With the leadership skill card it is possible to place an order token on another hero.

This makes it possible to place a rest order on a hero that has not yet started his turn and giving that hero a free safe rest.

We normally play that this is not allowed. We play (houserule?) that orders should be placed on a hero that has already ended its turn.

How do you all deal with the leadership skill? Do you allow the players to get a free rest? Is it frowned upon or completely normal?

There are some implied bits in the way it's written, tho it's not explicitly stated. Per a rest,

A hero who has placed a rest order may use it at the start of his next turn.

In this case, Hero [leadership] is placing a rest upon Hero [rester]. Technically, since the leader placed it, the resting hero may not use it until the start of the leadership hero's next turn. That doesnt make sense at all, since the person playing the rest and the person using the rest are 2 different people. So generally, we play that if you play a rest on another hero, even before that hero takes his turn, he still cannot get the benefit of the rest until the start of his NEXT turn (that is, after the leader goes, he goes, he spends an overlord turn in a hittable fashion, and then he can take it). I dont think the intent of that card is instant resting, nor immunity to rest being cancelled due to monster attacks.

It is only intended [iMO] that the person with that leadership ability may play an extra ready action on another hero, presumably as if the other hero had played it on himself during the same turn, only he doesnt have to, it's just free. Whether the leader goes before or after the recipient, we play that the recipient doesnt receive the free order until his turn has passed.

-mike

poobaloo said:

Ahh, no. Technically, since the leader played it the resting hero did not place it and can not use it at all at the start of his next turn - if you are going to read it that way then you need to at least be consistant.

However, since all of the orders have the same wording ( A hero who has placed a XXX order may ...) I think it is safe to say that the part of Leadership that allows orders being placed on other heroes assumes that those orders then count as if they had been placed by those heroes (if not then it is an utterly pointless skill*).

Thus, at the start of the rester's next turn, they may use the rest.

We looked at this real thoroughly because it becomes a major league pain in the ass once heroes have some Fatigue upgrades. There is just no way round the wording.

You can house rule it if you want, but it is very clear, even if unintentional, that the Leadership/Rest abuse is within the rules.

*Unless.... The hero with Leadership can still use the Order even though it is placed on another hero. This would allow the Leadership hero to effectively have two orders on himself at once, although one would be located on another hero (I know what KW said about 2x orders, but that is not what the RAW says and its not in a FAQ. A Ready action followed by a second place order half action follows the rules and does not break the prohibition that only a Battle can give 2x attack and only a Run can give 2x move). Anyway... have we decided that this whole overly-literal 'reading' of the rules is just stuuuuupid yet? Can we go back above to where the recipient of the order is considered to have placed it?

Corbon said:

We just went thru this last night - It came up as a hero luckily drew Leadership! :-)

That technicality is exactly the point I was highlighting. That the entire concept of a rest order, as defined by the book, is impossible to execute per the wording on the card. Therefore some wording must give. It is impossible to both have a hero place an order and use an order, but place the order on someone else. Therefore you have to rely on the intent of the card as you perceive it.

In our group, it was unanimous that the leadership was not there to trump the normal facets of a rest, such as that it can be broken by a monster scoring a hit, or that it's applied one turn to take effect the next. Rather, the card was to allow the extra order to be placed on the heroes' (collective) turn, and to be executed on the heroes' (collective) next turn (even tho it doesnt say that - this is taking an implication, but some implication is necessary, or executing the rest order at all is impossible)

You even call it an abuse (quoting the original poster, but reiterating that quote) so I think you agree it is not intended that way, and it's only a loophole reading that could make the argument that a leader gets to place an order that can be then enacted in the SAME overall hero turn, even tho every thing else about a rest requires the passing of a turn cycle. If that was the intent, the card would have said so - something like "when a hero with leadership takes his hero turn before another hero, he may place a ready token on that hero that may be used in the same hero phase." That is an extreme deviation from the way the card is written, which suggests a turn (albeit vaguely written) must pass.

Think about what the card actually means - It's not a magic spell- it's just that the presence of that leader means that another player can rest even tho he exhausts himself in other ways, presumably because of the inspiration of that leader. it's not a "poof you're rested" sort of card. That inspired hero, while resting, is still susceptible to the basic concept of what rest actually is, that is taking a breather to recover one's fatigue.

A simple and clear fix to the wording on the card, instead of "the leader may place... " would be "for 1 fatigue, the leader may place a ready action upon himself, or allow another hero to place a ready action upon himself (on his turn, or immediately if his turn has already been taken)". It eliminates that whole thing about who actually places the order making it impossible to execute. It is unnecessarily wordy tho, and is better written in a FAQ than actually on the card.

I do accept your reading as valid tho, as the rules are completely ambiguous in this case - it's just my opinion.

-mike

Leadership allows a hero to place a rest order on a hero who has not gone yet so that that hero gets full fatigue when he takes his turn. Of course leadership ALSO allows a hero to place a rest order on a hero who has already gone so that that hero gets full fatigue during his next turn after the overlords turn. This is how the ability works and it is my firm belief that this is how it was intended.

Leadership also allows a hero to place a guard order on a hero who has already gone for use in the overlords turn.

You could also place a dodge order on a hero who has already gone for use in the overlords turn.

You could ALSO place an aim order on a hero who has not gone yet so that her can use it in his upcoming turn OR place an aim order on a hero who has already gone so that hero can use it in his next turn.

I am most commonly the overlord in my games and I am certain that this is how leadership is supposed to work. It’s a strong skill but by no means broken.

I’ve got to agree with Incarna on this one: that’s how we play it and I’m happy with it when I’m Overlord. We’ve just finished 2 RtL campaigns with me as Overlord – during the first one we were even using the old wording for Leadership (without the Fatigue cost) - & I don’t think it’s broken in the slightest. It’s a good skill, that’s all.

Has there ever been an absolute clarification from Kevin on this does anyone know?

No part of the leadership card implies the restriction of not being able to place a rest order on someone who has yet to take their turn this round. I appreciate the "fairness" discussion, but we cannot infer the intent of a set of rules merely because we don't like how their explicit interpretation works. This doesn't really need an official clarification, but you might want to try and set up some kind of petition for an official rules change.

I have to agree with incarna, Noddle and Thundercles. I don't think there's anything wrong with the way Leadership works.

Point of information:

The Leadership skill does not allow you to place an order on another hero.

It allows another hero to place an order .

At least, that's the wording on the skill card in my printing of the base game.

So even if you were going to be technical about reading the passage "a hero that has placed a rest order may...", it doesn't change the way it interacts with Leadership.

Antistone said:

Can't argue with that without access to my physical card - but no need to anyway, its making the same point I was trying to.

@Poobaloo : Instead of 'interpreting intent' we try to 'make the minimum change that allows everything to work as the rules say'. Different approach I guess, but we feel that 'intent' is too variable and subjective. Not that it matters in this case given the Leadership wording info Antistone has posted...

You guys should go play Munchkin...

Antistone said:

I don't see your point..

"You may allow another hero to place the readied order instead of placing the order yourself". You are 100% correct, but how does that change anything?

I believe that the other player has to place his order directly. The card does not say that the other hero may place it in his/her own turn..

This means that if a hero that did not have had his turn yet, places the rest action, that the beginning of his turn is still to come without an OL turn in between, which results in a free rest.

Maybe I should clarify my blanket statement a bit.

Yes, it's sometimes really hard to capture the "spirit of the rules", whatever that may be. But generally, it's very easy to assume that the game designer didn't want to create huge imbalances.

Our gaming group comes from a tabletop and RPG background. We're used to gazillions of parts in a game playing together - and we're used to the game master (or everybody together) deciding to forbid certain overpowered comboes, or turning a blind eye when things would go overly wrong too early in a game. I think it makes for a better game experience for everybody, too, since everybody wants a fair chance at winning, and nobody believes it makes sense that one person can shoot twenty times as fast as the other (which is why we house ruled quite some of the Shadowrun RPG stuff, for example - in fact, we rewrote the system entirely).

In Descent, the OL is, basically, the GM. Yes, he does try to win, yes, the game is meant to be competitive, yes, the game is meant to be balanced. But imagine ... the game has, as I recently found out, 2014 parts (counting all the expansions). 730 of them alone are cards, which (more or less) all interact with one another, plus hero abilities and whatnot. There's bound to be some broken combinations, particularly for some odd situations.

Add in the other sources of imbalances (luck, economies of scale, the very fact that the game is asymmetric and the OL and the heroes have different game mechanics to start with), and it's obvious that such a big game can't be 100% balanced.

So, in a game as complex as this one, playing strictly by the rules as written makes no sense. There will be situations where the spirit of the rules has to come into play. And as I said, sometimes it's hard to find out what exactly the spirit of the rules is, and then it's best to do all you can to interpret the RAW. But in cases like this one, where the interaction of a skill (one of 60 different ones) with a special border case of movement and player order, creates a big benefit for the heroes, way bigger than the already good skill alone would, it's very easy to realize that this can't have been intended. So either you're rules-lawyering to your own benefit as a hero player, or you try to create a fair gaming environment for everybody.

Myself, I'd rather have fun with people who also have fun, than win the game at all cost. For me, the consequence of people performing such rules-lawyering in my gaming group is simple: Next time, they won't be invited.

Unless we play Munchkin, in which the whole point is to be the best at rules-lawyering. Which is why I brought that up.

Haslo – a few things:

1) As a couple of us have already said, we Overlord regularly and still don’t have a problem with the power of the card. We are NOT “rules-lawyering” for gain. When the concept first came up of placing a Rest order on a player who hasn’t had their turn yet, I was Overlord and thought that was a clever way of using the card.

2) Our group as a whole (Overlord & players) is happy with the card & our interpretation of it.

3) Several of our group come from an RPG background too – White Wolf’s stuff is definitely NOT about winning & is all about the whole group having an entertaining time which is how we play Descent.

4) Never played Munchkin. Not that fussed either way.

5) I do agree with you that as long as everyone is having fun it doesn’t matter that much but it IS nice to know exactly what the designer’s intent was even if we don’t play 100% according to the RAW (prime example is Kevin’s comments about Feat Cards & how they should be used in RtL).

Hope this all makes sense and doesn’t come across as preaching. If it does, I apologise.

If the group as a whole is fine with it, it's of course not a problem at all I think the one preaching here was me, not you, so I'm the one to apologize - sorry

Siebeltje said:

Yes, that's correct. I was refuting poobaloo's argument that the hero would not be able to get a free rest because he didn't place the order himself.

Antistone said:

Actually no my point was that he does not get a free rest because that is not how rest works. Rest requires it to be placed in one turn for effect on the next. Now hero selection is arbitrary - who goes first. Therefore it's a given that whether a hero goes first or last, he still must wait out one OL turn when placing a rest, cuz resting is just that - it takes time. Now if one hero places an order on another, again the sequence of hero play is not a facet of the card - the order in fact should be completely irrelevant - what matters is that the recipient hero gets a free rest token, and can do two other half actions, and still place a rest token on himself. It is not a magic spell that instantly rests the hero. That is such a deviation from "rest" and "ready orders" and what "leadership" is trying to convey in a melee card - that if the card intended that, the card would SAY that - ie it would simply say this leader hero may, for 1 fatigue, recover another hero immediatly full on fatigue. That is not what the card does. Now I DO agree you can read that into the lacking wording, but you will not convince me that card is meant to make an invulnerable and immediate rest, because of a manipulation of hero turn orders.

Note, I do really agree your wording can be read into the rules... and I am therefore glad I play with players who do not do such word-for-word lawyering and exploitation of unintended combinations / manipulations. No, I do not have a direct line to KW, I'm using my head to take the rule of the card as it's written, in combination with how other rules (like ready actions) are written.

-mike

poobaloo said:

You are adding something into orders that is not there to make your argument. Nowhere in any order does it say that they require a turn to work. Aim orders may be used immediately, the same turn they are placed. This is explicit in the note on page 14. Dodge and Guard orders both happen in the OL's turn (or even in the same Heroes turn it was placed for dodge should the OL be later able to interrupt (for example with a mimic)). Rest happens the next time the 'resting' hero starts his turn, not after a whole turn.

The 'time' argument doesn't' hold either. All actions/half actions take 'time', be they moving, fighting, aiming or resting. 'Resting' enough to regain all fatigue should surely take more time than to fire one arrow, or hack down a single Kobald with an axe. But it does not. All these things are just representations . For that matter 'time' fails logically anyway because of the necessary IGYG system. The monsters don't just stand around while the heroes have their turn...

Leadership breaks the time 'system' already, no matter what the order (except perhaps dodge). It represents a good leader who is able to organise people more efficiently and get 'more' out of his people or himself, or inspire them to great deeds . In this way he is able to arrange things within his group so that they are able to perform better and more efficiently - and even manage to recover their fatigue while doing normal actions, or inspire them when they are weary and disheartened.

An example: Ronan, in his turn, retreats hastily to cover some spawning and places a guard order. He nervously switches his readied bow from pointing down the corridor and watching the main room for any straggling monsters who might cut around the flanks of his buddies. (Ready with a move then a guard). He cannot rest through the turn because he is nervous and covering several things at once. Alternately, Nanok the leader snaps at Ronan to 'get clear and cover the rest of us'. Ronan retreats to a nice position where he can see down the corridor and in a relaxed fashion (because he has clear direction and a focused purpose from his leader) readies his weapon to cover any straggling monster. Because he is relaxed and well organised instead of nervous and uncertain he is able to recover his fatigue whilst fulfilling his orders and later snapshots a charging beastman that was about to hit Nanok from behind.

Another example: An exhausted Sir Validor, on his last legs before once more becoming a textbook example of what happens to ex-heroes, responds to the inspirational exhortation of his leader Nanok and with a mighty effort rushes around behind the Ogre and with two mighty swings hacks it down. (Rests from leadership, uses fatigue to move forward then battles the Ogre).

You just can't play the 'logic' game, or the 'intent' game in Descent, because there is always another explanation than the one you have...

The RAW are clear, but that does not mean you can't houserule if you find it more fun. Just be aware that it is houseruling and you house-rule you may be creating consequences that the authors have seen (we'll never know entirely what they have seen or tested and what they have not) and you have not. It still doesn't matter though, as long as you have fun.

In my current OL campaign, Leadership is really, really hurting me. Jaes with 5 Armour and 7 fatigue and Ghost Armour is nigh impossible to kill even when Isolated. He simply runs (movement 5, so 10 spaces + fatigue if he wants + potion if he wants) whereever he needs to be (often with a Dodge as well from Leadership), takes all the damage I can dish out as fatigue (if I bother, which I rarely do) and then gets it all back from Mordrog's Leadership next turn.

OTOH, in my current Hero campaign I often use it to refill my Telekinesis-ing Landrec, so my opponent hates it just as much as I do. Its a great skill. But then, having heroes beat themselves up with Dark Charms is great too - especially if they are guarding...

This is going to sound harsh, and I'm going to come off as the worst sort of jerk here but I really don't understand most of what you are saying in the context of the rules of Descent.

poobaloo wrote: Actually no my point was that he does not get a free rest because that is not how rest works. Rest requires it to be placed in one turn for effect on the next.

Response: Which it is because that is what the skill lets you do. It allows one player to place the order instead of during their turn. It gets placed by Hero B during the turn of the Hero with Leadership (Hero A's). Hero B does not wait until the start of his turn to place the order granted to him by the use of Hero A's Leadership skill. Take Aim for example. If Hero A used Leadership to allow Hero B to place an Aim order during Hero A's turn, Hero B can use it on his turn even if he comes immediately after Hero A. Rest is absolutely no different.

poobaloo wrote: Now hero selection is arbitrary - who goes first. Therefore it's a given that whether a hero goes first or last, he still must wait out one OL turn when placing a rest, cuz resting is just that - it takes time

Response: I've never played a game where its been arbitrary. If I'm playing a Hero or when I'm playing against a group of Heroes, turn order is always a big issue. Having that tank go first so he can move over one square to give the magic user LOS on his turn is not what I would call arbitrary.

"It takes time"? No where in the rules for Rest does it actually say this, that it takes "time". It only says "A hero that has placed a rest order may use it at the start of his next turn to return his fatigue to its maximum value (see “Spending Fatigue,” pg. 17)." The Rest order is specifically removed by one of two things:

"A rest order stays with a hero until removed by one of the following events: 1) the hero takes one or more wounds, or 2) the beginning of the hero’s next turn, when it is used to restore the hero’s fatigue."

Using my example above, Hero A goes, uses Leadership. Hero B places a Rest order on himself during Hero A's turn via Hero A's use of Leadership. Then someone else goes or Hero B goes, making it Hero B's next turn . If there was a card or effect that gave a Hero two turns in the same round (being the phase where all four players take their turns), he could place a Rest order on himself and then use it in the same round when he takes his next turn . For all purposes Leadership is no different than doing exactly that.

poobaloo wrote: Now if one hero places an order on another, again the sequence of hero play is not a facet of the card - the order in fact should be completely irrelevant - what matters is that the recipient hero gets a free rest token, and can do two other half actions, and still place a rest token on himself.

Response: So are you saying they would have 2 Rest tokens? That is illegal. You can not have two orders placed on the same Hero, its right in the rules for JitD. And for two of the orders of Leadership, specifically Aim and Rest orders, the order the players go in is absolutely relevant. The Hero receiving the Rest order places it on the Hero with Leadership's turn . Then the Hero with the Rest order goes, triggering the Rest order to resolve.

Even using the "resting takes time" arguement, what if Hero A with Leadership went first, and Hero B who got the token went fourth? Is that enough time to rest? No where in the rules for rest does it say how long it takes to rest, except for saying the start of his next turn , not "his turn in the next round" which is what it sounds like you are saying.

poobaloo wrote: It is not a magic spell that instantly rests the hero. That is such a deviation from "rest" and "ready orders" and what "leadership" is trying to convey in a melee card - that if the card intended that, the card would SAY that - ie it would simply say this leader hero may, for 1 fatigue, recover another hero immediatly full on fatigue. That is not what the card does.

Response: How is it a deviation from "rest" and "ready orders" and what "leadership" is trying to convey in a melee card? How can you even say that? That assumes an awful lot about what the skill was meant for, and frankly you could be wrong. To me, Leadership means that character has the ability to bolster the battle abilities of his comrades, devise tactics for them to use and inspire Great Acts of Valor Even When You're Tired, like I don't know, pushing yourself past you point of Fatigue. If all the card was intended to do was restore fatigue to others, then it would say that. It says:

"When you declare a Ready action, you may immediately spend 1 fatigue to take 3 half actions instead of 2 half actions (one half action must still be an order half action). In addition, when you place an ORDER, you may allow another hero to place the order instead. "

Rest is an ORDER that restores fatigue. It is completely clear on this point.

What if Leadership let you place a "Encouragement" token on a Hero that granted him full fatigue at the start of his turn? Would you have a problem with that? If not, then please tell me the difference between a the mystical "Encouragement" token and a Rest order.

poobaloo wrote: Now I DO agree you can read that into the lacking wording, but you will not convince me that card is meant to make an invulnerable and immediate rest, because of a manipulation of hero turn orders.

Response: Do you know how many things in this game can be avoided with manipulation of Hero turn orders, especially in RtL? Bleed, Web, Stun, Frost, etc etc pretty much every lingering effect token except Poison and Curse are removed at the end of an encounter. Manipulation of Hero order is at the core of tactics for the Heroes round. You manipulate the order to maximize the use of all the Heroes skills and abilities.

And its far from invulnerable. An OL who plays Ambush for example at the start of the turn of the Hero with the Rest order could hit him and get rid of it. There are several ways to do it, that's just one.

If we are reading into lacking wording on the card, then I'm sorry but so are you. No where on the card does it say "This works for Guard, Dodge and Aim, but not for Rest". The card refers to ORDERS collectively, not each one separately. If you really think that is the case, I hope when you play OL that you do not allow your Heroes to use a Dodge, Guard or Aim order placed with Leadership until after your turn as OL is over and done with. There is absolutely no difference between those three and Rest when it comes to Leadership since the card does not distingush between them.

Wow. Nice systematic dissection of the argument, Remy.

No matter what Leadership should or should not let you do, the rules make it perfectly legal to place a rest order on another hero which will be used up at the start of the next turn they have. Skill cards break game rules: this one just happens to break more than one at once. Always remember that the intent of a card is not what the card actually allows: sometimes, cards are overpowered, and sometimes, cards are misprints, in which case they receive errata. Leadership is a very strong card, possibly even overpowered; if it is unbalanced, it remains so no matter what anyone says about the card's "intent".

Now, if you want to make a mod, there's a lot of support around here for that. As far as I know, the community is open to modifications, as long as you understand that they're custom rules and not "how things should be" or "the intent of the creators/cards/writing/rules/gods".

Thundercles said:

My thanks for the compliment.

Thundercles said:

This is so funny - you are arguing that you KNOW it breaks things if you take a literal interpretation (which makes using the card at all impossible), yet you think it's supposed to break things that way. The card clearly states the leader may place an order on another hero, but then in rest orders, it says a hero may only activate a rest token that he placed. The rule is impossible to enact as it is written. Did the writer INTEND that the tokens played by A can not actually be claimed by B? How would you know? As I said before, i totally see that you can read the rule in the manner you are (which you will undoubtedly claim is simply reading the rule as it's written) however taking 2 rules that were not written with thought or playtesting of their combination, and applying them in ways that trump basic facets of other rules, is simply rules lawyering. Again, I DO agree you can read the rule the way you are, but again I am glad I do not play with players who would rather read a literal broken rule that outright conflicts with other rules, acknowledge it is broken, and still say "but it must be that way cuz the loophole allows it". Crazy I tell ya! Then in the other thread, someone argued that they cannot enter a dungeon location... and the rules lawyers said "no, it means the dungeon itself, it doesnt mean the location". Yet it clearly says the dungeon location. So everyone does indeed have to read the rules with the general intent of the game in mind, or at least how you perceive a game should go - that being to have fun playing a game, using the rules to make for a reasonable and competitive environment. That doesnt mean you might not play for other reasons!

What it all comes down to is preference, and I would argue that if you want to read the rule in such a broken way, and you feel justified in doing so, then do so! There is nothing wrong w that. All that needs be done in this case is await the card clarification in some future FAQ.

What is definitely wrong tho, is for anyone to assume their fix for a broken rule is in some way right, and all other ideas on it are wrong. So until we have that FAQ, it's safe to say it's player choice.

-mike

poobaloo said:

Um, poobaloo, I think you missed something in the wording of Leadership when you talk about your "rest" example. The card does NOT "clearly states the leader may place an order on another hero" but rather allow ANOTHER hero to place it themselves- " In addition, when you place an ORDER, you may allow another hero to place the order instead." Thus the "rest token" would actually BE a token that the hero places himself (from HIS stack of order tokens), completely satisfying your "a hear may only activate a rest token that he placed" argument.

The only confusion that should ever stem from Leadership (using the updated card) is whether or not you can do the same half/action more than once, which Kevin the designer has clearly said you could NOT.

Just about every skill in Descent breaks a rule somehow. The majority of Familiars are exactly that, Skills that break the rules of the game. How is what are saying Leadership is not allowed to do any different, IN ANY WAY, than the skill Unmovable for example? Unmovable let's you place a Guard order and gain +1 Armor taking a Battle action.

Problem: You can't do that according to the rules. According to the rules A hero player must choose one action from the four listed below, the four being Advance (move and attack), Battle (no move, attack twice), Ready Action (move OR attack and place an order) or Run (move 2x speed). So going with the reasoning put above, Unmovable is a completely illegal skill since it contradicts a basic rule of the game by allowing the Hero to place a Guard order when he already done a Battle.

According to all the reasoning you have posted, at least half of the Skills in the game are illegal based on the fact that they break a basic rule of the game. That's not "rules lawyering", its having an understanding of how the rules work as they are written.

I'll throw this challenge out there: I will myself, and get everyone I can, to flood FFG with this question.

During the same round, a Rest Order is placed by a Hero A on his turn onto Hero B via Leadership. Hero A's turn ends. Hero B's turn then starts. Does Hero B gain full fatigue as the result of the Rest order placed on him by Hero B on his turn?

Please, EVERYONE who reads this send that question in and see if we get answer since that is obvious the only way this is going to get resolved. I will unequivocally go by what an official response says.

Big Remy said:

Good suggestion, I would second that. :-) I will even send the question in myself, however I will word it like this, as you put a B when you should have put A in the question:

During the same round, a Rest Order is placed by a Hero A on his turn onto Hero B via Leadership. Hero A's turn ends. Hero B's turn then starts. Does Hero B gain full fatigue immediately as the result of the Rest order placed on him by Hero A on his turn, or must he wait for one full turn cycle to pass, as if Hero B had placed the order upon himself?