Ispher said:
At the end of the attack, during step 6 where only defensive options can be used such as Shields or Ghost Armor, the hero has de facto regained control, since he controls all his defensive options.

So the attack is fully resolved when the hero uses a shield? Even before you've actually applied damage & removed wound tokens from the hero sheet?

Ispher said:
Of course, the FAQ says that "The overlord controls the hero for that attack", and an attack is supposed to be an entire attack. But, since it also says "The hero retains control of any of her defensive options such as shields or Ghost Armor", it either contradicts itself (since the OL is not in control of step 6 of the attack), or it is written as if "attacking" was only the "firing off" part (the "cause" as I wrote a dozen messages earlier, the wound inflicting being the effect).

It's not a contradiction, it's a clarification. One is a general statement, the other is a specific statement. The OL controls the hero except for defensive options, which the hero can still control. That's not self-contradictory. "The OL controls the hero except the hero player retains control of the hero" would be a contradiction.

mahkra said:

mahkra said:

When you say, "The OL controls the hero for the attack", which, per the rules, translates exactly as "The OL controls the hero from step 1 to step 6 of the attack", and then you say "The hero player controls everything his hero can do in step 6 of the attack", you have a contradiction, unless it is indeed a clarification that means that the OL controls the hero from steps 1 to 5 of the attack, reverting control to the player in step 6.

And there is no step 7 for the OL to regain control after step 6.

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. If the hero's only getting control back to use his defensive options, would that mean the OL does retain control for the duration if he's making the hero attack a different hero, since the DC'd hero never has an opportunity to use a defensive option? By that logic, the DC'd hero could not use RF if he attacked someone else, but could use RF after he shoots himself in the foot. That just doesn't make sense at all.

It really seems like you've started with a conclusion and you're looking for a loophole to justify that conclusion, rather than starting with the rules and trying to figure out what they actually say.

Thundercles said:

Now that is an interesting and good point. Change-of-control (CoG) is simultaneous with tne end of the attack (EoA). I think we can go somewhere with this...

If CoG is simultaneous with EoA, then their order does not matter. Each can be resolved in any order... yes, this works. Then, Rapid Fire triggers 'after' EoA, which therefore by definition also means 'after' anything simultaneous with EoA. Therefore RF can be triggered by the hero.
I think I am reversing my position.

Thundercles said:

Tis is a little beside the point, but I think you have this a bit wrong. Yes, simultaneous things, and things that trigger of the same event, can be resolved (I am fairly sure, without actually checking, that resolved is the wording used) in any order. But each is resolved (including any further effect that triggers off it). So, for example, you can't wait for both bleed rolls before deciding which to use your skull shield on, because each bleed token is a discrete event that must resolve before the next one is resolved - and the resolution includes doing wounds and removing wound tokens (or preventing the wounds with Skull shield).

Thundercles said:

That is what I've been arguing. The transfer of control happens after the attack ends. But there is no reason thathe transfer of control can't happen simultaneous with the attack ending. And having it do so resolves your 'can't be a point after the attack when the OL still has control argument.

However the second half of this paragraph is... well, I can't describe it politely.
If the OL controls the attack, then the OL controls the attack. It makes no difference that his active options are finished before the attack ends, he is still in 'overall' control, even if the only decisions or actions practically left are those of the limited options the hero player retained control.

Thundercles said:

I agree. The control change event must exist - you can't get from one control to another control without a change. But since it is simultaneous with the attack ending, not after the attack ending, it does not break the 'immediacy' requirement.
Thus the hero player has control and can execute it immediately after the attack.

I now believe that the Hero player can use Rapid Fire after an OL Dark Charm attack.

PS I am now on opposite sides to Mahkra. The world seems normal again. OTOH, +1 to everything in his post which came out immediately above this one

mahkra said:

The OL's control of the hero stops at step 5 whether he attacks the same hero or not; he can do nothing during step 6, and the Dark Charmed hero can sometimes use defensive options during step 6 even if another hero is targeted, like exhausting a shield to prevent wounds on an adjacent hero if he has Defender.

mahkra said:

It seemed to me exactly this way when Corbon exposed his "change of control" idea to prevent Rapid Fire; I also saw it as some kind of loophole. But I worked with what I saw as a loophole and demonstrated that even if such a change of control that could prevent the use of Rapid existed, it wouldn't prevent Rapid Firing because it happens earlier than Corbon realized.

Antistone got the point early enough (in reply #2!) by keeping it simple. But well, we got to use our brains, so no harm done!

Corbon said:

Interesting... so instead of (A -> B -> C), you're considering it as (A/B -> C), so that C can follow immediately after A? My concept of "C is immediately after A" means that the start of C is actually simultaneous with the end of A, so if we're getting rid of the (often useful) illusion of things happening consecutively instead of simultaneously, we'd have (A/B/C) instead of (A -> B -> C) or (A/B -> C). Everything compressed into an undefinable point. I can't say the hero's in control at that point, and I think it's too late for the hero to use RF after that point.

But I'm glad all is right with the world again.

mahkra said:

Yeah, comforting isn't it.

I think you are mixing up your own logic there. Or, your mixing your notation which is confusing your logic.
If C is immediately after A, then it can't be at the same time as A and must be after the things simultaneous with A. So even then it is A/B->C not A/B/C.

The start of C can't be simultaneous with the end of A, because, according to the previously defined requirement of simultaneity (which IIRC you agreed to, and I haven't seen anyone really disagree with) simultaneous things can be resolved in any order - that would mean you could do end-of-A and start-of-C in either order. I don't think you can, because C is definitively after A, so cannot start until A is ended.
I think you mean soC follows on as a continuation of eoA (there is no point in between A and C, just A then C - A and C being 'conjunctive' springs to mind - connected is a simpler and less confusing. Connected but not overlapping.

Therefore, by soC, both A and B are complete. The attack has ended, the hero is back in control and, immediately, Rapid Fire may be activated (by the hero player).

Wow, a week off and this thread is increased with 5 more pages. AND, Corbon switched side??? Also thanks for some nice funny comments(mahkra-Corbon) inbetween the serious stuff.

Corbon said:

Yeah, I was being pretty loose with notation/terminology. Perhaps I should've chosen clarity over brevity.

I think you're disregarding that definition of simultaneity, too, though. If you're saying "simultaneous things can be resolved in any order", then eoA cannot be simultaneous with B. You can't choose to resolve B before eoA, because the FAQ says "The overlord controls the hero for that attack". It doesn't say "The overlord controls the hero for rolling dice and applying damage but relinquishes control immediately before the attack ends." If you have any point before the attack ends where the overlord does not control the hero (the hero in general, not necessarily all of his abilities), then you're not following the FAQ instructions.

Also, if A and C are conjunctive, that actually means eoA is simultaneous with soC. (I'm using simultaneous as a real-world term here, not a game term.)

By the game mechanics definition of simultaneous, eoA is not simultaneous with soC, but eoA also is not simultaneous with B. But by the "real-world" definition of simultaneous, all 3 things are simultaneous.

mahkra said:

1. No. That is the entire point of simultaneity. SImultaneous things are happening at the same point , even though their resolution is one after another. So EoA and B can be simutaneous and you can resolve B before EoA without having a point at which the OL no longer controls the hero before he attack ends.

2. You can't mix together game-terms and real world terms that are the same yet different, so that doesn't matter. Not that I think your statement here is accurate in a practical sense. If eoA and soC follow on from each other, yet do not overlap then they are not simultaneous, they are just infinitely close.

3. Err, no. They just appear simultaneous because they are so close.

Corbon said:

1. You're confusing a temporal concept of simultaneous with your own in-game definition. In the game, things happen sequentially. Simultaneous game events, by your own reasoning, have the same trigger and can be resolved in any order. Both of those things are requirements. Maybe you could say that EoA and B have the same trigger, but you definitely can't say that they can be resolved in any order. Once you impose an order, which you must do because of the mechanics of the game, B cannot be performed before EoA. Yes, no "time" has passed between B and EoA, but that doesn't negate the fact that you sequentially returned control before the attack had ended, which is counter to the FAQ.

(I think it's wrong to say EoA and B have the same trigger, though. Rather, EoA is the trigger for B. It's implied by the FAQ that the hero player regains control when the attack ends. (It's never explicitly stated, but if the overlord controls the hero for the attack, and the hero player does not regain control when the attack ends, then when would it happen?) In the "Paralyzing Gas" thread, you said " The OL can't use the trigger before the trigger occurs ." If you apply that same reasoning here, B is triggered by EoA, so B can't possibly be resolved before EoA.
But this is not really a useful avenue for debate, because even if you imagine EoA and B are both triggered by some other thing, you can only resolve them in one order, as explained in the preceding paragraph.)

2. Infinitely close would mean there is an infinitesimal space in between. If there's any space in between, no matter how small, then they are not connected at all, so they cannot be "connected but not overlapping". If soC happens before eoA, then there's an overlap. If soC happens after eoA, then it's not connected / immediate. If soC followed after eoA , then those two things wouldn't be simultaneous. But that's not the scenario. The scenario is that C follows immediately after A . Immediately means there's no time in between. C is immediately after A means soC is the same point in time as eoA.

3. See above. If you don't understand the concept in #2, then there's nothing I can say to explain #3.

I used both a game concept of simultaneous and a temporal concept of simultaneous to show that it doesn't work either way. If you use the game concept, then things must be resolved sequentially, and since B cannot happen before eoA, it must go eoA -> B -> C, except C is not allowed because it's not immediate. If you use the temporal concept of simultaneous, then you have eoA / B / soC all at the same point, but it's impossible to define control of the hero at that point, so C can't occur. The only way you can make it work is if you mix a temporal concept for eoA / B and a game concept for (eoA / B) -> C. And "You can't mix together game-terms and real world terms that are the same yet different, so that doesn't matter."

By that reasoning you could never trigger Rapid Fire or any ability which triggers after an attack. There is always some state of change in the game that could interupt the chain of events needed to play the ability.

Step 3 (Take an Action) of a hero's turn (or activating a monster for the Overlord) is broken up into Movement and Attacking. Each figure must be in one of those 2 states at all times. You can't do both at the same time. After an Attack, you must go back to the movement part of that action. Or another Attack must come into play. This would always break up the chain of events needed to use Rapid Fire (or similar skills) by the same reasoning you use to say a hero can't use it after Dark Charm.

The Overlord must lose control anyway at the end of the attack, not after. Otherwise there would be a moment in time, no matter how brief, that he would have control and it is not an attack. The Overlord can only control the hero for the attack, not at any point in time after.

Solairflaire said:

I'm not really sure what you're saying here, because even if there is some conceptual difference between "Movement Mode" and "Attack Mode", you'd only go back into "Movement Mode" after an attack if you actually moved. And that does prevent you from using an ability like RF.

Solairflaire said:

If you want to think of it as something that *really* happens simultaneously, you can. But you still can't use RF because RF would have to trigger at that exact point, during the transition between OL control and hero control.

But if you're sticking to the concept that "simultaneous" events must be resolved in some order as a function of the game mechanics, the only allowable order is (1 - end of attack) -> (2 - transfer control back to hero). You do correctly point out that there would be a moment in the game sequence where the OL has control after the attack, but that does not conflict with the FAQ ruling. The alternative, (1 - transfer control) -> (2 - end of attack), does conflict with the FAQ, because then your brief moment in time is explicitly going against what the FAQ tells us.

mahkra said:

I don't think you get the point. The game concept is based on the idea of things happening simultaneously (the same trigger), but needing to be resolved sequentially. It's very basis is the idea that the things happening are (non-game) simultaneous. However, you can't port 'out game simultaneous' into the 'in game simultaneous' and consider them equal because the in game simultaneous is a specially defined subset of out game simultaneous in orde to make the rules work. Keck, I'm not even sure if that makes sense, but I could see what you were doing when you equated the two was wrong, or at least not what I did (am about to do again). Sorry, but I'm not finding the right expressions right now for this abstract stuff...

1. In the game, sometimes things happen that are simultaneous (by either definition), but they have to be resolved in some sequential order because you simply can't do several competing things at once - and even if you tried you run into enormous problems when you break down the individual resolutions into their steps and try and decide how the steps interact. So the answer is, you resolve one thing at a time, in its entirety (including any interruptions etc), then move onto the next entire thing. But that doesn't stop those entire things being actually simultaneous, by definition (either definition).
My definition says that things are only 'simultaneous' if they can, in fact, be resolved in any order. If they can't be resolved in any order then they are definitively sequential, not just resolved sequentially.
The whole point of 'in game sequential' is that you can resolve things sequentially even though they are resolved sequentially they are definitively simultaneous (out of game definition).
Therefore you can return control sequentially before the attack ends, because definitively the two things happened at the same time (simultaneously). So you haven't broken the FAQ.

I do think EoA have the same 'trigger' because the 'trigger' is that there is no part of the attack left . At that indefinable point, EoA happens, as does CoC. EoA is not the trigger for CoC - that was the essence of Thundercles' (?) point. Instead EoA and CoC are two different things that both happen at the same time - when there is nothing else left to do in the attack.

2. My understanding of being infinitely close is that there is no space in between. Not an infitesmally small space, because however small that space is they are closer. Purely aside from that fact that an infinitely small space by definition becomes no space.

I'm sorry, but any argument in which you state that something which is immediately after something else is in fact at the same time as that other thing is at a point where, to me, you have talked yourself into a confused hole. Sort that out and come back.... (that appears to me to be what your last sentence states, forgive me if I am confused).

3. Well, yes, you lost me in 2. I can't understand a concept in which ' immediately after ' is defined as equivalent to ' at the same time '. That is more than just a flaw in reasoning, that is a gaping pit!

mahkra said:

Err, hello?!? There is no such point in time . That is the whole point of 'simultaneity'! Things that occupy the same point of time (so no point in between them) can be resolved sequentially without 'creating' a point in between!

Corbon said:
I'm sorry, but any argument in which you state that something which is immediately after something else is in fact at the same time as that other thing is at a point where, to me, you have talked yourself into a confused hole. Sort that out and come back....

You're not noticing some very essential terminology - there's a difference between C / A and soC / eoA. If C follows immediately after A, then the start of C is simultaneous with the end of A. I'm not saying that C is at the same time as A. Imagine A goes from time t = 0 to t = 2, and C goes from t = 2 to t = 6. C follows immediately after A; the start of C and the end of A occur at the same point, t = 2.

Corbon said:
I can't understand a concept in which 'immediately after ' is defined as equivalent to 'at the same time'.

It's not equivalent; soC = eoA does not mean C = A. Immediately after doesn't mean there's a gap in between the two; it means they're touching and A happens first. At the exact point in time where A ends, C begins. "Immediately" tells us they share an endpoint. "After" tells us the order.

Corbon said:
Err, hello?!? There is no such point in time. That is the whole point of 'simultaneity'! Things that occupy the same point of time (so no point in between them) can be resolved sequentially without 'creating' a point in between!

I know there's no point in time; I used that wording because that was the way the previous poster imagined it. My actual reasoning was "a moment in the game sequence", which is why I used that terminology first. I said "your brief moment in time" to explain the concept to the previous poster with his own wording. Maybe that would have been clearer if I'd used quotes?

Now that all that's out of the way, let's get to the real meat of the argument.

Corbon said:
In the game, sometimes things happen that are simultaneous (by either definition), but they have to be resolved in some sequential order because you simply can't do several competing things at once - and even if you tried you run into enormous problems when you break down the individual resolutions into their steps and try and decide how the steps interact. So the answer is, you resolve one thing at a time, in its entirety (including any interruptions etc), then move onto the next entire thing. But that doesn't stop those entire things being actually simultaneous

What did you do with Corbon? This concept is completely at odds with your numerous comments on these forums about Descent not having a 'memory state'. You resolve one thing at a time, in its entirety. Then you resolve the next thing, but the way the second thing is resolved depends on the outcome of the first thing. That means they're not effectively simultaneous.

Imagine you have various effect tokens that cause wounds, and you have an item that lets you spend fatigue to cancel those wounds. Type "A" and type "B" tokens take effect simultaneously, so you must artificially choose some order. You decide to resolve the "B" tokens first, and you spend all of your fatigue cancelling wounds. Then when you go to resolve the "A" tokens, your fatigue is already gone ! You can't independently resolve simultaneous things. You're forced by game mechanics to choose an order, and the way latter items are resolved is dependent on the way earlier items are resolved.

If you had an "Other" item that could be used immediately to cancel wounds from tokens, and you resolved the "A" tokens first, then you cannot wait until the "B" tokens are resolved and then decide to use the item to cancel the "A" wounds. Even though the "A" and "B" tokens were theoretically simultaneous, the order imposed in the game stopped them from being effectively simultaneous.

EDIT: Hmm, maybe that "everything blocks immediacy except things that are simultaneous" definition doesn't make sense after all. (IIRC, I did agree with it, but only tentatively, stating I hadn't really put much thought into it but at a glance it looked okay.) Actually, now that I think about it a bit more, I'm not sure what that definition actually means. Simultaneous 'immediate' effects based off of one trigger? Or simultaneous events, one of which triggers an 'immediate' effect?

mahkra said:

Fair enough on the terminology thing. It oooked to me like you were arguing it one way (terminology, then calling it a dfferent way (point in time) but I guess that is two different arguments overlapping each other (maybe).

Ahh, there you have it. Not effectively simultaneous, but still definitively simultaneous. Because you have to resolve effects somehow, which means in some order. But if they are definitively simultaneous then the 'effective' order is not actually relevant (you could do things either way with out a problem) - that is why things have to be resolvable in either order to count as 'simultaneous'.
None of the snipped examples changed that. Yes, you can only use your fatigue once. You could have used in on either effect (though if you chose not to on the first effect and the first effect kills you you never get the opportunity to use it on the second effect because the first must be entirely resolved, including the killing). The fact that you choose one way or the other and resolve the effects sequentially, doesn't prevent them form being officially 'simultaneous' even if their resolution isn't simultaneous.

So if they count as actually being simultaneous, even though they are resolved consecutively, what about the tokens?

mahkra said:
If you had an "Other" item that could be used immediately to cancel wounds from tokens, and you resolved the "A" tokens first, then you cannot wait until the "B" tokens are resolved and then decide to use the item to cancel the "A" wounds. Even though the "A" and "B" tokens were theoretically simultaneous, the order imposed in the game stopped them from being effectively simultaneous.

Which of the following sequences are legal?

1.
- Take wounds from "A" tokens
- Take wounds from "B" tokens
- Use item to "immediately" cancel wounds from "A" tokens

2.
- Take wounds from "A" tokens
- Use item to "immediately" cancel wounds from "A" tokens
- Take wounds from "B" tokens

3.
- Take wounds from "B" tokens
- Take wounds from "A" tokens
- Use item to "immediately" cancel wounds from "A" tokens

I think 1 is illegal, even though the "A" and "B" tokens take effect simultaneously. I think 2 and 3 are both legal.

mahkra said:

I agree. I've already posted exactly this answer to another subject.
That doesn't change anything. Using the item is part of the full resolution of whichever token type it is used on, since it can be triggered during the resolution of that token.
That still leaves both token types being resolved definitively 'simultaneously', even if actually sequentially.
And it doesn't matter that using the item is 'after' both token types. Because the tokens are 'simultaneous' resolving anything after one is definitively resolving it after the other even if the sequence is actually reversed.

Note that the trigger for the item use is 'wounds being dealt', which is a trigger independent of the nominal timing/triggering of the tokens.

Okay, the tokens example makes sense to both of us. If we consider 'End of Attack' to be simultaneous with 'Transfer of Hero Control', then let's consider the DC/RF issue in a similar way.

Which of the following sequences are legal?

1.
- End of Attack
- Transfer of Hero Control
- Rapid Fire Bonus Attack

2.
- End of Attack
- Rapid Fire Bonus Attack
- Transfer of Hero Control

3.
- Transfer of Hero Control
- End of Attack
- Rapid Fire Bonus Attack

I think 1 is illegal, for the same reason that #1 was illegal in the tokens example. ('Rapid Fire Bonus Attack' happens as a result of 'End of Attack', just like 'Use item to cancel wounds' happened as a result of 'Take wounds from A tokens'.) I also think 3 would be legal, like the tokens example. In this case, though, #2 is impossible, because a prerequisite condition for Rapid Fire (hero player has control of his hero in order to trigger RF) has not been met.

So, hooray, #3 is legal! Except there's a problem. The common wisdom on the forums is that the active player (or possibly the player whose turn it is - but in this case it's the same player by either definition) gets to decide which order to resolve simultaneous effects. That means the OL could choose #1 instead of #3, and Rapid Fire isn't legal in #1.

What am I missing here? Why would sequence #1 here be legal, if sequence #1 with the tokens is not legal?

(Perhaps it's the "cancel wounds" wording? If I re-worded that item as "Use immediately after suffering wounds from token 'A' to regain those lost wounds", though, I would still claim that sequence #1 in the tokens example is illegal.)

mahkra said:

What you are missing is that RF is part of an external sequence, not the internal subsequence of EoA.

1 is legal because, since EoA and ToC are simultaneous, RF is immediately after 'them'.
This is different from using the item to prevent wounds because in that case using the item is part of the internal sequence of the appropriate token resolution, not an independent external sequence, ie, you can only resolve using the item during the resolution of one of the tokens. RF OTOH is resolved after EoA/ToC, not during EoA/ToC.

Healing is always either prevention or non-specific in Descent. Prevention is necessarily part of the resolution that dealt the wounds, non-specific can be after anything generally and heal wounds from any or multiple sources.

Corbon said:

I suppose I see what you're saying. I'm not sure I agree with that line of reasoning, but I think I understand it. In fact, I was starting to think it must be something like that.

mahkra said:

So, hypothetically, if the "Other" item actually said "Use immediately after suffering wounds from "A" tokens to regain the lost wounds" , you would allow sequence #1 in the tokens example?

mahkra said:

I guess so. It would be a new mechanic that is stupidly messy and undefined (stupid because there is a nice and clean mechanic already in place, so why complicate things unnecessarily) so I'd be wanting clarification on exactly what that meant (or whther it was just more incompetent writing), but as read, yes.

Note that properly written the sequencing for the tokens would look something like this:

2.
- Take wounds from "A" tokens
- Use item to cancel wounds from "A" tokens
- Take wounds from "B" tokens

2.
- Take wounds from "A" tokens
- Take wounds from "B" tokens
- Use item to cancel wounds from "A" tokens

There is no immediately. Cancelling wounds can only happen as the wounds are dealt. And the item uses are internally sequenced, not part of the same external sequence.