q: Do Avatar Upgrades (such as Death Head, Arcane Energies, Sniper, etc) that grant abilities continue to grant the monster the ability when animated using the Necromancy Skill by a hero?

A1: Yes, the animated monsters retains the abilities granted by the Avatar Upgrades.

A2: No, the animated monster is no longer under the Avatar's control and therefore loses the ability.

Probably not the best way to word it, so suggest a change. However, my only condition is that the question must remain generalized since this can be applied to not just Death Head but other Avatar upgrades.

mahkra said:

I would think you should limit it to the Overlords 'Own' minions, otherwise you are in a sense penalizing your hero, by taking away their minion, due to a lack of miniatures, when it would be easy enough to just use a stand-in until another one becomes available.

mahkra said:

I am? What assumptions, please?

I pointed out three reasons why we can't be sure that the 'yours' is significant.
I pointed to the one completely sure fact we have.
I used that one completely sure fact for my reasoning and left all else alone as 'unreliable'.
At least, that is what I thought I did.

As for animate/reanimate, what is the difference? The skeleton had to be 'alive' and under the OL's control/ownership first, and killed by the necromancer, before it can be animated/reanimated. (If it was pure animation, differing from re-animation, then presumably bonepiles could be animated since they can turn into skeletons so must have all the parts etc, and possibly other monsters not killed by the necromancer could be animated...) We know what the skelton was when it 'died' and we don't have any evidence to say it changes when it is (immediately) (re-)animated.

Remy, no problem with the question as is. It might be worthwhile extending it to include other upgrades (such as monster upgrades) and powers, while keeping each as a separate question so to speak. I'm not sure...

Corbon said:

Just want to clarify what you mean. Here's what I consider the upgrades that could fall under this ruling (and this probably isn't all of them)

Arcane Energies (RtL Sorcerer King): Sorcerer's gain Blast

Sniper (RtL SK): Skeletons gain +2 range and ignore one obstacle/figure when drawing LOS

The Elder Race (RtL Great Wyrm): Dragons gain Unstoppable

Spider's Nest (RtL Spider Queen): Bane Spiders gain Pierce 2 and Poison

Bloodthirst (RtL Beastman Lord): Beastment gain +1 power die or +1 power dice upgrade

Mountain Giants (RtL The TItan): Giants gain +10 wounds

Greater Ogres (RtL The Titan): Ogres gain +5 wounds and Reach.

Aura of Pain (RtL The Demon Prince): Demons gain Aura +1 and their Aura's inflict Burn

Death Head (SoB Captain Bones): Your normal skeletons gain the ability to explode

Then whatever the ones for the other Avatars are for SoB.

Then there are all the various Power cards, so which would but some not (like I don't think All Concealing Shadows would work, or rather it would but the hero could never pay to activate it since he can't generate threat.)

Here's the question rephrased:

Question: Do ability granting Power cards (in both non-advanced campaign and advanced campaign Descent) and Avatar Upgrades (in the advanced campaign) continue to grant their abilities if a monster is animated by a hero using the Necromancy skill? An example would be in Sea of Blood, do normal Skeletons controlled by a hero with Necromancy still have the ability during their activation to explode and cause a red die of damage to all adjacent figures if the Overlord has purchased the Death Head Avatar Upgrade?

Should I bother with the example or just give the listed answers like before?

Big Remy said:

Add monster upgrades - I imagine everyone agrees that they should count but best include them for completion.

[potential send to FFG]
There is some uncertainty about the status of monsters animated by a hero with necromancy. What abilities and or upgrades should apply to the newly animated monster? Some think it is (re)animated exactly as it was immediately before death (ie with many or all of the abilities or upgrades it may have received when it was under the OL's control). Others think it has only some of those abilities - though how to tell which abilities or upgrades it 'keeps' is then a second debate. Possibly some may think it has no upgrades or abilities at all (a gold level monster necromancied would be a copper level monster under the hero's control) though none appear to have expressed that opinion.

Q: Which upgrades continue to work on monsters that are now under a hero's control (eg necromancy)? Do monster upgrades count (eg Silver level upgrades in advanced campaign)? Do Powers count (eg Doom, Unholy swiftness, Dark Armour)? Do Avatar upgrades count (eg Arcane Energies, Deaths Head, Sniper)? Do Avatar special abilities count (eg Master of the Hunt's The Pack)?

A1: Nothing counts. The newly animated monster does not get any benefits from the OLs powers, special abilities or upgrades of any kind.
A2: Everything counts. The newly animated monster is exactly identical to how he was when he died.
A3: X, Y, and Z types of upgrades are kept, A, B and C types of upgrade do not (fill in X-Z and A-C)
A4: (a full list of all upgrades with each individually specifying whether they are kept or not).
A5: Upgrades that specify 'your' X receives Y (eg 'your' skeletons receive the sniper ability) do not apply because the monster is no longer controlled by the OL . Upgrades that are generalised (do not specify 'your') still apply.

[/potential send to FFG]

Corbon said:

Here are some assumptions:

1. You're assuming the "yours" is not significant, just because it might not be. However, there is no established right answer, so the burden of proof is not on either side. We don't have to prove that "yours" is significant. And since the word is included in the sentence, why should we assume that it is not there for a reason?
2. You're assuming that there's one (and only one) relevant "fact", though I'm not even sure how you define that. Is it not a fact that "yours" is included in the sentence? Is it not a fact that Necromancy's interactions with other rules are not rigorously defined?
3. You're assuming that a reanimated skeleton is identical in every respect to the skeleton when it died. Where is this specified?
4. You're assuming that the upgrade gives an extra power to a skeleton in a certain way. Yes, it could be true that the upgrade grants a power to a skeleton and the skeleton can then use that power independently. However, it could also be true that the presence of the upgrade makes the skeleton able to use a special power, and when the skeleton leaves the Overlord's control it is not longer under that upgrade's influence.
5. You're assuming that you know what the skeleton was when it died. But do you really? Is the exploding power part of the skeleton or part of the upgrade?
6. Basically, you're assuming that your original reading of the rule is correct, but there's really no reason any reading should be favored over any other. As the rule is ambiguous, there's no default "right" answer.

Remy's original question assumes all upgrades would work the same way with Necromancy, but that need not be the case. Corbon, your revised question is better, but the answers are complex enough that I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a helpful answer.

Big Remy said:

Some of those would not be applicable for Necromancy. Ex. Dragons, demons, ogres, giants, and bane spiders as they are larger than the one square.

If that is the whole list - only the sorcerers, skeletons, and beastmen would need to be asked about... with regards to necromancy.

SoylentGreen said:

And Dark Armor, DOOM!, and Unholy Swiftness.

Wasn't planning on sending the list, that was just for purposes of compiling some info. Again, the question is best left as general as possible.

No need to bother sending it. This question was asked at the Terrinoth event during one of the Q & A's with Kevin (I fully inteded to ask myself, but another player beat me to the punch). He stated that the Overlord's Avatar upgrades that grant his monsters new abilities and what have you are NOT useable by the heroes should they somehow gain possession of the monster. Heroes only gain access to what's on the monster's card itself, not anything on an avatar upgrade card. His reasoning was that he felt "The Overlord shouldn't be punished for upgrading his minions". So aside from houseruling it, no more necromanced exploding skeletons and all the other mischief that could otherwise ensue.