1. What happens if a (via Necromancy animated) monster under the control of a hero ...
a) ... kills a monster with the Black Curse ability? Does the controlling hero receive a curse token?
b) ... kills an elite monster? Does the controlling hero receive 50 gold?
2. What happens if the controlling hero dies? Does the monster die as well?
kalev said:
1. What happens if a (via Necromancy animated) monster under the control of a hero ...
a) ... kills a monster with the Black Curse ability? Does the controlling hero receive a curse token?
b) ... kills an elite monster? Does the controlling hero receive 50 gold?
2. What happens if the controlling hero dies? Does the monster die as well?
1. For both (a) and (b), whenever something refers to scoring "the killing blow" it must be the figure in question whose attack killed the target. Since the reanimated monster can't collect gold and doesn't much care about being cursed, both of these effects are effectively nullified.
2. AFAIK nothing happens to the monster if the hero dies. It stays where it is and keeps acting on the hero's turn like it normally would. The hero dies and respawns in town as normal, and life goes on. Unless the Necromancy ability specifies that something else should happen when the hero dies, and I don't think it does, then there's no reason to believe it would.
Steve-O said:
Unless the Necromancy ability specifies that something else should happen when the hero dies, and I don't think it does, then there's no reason to believe it would.
The card does not say anything regarding the hero's death. The reason we had to believe that the monster dies as well was common sense. But common sense has nothing to do with Descent rules of course. Will see if I can convince my players in this matter.
kalev said:
The reason we had to believe that the monster dies as well was common sense.
Common sense about a magical ability in a fictional universe that you only know about through the poorly-edited rules of a board game?
Uh, no. That's not "common sense," it's just the No Ontological Inertia trope.
Antistone said:
kalev said:
The reason we had to believe that the monster dies as well was common sense.
Common sense about a magical ability in a fictional universe that you only know about through the poorly-edited rules of a board game?
Uh, no. That's not "common sense," it's just the No Ontological Inertia trope.
In other words, common sense.
Though it may not be a dictionary definition, the phrase "common sense" is often used to describe something that most people do or should know from prior experience. In the case of a fictional magical ability, "experience" is simply exposure to similar fictional magical abilities.
But, yeah, kudos on using big words. You've totally impressed me and should sleep better tonight knowing that people on the internet are awed by your encyclopedic knowledge.
mahkra said:
But, yeah, kudos on using big words. You've totally impressed me and should sleep better tonight knowing that people on the internet are awed by your encyclopedic knowledge.
Actually I was kind of impressed by that one, I have to admit. =P
Don't let it go to your head though, Stoney. =P
mahkra said:
Though it may not be a dictionary definition, the phrase "common sense" is often used to describe something that most people do or should know from prior experience. In the case of a fictional magical ability, "experience" is simply exposure to similar fictional magical abilities.
Alternately, "experience" is exposure to real-life analogues of the ability, which all have ontological inertia. Or any of the many similar fictional magical abilities that also have ontological inertia.
Antistone said:
mahkra said:
Though it may not be a dictionary definition, the phrase "common sense" is often used to describe something that most people do or should know from prior experience. In the case of a fictional magical ability, "experience" is simply exposure to similar fictional magical abilities.
Alternately, "experience" is exposure to real-life analogues of the ability, which all have ontological inertia. Or any of the many similar fictional magical abilities that also have ontological inertia.
What real-life analog of necromancy are you talking about?
Sure, there's reason some might intuitively think necromancy requires constant control from the controlling hero, and there's reason others might intuitively think the reanimated figure is fairly independent. But is there's really reason for you to "correct" someone for calling something "common sense" when he intuitively thought it to be true? What's next, are you going to start "correcting" people's statements of opinion? Oh, wait...
mahkra said:
What real-life analog of necromancy are you talking about?
Sure, there's reason some might intuitively think necromancy requires constant control from the controlling hero, and there's reason others might intuitively think the reanimated figure is fairly independent.
Machines. Life. Or, in more general terms, matter.
Even if you think of a necromanced minion as being like a puppet that only moves while the puppet master pulls its strings, puppets don't disintegrate or explode when the puppet master walks away, they just stop moving until someone picks them up again.
To find stuff in the real world that you could plausibly argue lacks ontological inertia, you need to get rather exotic or abstract. Like sound. Or maybe weird substances that most people have only read about in textbooks.
If there are actual concrete reasons to think an undead minion will collapse if the necromancer's concentration falters for an instant, you can cite those reasons instead of "common sense."
mahkra said:
But is there's really reason for you to "correct" someone for calling something "common sense" when he intuitively thought it to be true? What's next, are you going to start "correcting" people's statements of opinion? Oh, wait...
I've noticed several people have a tendency to cite "common sense" as a reason for anything they want to do or believe but don't feel like justifying. This is a dishonest and deplorable practice that shields nonsensical ideas from logical scrutiny and implicitly insults everyone whose intuition differs from the speaker's. Intuited confidence does not absolve you from the responsibility to find actual reasons for the things you say or to accept criticism when you don't, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to automatically dismiss all other opinions as nonsensical.
There do exist some situations in which you can legitimately infer that a game rule was likely to be intended (even if it's never stated) based on common knowledge of the subject matter.
This is not one of those situations.
Antistone said:
If there are actual concrete reasons to think an undead minion will collapse if the necromancer's concentration falters for an instant, you can cite those reasons instead of "common sense."
Allright, I cannot cite any "actual concrete reason" for thinking what I thought. Let me cite the website you linked instead:
"Magic often does lack ontological inertia. Continuous effort has to be applied to keep it working against the natural order of things. Since magic follows its own rules, not necessarily those of standard physics, this can be entirely plausible."
Antistone said:
I've noticed several people have a tendency to cite "common sense" as a reason for anything they want to do or believe but don't feel like justifying. This is a dishonest and deplorable practice that shields nonsensical ideas from logical scrutiny and implicitly insults everyone whose intuition differs from the speaker's. Intuited confidence does not absolve you from the responsibility to find actual reasons for the things you say or to accept criticism when you don't, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to automatically dismiss all other opinions as nonsensical.
1) I did certainly not mean to insult anyone by using the phrase "common sense". I apologize if I did. Whoever prefers to adopt the ontological inertia law for the Descent realm may freely do so.
2) An attempt to give actual reasons for the things I said would require a lenghty and rather boring exploration of my and my player's minds plus cultural backgrounds and stuff. I skip that and choose to accept criticism instead: I was not aware of the existence of a "no ontological inertia" trope and find it rather interesting. I will think about the possibility of having mixed up "common sense" with that trope unconsciously in the above statement.
3) After all the reanimated minion remains alive even when the necormancer has died? Fine. That was actually all I wanted to know.
Antistone said:
Even if you think of a necromanced minion as being like a puppet that only moves while the puppet master pulls its strings, puppets don't disintegrate or explode when the puppet master walks away, they just stop moving until someone picks them up again.
Actually, if you stop controlling a puppet, it crumples to the floor (unless it's on a string that is not long enough, in which case it hangs limply.) The puppet doesn't defy gravity and just remain in its last position.
Antistone said:
I've noticed several people have a tendency to cite "common sense" as a reason for anything they want to do or believe but don't feel like justifying. This is a dishonest and deplorable practice that shields nonsensical ideas from logical scrutiny and implicitly insults everyone whose intuition differs from the speaker's. Intuited confidence does not absolve you from the responsibility to find actual reasons for the things you say or to accept criticism when you don't, and it certainly doesn't give you the right to automatically dismiss all other opinions as nonsensical.
So your overt insult is somehow a more defensible position than someone else's implicit insult? I think not.
mahkra said:
So your overt insult is somehow a more defensible position than someone else's implicit insult?
I'm not sure what you mean.
If you're alluding to my most recent post, where I accused unspecified parties of a "dishonest and deplorable practice," then YES, absolutely. Because that accusation is based on substance, not intuition. I steadfastly refuse to treat fallacies as facts, no matter who is offended by such refusal. But even if it wasn't, "insulting" was far from the worst thing I said about the practice, so that hardly deflects the accusation.
If you're continuing your complaint regarding my first post in this thread, where I expressed disagreement over the nature of "common sense" (without calling anyone names, questioning their parentage, or accusing them of acting badly), I cannot fathom how you've concluded that is an "overt insult." I'm also not sure why you would be complaining about responding to an insult in kind, when you immediately responded to my post with your own insult (unless I've misunderstood and you were sincere about being impressed), when you were not even the (allegedly) offended party.
It is not uncommon for me to tell people that they're wrong, or even that their ideas or arguments are poor. If that's what you're offended by, get over it. Allowing that is an absolute requisite for any meaningful discussion and I am not even a little bit sorry. But if you believe I've made a gratuitous personal attack, that wasn't my intent, and I am honestly confused as to why you would think so.
kalev said:
Allright, I cannot cite any "actual concrete reason" for thinking what I thought. Let me cite the website you linked instead:
"Magic often does lack ontological inertia. Continuous effort has to be applied to keep it working against the natural order of things. Since magic follows its own rules, not necessarily those of standard physics, this can be entirely plausible."
I have no intention of getting bogged down in this conversation myself, but I'll just stop by to point out that this assertion is made on a website pertaining to TV tropes and idioms. The basis of this statement is that it is often seen to be true in TV shows and movies. Descent is a board game whose magic is defined by the rulebook, just like everything else. Using this to support a rules arguement in Descent is like using something from a game of Foosball to support your position in an arguement about why David Beckett is the "best ever." Both subjects deal with soccer, and that's about it.
Even if Mahkra can find a solid, concrete example of something that lacks ontological inertia, I don't see how that proves anything about magic in Descent. It's magic.
Anyway, you have your answer as far as the rules question goes.
Steve-O said:
I have no intention of getting bogged down in this conversation myself, but I'll just stop by to point out that this assertion is made on a website pertaining to TV tropes and idioms. The basis of this statement is that it is often seen to be true in TV shows and movies. Descent is a board game whose magic is defined by the rulebook, just like everything else. Using this to support a rules arguement in Descent is like using something from a game of Foosball to support your position in an arguement about why David Beckett is the "best ever." Both subjects deal with soccer, and that's about it.
Even if Mahkra can find a solid, concrete example of something that lacks ontological inertia, I don't see how that proves anything about magic in Descent. It's magic.
Anyway, you have your answer as far as the rules question goes.
The TV tropes quotation was meant to justify my expectations of how necromancy might be working in Descent before I knew the correct rules. Those expectations I (maybe mistakenly) called "common sense". That on the other hand common sense and Descent rules are two completely different things I admitted in the same statement in which I was using that unfortunate "common sense" wording already.