I don't think the designers expected players to spend massive amounts of time trying to find tiny loopholes in the rules to exploit in unanticipated ways. I think they expected people to just play the game and have fun.

I do think that the concept of a "game state" probably was on designers' minds, though, even if they didn't think of it with that exact terminology. "Immediately" typically means (not just in Descent, but in games in general) before something / anything else happens. The concept of a "game state" is merely a more technical way to describe this idea, and I've found technical precision in language to be useful for communicating ideas without misunderstandings on these forums.

I do agree with Thundercles that there are loopholes that either side of this discussion could exploit - like most things in Descent, there's no 100% definitive right answer. And I think James is correct that we've both managed to explain our reasoning pretty well at this point. So I'll accept the cease-fire proposal and move on to other threads.

mahkra said:

I do agree with Thundercles that there are loopholes that either side of this discussion could exploit - like most things in Descent, there's no 100% definitive right answer. And I think James is correct that we've both managed to explain our reasoning pretty well at this point. So I'll accept the cease-fire proposal and move on to other threads.

He fell for it!

This turned out to become a longer debate than I expected. Thanks for all replies. We as a group have decided its legal for a hero to continue with rapidfire, since DC never mentions gaining/losing controll over hero, just controlling an attack. Since it is a ranged attack, triggeringconditions for rapidfire are met. That said, DC will probably never happen to the hero with Rapid Fire(maybe unless the hero is out of fatigue), and OL has avoided the problem.

Just thought I'd offer my two cents:

The hero retains possession of all of their abilities during the OL's turn, which is when DC is played.

The OL cannot spend fatigues for a hero, period. AFAIK.

The hero cannot use rapid fire during Dark Charm, since they are not making the attack, rather they are performing an attack for the OL - they do not have the initiative to do so; it's the OL's turn.

So neither party can take advantage of Rapid Fire during a dark charm attack.

At least that's how we play it. Makes the most sense to me, without trying to exploit rules.

Martyr13 said:

Dark Charm: "Play at the start of your turn and choose one hero. The chosen hero player must roll one power die. If the result is blank, nothing happens. If the result is not a blank, the hero must make one attack that you declare. This attack may target any hero, including the attacking hero, but is subject to the normal attack rules, including range and line of sight."

Bolded by me. Now, is it the OL making the attack?

Moneseki said:

The FAQ states it's the overlord who rolls the dice for the attack, as referenced in my previous post. That makes it the OL's attack rather than the hero player.

An additional point is that this is occuring on the OL's turn and that unless the hero has an order allowing them to interupt (read as take a very specific action or set of actions) then there is no action they can take. I would say that includes spending fatigue in order to trigger a skill.

I will admit that there are items that allow the hero player to spend fatigue on the OL's turn. However, these are for specific purposes ( ie. Ghost Armor) but the conditions for this are clearly detailed with the item.

Between the control issue of the hero between OL and Hero Player and the fact that spending fatigue is an action that can't occur on the OL's turn except under specific circumstances as detailed by certain items IMO DC will never be able to trigger a killing spree from any of the respective cards that allow for multiple attacks as a result of spending fatigue.

dragon76 said:

Ahh, no.
If a skill or ability allows the hero to spend fatigue it isn't necessarily restricted to only during the hero's turn, unless it specifies such (eg skills that specify when declaring an action, which is a specific part of the hero turn).
Take for example, Alertness, which can be triggered during any player's turn, as long as a monster enters an adjacent square (entry could be due to knockback or telekinesis for example).

It is still nice and simple, despite James choosing to ignore a clear rule (or rather, make a strange change to the straitforward meaning of a word in the rule).

Rapid Fire must be triggered immediately . The OL can't trigger it because it costs fatigue. The hero can't trigger it during the attack because a) its trigger is the completion of the attack and b) the hero only has control of defensive abilities during the attack.
Now between the attack ending and the hero being able to trigger Rapid fire there is a game state change . Even if it is not recognised 'officially' by the rules, the game state still actually changes between 'OL is controlling the hero' and 'Hero player is controlling the hero'. The OL clearly can't be handing control back before the attack is completed, because it is his attack. Therefore the OL must be handing control back after the attack is completed . That is the same trigger as rapid fire. But if triggering rapid fire is taken before the OL hands back over control, the hero can't use it because he is limited to defensive option. If it happens after then the hero can use it except it is not 'immediately' after the attack - because something else has happened, the change of control - so the hero can't use it because one of the conditions of use is 'immediately'.
So either way the hero can't use it.

The only way the hero can possibly use it is if 'immediately' is redefined to be 'almost immediately, but allowing for some other things to change first'. That is what James has done, whether he admits it or not - possibly be focusing on 'immediately' as a pure time-state and saying that since several things can happen on the same trigger they all happen simultaneously and are all 'immediate' to each other. However this possibility is dis-proven by the start-of-turn effects problem, where many different things have the same 'start of turn' trigger but nonetheless some still have to happen in a certain order - and can still be interrupted by other 'events' - thus they cannot all be 'immediate' to each other just because they have the same trigger.
An example of this would be the OL start of turn where the OL draws cards, discards down to his hand size, and may play power cards, spawn cards and 'start of turn' event cards in any order her chooses. But a Guard order may interrupt between some of those things, so just because they have the same trigger does not make them immediate. Eg, OL declares a spawn card, Tahlia interrupts before the spawn card is played and moves to a new location that will prevent spawning (using her guard order). OL then Dark Charms Tahlia, resolves the attack on herself, kills her and can then play his spawn card as desired.

Immediately means immediately - nothing happens in between. It might be 6 weeks of real time in between sessions, but immediately means nothing in the game has changed.
Returning control of the hero (ending the Dark Charm effect) is a change in the game, be it ever so minor, and thus breaks 'immediacy'.

It does not matter that it is just one small word. It still has meaning and must be followed.

We consider the game state change not mentioned officially to happen immediately, and since it is immediately there is no time wasted, giving the hero the option of using rapid fire.

I agree that we disagree, and I guess we all can live with that. Most important is that we all have fun, no matter the ruling. I guess my OL will avoid targetting the rapidfire-skilled hero, while you/your OL wouldnt care less. Happy DCing

Moneseki said:

I don't understand you?
If the game state change happens 'immediately', then Rapid Fire can't happen 'immediately' - only one thing can be 'immediate' if there is a sequence, regardless of actual time taken.

There are three things happening.
A, then B, then C. If B happens immediately after A, and C cannot happen until after B, then C cannot be immediately after A by definition. 'Time' (...no time wasted...) is not relevant to this equation in any way.
A is the attack (OL control), B is the hand over of control, C is the activation of Rapid Fire (only when hero has control again).

You are free to disagree, but when your argument for doing so supports agreement (the change of control is immediate, which by definition means the use of rapid fire is not, since it is established it is sequential), you leave me headscratching!

You seem, like James, to be refusing to see 'immediate' as anything but a temporal (timing, seconds, minutes etc) word. It is not - immediately also covers sequential matters, regardless of the time involved in the sequence.

Corbon said:

Careful here. The word "only" is not in the FAQ, it was made up by some people in this discussion.

I was one of the guys who persistently asked the question who had control over a shield etc. in a DC attack, and the FAQ entry was finally the answer to that.

It never said "only", nor was the original question targetted at what the hero controls during DC.

The complete control thing described by others has absolutely no rules basis, except that the DC attack is made under OL control.

Compare it with the Guard attack / Rapid Fire combo, which is explicitly allowed according to the FAQ:

Guard attack (hero controls) - trigger (after a Ranged attack) fulfilled - spend 2 fatigue immediately - Rapid Fire attack (hero controls)

DC attack (OL controls) - trigger (after a Ranged attack) fulfilled - spend 2 fatigue immediately - Rapid Fire attack (hero controls)

As for the argument against "immediately", a lot of things can happen between a Ranged Attack and a Rapid Fire attack: killing a monster (which may even explode and deal damage), rewarding of conquest and gold, invoking Necromancy on the just-killed monster, Knockback movement of the attacked monster. Would these "changes of the game state" prevent a Rapid Fire attack from happening? I guess not.

James McMurray said:

It's okay. Corbon's got my back on this one.

Corbon said:

Lets say a hero has a rest order and a burn token. At the start of that heros turn, he can choose which one of the effects to come first. They happen at the same time, but are solved as two separete events. No time spent between them, they happen at the same time. If it wasnt this way, a hero could use the rest order, and claim that the burn token couldnt happen, because he had passed the "at the start of your turn" event, even if it was 0,0000001 seconds after the rest order was resolved. That said, I fail to see how "immediately after the attack" cant come to the same conclusion.

Moneseki said:

Are you saying you can't understand the difference between things which a) happen simultaneously , but are resolved in any order and b) things which must happen sequentially even though negligible 'time' has passed?

Parathion said:

These are not relevant examples. Killing a monster (and it exploding) are part the effects of the attack - the attack is not complete until these happen, so anything 'immediately' after the attack must wait for these to happen anyway. The same with invoking necromancy - the trigger is monster death, which is part of the attack, even if at or near the end of the attack. The same with knockback - it is part of the attack effects and the attack has not ended until after it has resolved. Rewarding of CT and gold etc are metagame effects and don't interrupt the in-dungeon sequencing of the game.

Dark Charm, FAQ pg7
Q: When the overlord is controlling a hero through “Dark Charm,” who decides how to spend the surges and power dice? Can the overlord move the character and attack, or just make a single attack without moving?
A: The overlord controls the hero for that attack , including the hero’s use of surges and power dice. The overlord may also play cards such as “Aim” with the attack. However, the overlord player cannot move the character, or force the hero to spend fatigue to add to the attack. The hero no longer benefits from any heroes with Command, but does receive a bonus from any of the Overlord's figures with command.
FAQ pg7
Q: When the overlord is controlling a hero through “Dark Charm,” who decides how to spend the surges and power dice? Can the overlord move the character and attack, or just make a single attack without moving? What if the Dark Charmed character has an Aim or Dodge order? Who decides whether defensive abilities such as shields and Ghost Armor are used?
A: The overlord controls the hero for that attack , including the hero’s use of surges and power dice. The overlord may also play cards such as “Aim” with the attack. However, the overlord player cannot move the character, or force the hero to spend fatigue to add to the attack. The overlord may not force the character to use any orders. The hero retains control of any of her defensive options such as shields or Ghost Armor.

When a Dark Charm is successful, the OL controls the hero for the attack , except the hero retains control of defensive options

In order for a hero to use offensive options, control must be passed over from OL to Hero. This is a sequential requirement. If if there is a sequential requirement between A and C, then C is not immediately after A. No one has made any attempt to dispute this, just to ignore it because it doesn't suit them.

Let us say, for example, that the OL had a treachery card that he could play when declaring an attack, that gave that figure the Quickshot ability. If combined with a Dark Charm it would let the OL make two attacks with the hero.
The hero would certainly not be able to activate Rapid Fire after the first attack because the OL would still have control of the hero ready for the second attack.
Now, we all know that such a card is vanishingly unlikely (it would almost certainly trigger when activating a monster), but the point is to demonstrate that at the sequential position 'immediately' after the attack, the OL still controls the hero and thus Rapid Fire cannot be activated. Only after the OL relinquishes control can rapid fire (or any non-defensive options) be activated by the hero, but at that point 'immediately' has passed by and the opportunity is gone.

If someone can make a reasonable argument against this logic, then I'll happily agree to disagree.
However to date, the arguments have consisted of "no time has passed so immediately still works" which flat out ignores that immediately is a sequential effect as well as a temporal one or "other effects which are not relevant or incorrectly timed can happen without breaking sequencial issues so therefore this one can too".

Corbon, can you please your argument that the hero has no control of any offensive options. since it has absolutely no basis in the FAQ? I thought you would at least reread the FAQ entry you quoted when I pointed you towards that error.

I repeat, your whole "control" argument has no rules basis as well as your "game states" (all of which you claim irrelevant since they would kill your argument, except for your invented "game state: control").

And we all know (well at least the majority of the veterans here should) that the word "immediately" is present to prevent the hero from moving, drinking potions, re-equipping and the like between attack and skill to be activated.

Parathion said:

Please what (missing word)? Cease using because you don't have a counter argument? Back it up with evidence?

I already backed it up with the quotations from the FAQ. Both say explicitly that the OL controls the hero for the attack (I even bolded those portions for you at the time) - one gives the exception that the hero retains control of defensive options.
To me, if the OL has control of the hero and the hero player is explicitly given control of certain options while the OL player has overall control (during the attack), then the hero player is only given those options. 'Only' is strongly implied, if not explicit.
It's like saying I have (overall) control of a bank account, but you are allowed to put money in it. That does not in any way imply you can take money out (without my say so).

The control argument is backed by the FAQ. It does have explicit rules (FAQ) basis so you can admonish me for using it all you like, but like it or not it will still be true.
The 'game state' is a descriptive form not explicitly used in the rules, indeed not explicitly used in practically any rules that I know, but that does not make it a false thing.
I only claimed 'irrelevant' as examples which were demonstrably wrong, with the exception of the CT/cash thing, which I think anyone can see is a metagame factor and not relevant to the in-dungeon game flow.

I'm sorry that I don't agree with your use of 'immediately'. To me it means 'immediately', not 'before you can do a special set of other things that all the veterans know'.

I dropped the word "drop" - sorry. But you guessed the intention correctly, smart guy that you are.

The OL does not have OVERALL control for the attack as you now claim in your last post - where in the world does it say that? I guess we agree that an Aim order is an offensive option usable in an attack - yet the OL has no control over it, as explicitly stated in the FAQ, killing your "overall" statement. So who has control over the Aim order? The hero? Nobody?

Your control argument is not backed by the FAQ or the rules beyond the fact that the OL controls parts of the DC attack and the hero controls defensive options, is it? Nowhere it is mentioned that the control switches back to the hero after the DC attack nor that this would require any game state changes which would break a chain that includes the term "immediately". You could rather view it as part of the attack just like the other effects you claimed irrelevant, since with the end of the attack the control clearly goes back to the hero.

What part of The overlord controls the hero - direct quote from both FAQ answers, repeated and emboldened twice, escapes you?

Obviously this one:

However, the overlord player cannot move the character, or force the hero to spend fatigue to add to the attack. The overlord may not force the character to use any orders.

Far from having "overall control" over the attack.

Parathion said:

That doesn't change that the overlord has control , just puts restrictions on what he can do with that control.

So, you are saying "The OL has overall control", but the "overall" is somewhat restricted? That´s a pure word play...

Parath, it's an itemized list of exceptions , meaning the general rule is that the OL has control. And note it doesn't say the hero can do any of those things; it just says the OL cannot. The hero is only given control of "defensive options".

mahk, where does this only come from again? It is not present in the FAQ, only in some posts here, as I repeatedly stated.

It's implied. The statement effectively breaks down to:

1) Joe controls the apples

2) Betty controls the green apples

3) Joe cannot give apples to Alice

Apart from the exclusions mentioned, Joe controls the apples (it's a complete clause mentioning no limitations). The only way for Alice to get red apples is for Betty to give them to her, but Betty can't because she has only been given control of the green ones.

Granted, I still think that the Hero can use Rapid Fire but that's because of the whole game state and immediately thing.

Don't worry. I'm sure the ruling will make less sense, and then more, and then less, and then more as it goes through ten more FAQ iterations.

Parathion said:

The only comes from the fact that it's the only thing mentioned.

This really isn't a Descent rules discussion any more; we're really in reading comprehension territory now. The FAQ says that the OL has control except he cannot do certain specific things. The hero retains control of one specific thing. "The overlord controls the hero" is a general statement, which is modified by specific statements that follow. The general statement is still true except in the specific cases that were clarified.

• The overlord controls the hero.

However,

• The overlord player cannot move the character.
• The overlord player cannot force the hero to spend fatigue to add to the attack.
• The overlord may not force the hero to use any orders.
• The hero retains control of any of her defensive options.

None of those things negate the fact that "The overlord controls the hero." There are limits to his power, but he is still in control. The only time the hero is said to have control at all is "the hero retains control of any of her defensive options."

I am arguing against the control thing because some claimed "overall" control of the OL - which is simpy not true since the OL does not have control over the things you just mentioned, and some of them are even offensive / attack options.