Parathion said:

"Overall" may have been a poor word choice, but the OL definitely has "general" control. And the OL admittedly does not have access to all attack options. But that does not mean the hero has access to those options - it means nobody has access to those options.

It means that it is not specified who has control over these options.

Since in a normal attack, the hero has control over these options, it seems not to be too far-fetched that the control stays with the hero in a DC attack, but there is nothing in the rules that proves the point of either side.

mahkra said:

mahkra said:

I happen to disagree with the general control. OL has control over the hero for THAT attack, nothing more. Once that attack is completed, it seems obvious the OL can`t do anything else with the DC-card played. Once the DC attack is completed, the hero decides if he wants to use any abilities available to him. Since the hero just made a ranged attack(true it was controlled by the OL, but nonetheless the hero made it), he/she can continue with rapid fire, if 2 fatigue are spent.

Moneseki said:

That , is the 'immediacy' issue, not the control issue.
The hero must use Rapid Fire immediately after the OL's attack (that is part of the Rapid Fire wording).

The argument here is that since the hero cannot use Rapid Fire while the OL has control (hero is given control only of defensive options), there must be a control handover (back to the hero) before the hero can use Rapid Fire. Since there is a sequential requirement A->B->C*, then C is not immediately after A (regardless of physical time taken).
*A = Dark Charm Attack (OL control), B = handover of control back to Hero player, C = activate Rapid Fire (Hero control)

Parathion said:

Yes, it is too far-fetched.
1. The OL has control over the Hero (with some restrictions).
2. The Hero player is given a specific subset of abilities that he retains control of.
3. Abilities not in that subset are absolutely not under control of the hero player.

That's some fairly fundamental logic...

Corbon said:

In my eyes you seem to invent this handover of control, I just fail to read that part from the FAQ/DC card. DC gives the hero an attack, OL decides who is attacked, the attack is resolved, nothing more happens with the DC-card. Last thing hero did, was to attack(in this case with a ranged attack), which gives him the option of rapid fire. DC or FAQ say nothing about loosing/gaining control, only that OL controls the hero for that specific attack.

It would be lovely to hear from KV or FFG what kind of solution they would have for this(the correct answer is naturaly the reason why I asked about this matter in the first place).My guess is we will not hear from them, and both parties will choose what is more correct for their gaming group.

Parathion said:

Not so, it's clearly stated. Joe controls the apples.

Moneseki said:

Yes, I absolutely invented the handover of control. It isn't specified anywhere. Yet it must exist.

See 1-3 above. The OL is in control, the hero player is not in control of any offensive options (the use of Rapid Fire). That is direct from the FAQ as previously quoted and bolded frequently (despite some people insisting it does not exist).
... then the Hero player wishes to use an offensive option (Rapid Fire).
There must be a handover of control. The OL has control and the hero player cannot use offensive options, then the hero player is back in control and can use all his options, including Rapid Fire (assuming he meets the conditions). You can't get from OL control to hero player control without a handover .

Corbon said:

There is no evidence that this handover as you describe it occurs, nor is it necessary. The OL controls the attack(and the attack is resolved as normally) and when the attack is completely resolved, the OL is no longer allowed any control over the hero. He doesnt have to give that control back to the hero player, the OL has no right to control him any longer as DC is completed(and DC is completed when the attack is resolved). Instantly when DC is resolved, everything is as it normally is, with hero player having control over the recently DCed hero. Since the last thing happening was a ranged attack, triggering conditions for RF is fulfilled.

Timeline as I see it would look like this:

1. OL plays Dark Charm(and succeeds)
2. OL declares an attack from DCed hero.
3. DC-attack is resolved
Once DC-attack is resolved, DC card is fulfilled and everything is back to normal(no handover of control, OL just doesnt have permission to control hero)
4. DCed Hero just fired off an attack, hero player decides to rapid fire.
5. OL continues his turn after RF.

If you want to add in the handover of control as a timeframe, you are naturally free to do it, but there really is no reason for it.

Moneseki said:

How many times must the FAQ be quoted? The OL controls the hero , not 'the attack'. You are denying the repeated, quoted, explicit FAQ wording. The OL has control of the hero ...
While the OL has control of the hero, the hero player cannot use Rapid Fire. That, I take it, is a given? (except for one person who seems to be having an extended mental block)...
At some stage, after the DC attack has been completed, control of the hero must be returned to the hero player. Must be. Just because you choose not to number it above, even though you acknowledge it, doesn't mean that it does not exist as part of a required sequence of events. Your numbering system should look like this;
1. OL plays Dark Charm(and succeeds)
2. OL declares an attack from DCed hero.
3. DC-attack is resolved
4. since the DC card is fulfilled, everything returns to normal (OL doesn't have permission to control hero any longer)
5. DCed Hero just fired off an attack, hero player decides to rapid fire.
6. OL continues his turn after RF.
Like it or not, 4 is a change of control. Whether you call it a 'handover' or a 'return to normal', 4 is required before 5 can be activated. And since 4 must happen between 3 and 5, 5 is not 'immediately' after 3.

Back to basics, since people seem to invent more and more fancy stuff:

The DC card itself says (and it was not modified until now):

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.

Normal attack rules clearly allow a hero to use Rapid Fire under the circumstances given on the skill card, don´t they?

But I guess some people will still invent some other things to discuss this statement away.

Parathion said:

...

"Let's ignore the FAQ ruling and only base our assessment on the (outdated) card text, because the (more recent) FAQ ruling doesn't produce the outcome I want."

Is that a fair paraphrase of what you said above?

EDIT: That bold "normal attack rules" part is irrelevant. Nobody knows what that means without consulting the FAQ for clarification.

Since when is the original card outdated? A FAQ entry is not an override of an existing card until it specifically says so. The FAQ rulings on DC are explanations of certain aspects of the mechanics, but they don´t make the card text invalid.

Of course, if you prefer to use the fancy invented explanations rather than original game text, you are free to do so.

Parathion said:

Wait, you seriously think FFG pays attention to which things are listed as Errata and which are listed as Clarifications? What about all the "clarifications" that explicitly conflict with original rules? How do you resolve that?

Wait, you seriously think that FFG carefully and purposefully chooses words like "control" or "immediately" with all aspects of discussions covered in this thread already precognised, implying all the fine subleties that have to be uncovered in a cumbersome process (like "immediately" to be interrupted by "change back of control", thus intentionally denying the hero his RF attack)?

Parathion said:

Are you saying that you agree the rule as written works the way I'm saying it does, but claiming FFG simply didn't realize it when they wrote the rule that way?

As for the general statement about the FAQ, I'm just saying that if a FAQ ruling uses language that makes the language on the original card no longer accurate , the FAQ is a rule change , even if they don't explicitly say the old rule is no longer valid. In this case, I can't even begin to imagine what the problem is. The original wording is completely vague, and the FAQ clarifies it. (It may not clarify it perfectly, but it's certainly much more specific than the original text.)

mahkra said:

At this point you two have such a long chain of rhetorical questions that I'm honestly not sure what either of you is saying anymore. =P

I know, just accept the fact that you're not going to convince the other and play it the way your group wants to play it. Sheesh!

-shnar

Can't. This is the internet, and the size of your virtual testicles is directly related to how long you'll continue a pointless argument in an attmept to prove how smart you are to the rest of the world.

You get bonus points for sayingt he same thing over and over again as if it actually matters and will change their mind if you just manage to hit the magic number of repetitions.

James McMurray said:

Oh, it's not really that. It's mostly that I can't stand my job so get sucked into the forums as a distraction.

Also, I'm married, so I have no need of testicles, virtual or otherwise. They're pretty pointless at this stage in my life.

mahkra said:
"Are you saying that you agree the rule as written works the way I'm saying it does, but claiming FFG simply didn't realize it when they wrote the rule that way?"

This one's not rhetorical; I was genuinely curious to find out the answer. If it's "no", then I have no idea what the previous post was supposed to mean. If it's actually "yes", then I guess the discussion never had a point in the first place.

mahkra said:

Hey, me too! Boring job (mostly), interesting forum discussions, married...

...except that I married an awesome woman and still have much need of my real ones.
Although metaphorically it's a fight to keep them sometimes. I almost got banned from sports after an injury in a tender spot...

Quick question about the timing on Dark Charm

Card says it must be played at the start of the OL's turn. At the time it is played the dice roll to determine success of DC is rolled and on anything other than a blank the hero must make an attack that the OL declares. Does the hero have to make that attack immediately or can the OL declare that attack at any point in time on his turn?

As I've said before, IMO the hero player cannot immediately follow a DC with RF, however if someone is inclined to follow the other side of the argument this timing issue can be of some importance as rapid fire can only make additional attacks that turn. If the OL isn't forced to attack immediately then he can use that attack as his very last action and end his turn right after the attack hence avoiding the fallout from RF.

Any thoughts?

I think the attack must happen immediately, because there's not really any alternative. If it's not immediate, why would the OL need to use it during that turn? Why couldn't he save it for a future turn, or save it to use as an interrupt during a player's turn?

EDIT: Also, just in general, if a game effect says "X happens" but makes no mention of timing, it's implied that "X happens now ".

mahkra said:

+1
Mahkra, what is happening????

Corbon said:

Haha.... at first I thought you were asking me to define X. But then I realized what you meant.