Fatigue Utilization

By any2cards, in Descent: Journeys in the Dark

Posted at

any2cards said:

The heroes have utilized Karnon's Hero Ability essentially an inifinite amount of times, even suffering fatigue in excess of his stamina. They feel they can do this because his Hero Ability is not a skill (they state that skills are the skill cards within each class), and it is not moving. So, essentially what happens is that the OL can never attack Karnon and utilize surges (either through those rolled via dice or those added through OL cards), because Karnon just keeps eliminating them by using his Hero Ability.

I agree with most peoples assesment if you don't have the fitigue and your not being forced to suffer it you cannot pay for Karnon's ability. Furuther you said infinate I think it clearly states 1 and you can cancel 1. It's not any number to cancel equal number of surges so they can only stop one surge which I think is an important distinction. So if the overlord rolls 2 surges or adds surges they can only ever stop one.

Posted at

any2cards said:

Karnon has a Hero Ability which reads "Each time a monster attacks you, after rolling dice, you may suffer 1 fatigue to cancel 1 surge rolled on the attack". His Heroic Feat which reads "Action: Choose a minion monster adjacent to you and roll the blue attack die. If you roll and X, you miss. Otherwise that monster is defeated. Regardless of the outcome, you suffer 1 fatigue."

I don't really buy the skill vs. ability distinction without clarification from FFG. The intent seems to be that heroes cannot choose to exceed their Stamina. The feat is worded in such a way that I could almost be persuaded to allow the sacrifice, but the heroic ability states that you have to choose to suffer 1 fatigue to cancel the surge. If you have exhausted your Stamina, you can't suffer 1 fatigue -- at that point you can only suffer damage.

"skill    /sk?l/ [skil]
noun
1. the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well: Carpentry was one of his many skills."

Posted at

Ispher said:

"Heroes voluntarily suffer fatigue in order to use skills or move additional spaces." (rulebook p. 13)

Factually, this statement is non-exhaustive, since Karnon's hero ability reads:

Each time a monster attacks you, after rolling dice, you may suffer 1 fatigue to cancel 1 surge rolled on the attack.

English might not be my native language, but I know for certain that "you may" implies a voluntary choice. Therefore, the rule writers must have forgotten to include hero abilities (and most probably feats, as they are closely related) in the top-mentioned rulebook excerpt, since they feature voluntary fatigue suffering.

Therefore, the rules statement "If any other game effect forces a hero to suffer fatigue in excess of his stamina, he instead suffers damage equal to the excess fatigue equal to the excess fatigue that would have been suffered" cannot include hero abilities (and most probably feats), as they factually have been forgotten in the top-mentioned rulebook excerpt.

Demonstration done. Case closed.

To use a quote I recently learned, you're not even wrong :)

You're making your case by relying on the proof of a negative. You cannot prove nor disprove that a negative is true. You imply that the rules unintentionally forgot to include hero abilities and feats in reference to the use of fatigue. Another poster suggests that because this ability in question comes from the Conversion Kit, it's likely that the rules writer was unaware that hero abilities and feats could present this issue.

In counterpoint to both, I suggest you look at Jain's hero ability:

"When you suffer any amount of (wounds) from an attack, you may choose to suffer some or all of that amount as (fatigue) instead: you cannot suffer (fatigue) in excess of your Stamina."

I take this as a clear indication that the Descent 2.0 team, including those responsible for making the Conversion Kit heroes, understood and were aware that the voluntary limit to suffering fatigue ONLY applied to movement and skills. Jain's ability includes a specific limitation…she can only use her ability up to her maximum Stamina. Karnon's ability contains no such limitation. Looking at the rules as written…not assuming that they accidentally left anything out…Jain's ability is limited, while Karnon's ability is not.

And I'm aware that some people will deny the rule until FFG clarifies otherwise. Despite the fact that the rules already contain a very clear statement about what happens when a hero suffers fatigue in excess of their stamina. That statement contains no qualifier about an unwilling suffering of fatigue, and to me is already a clear enough statement about how the rule works.

A lot has been made of the page 13 use of the word voluntarily in reference to suffering fatigue for movement and skill use. This rule is limited to movement and skills. Hero abilities and feats are like specific rules in many card games: In many instances, they "break" the normal rules of the game. That's intentional, both in card games and here. The text of the ability takes precedence when it conflicts with the standard rules of the game. Since hero abilities and feats are not skills, the voluntary limit attached to fatigue and skill use does not apply. That's not making any assumptions about what the rules are meant to convey…that's simply reading the rules as they are written, infering nothing.

Posted at

kingbobb said:

You cannot prove nor disprove that a negative is true.

That statement is a negative, yet you're trying to prove it's true…

Posted at

Since there would appear to be a massive amount of disagreement on this subject, I have posted a question to the FAQ.

Posted at

kingbobb said:

Ispher said:

"Heroes voluntarily suffer fatigue in order to use skills or move additional spaces." (rulebook p. 13)

Factually, this statement is non-exhaustive, since Karnon's hero ability reads:

Each time a monster attacks you, after rolling dice, you may suffer 1 fatigue to cancel 1 surge rolled on the attack.

English might not be my native language, but I know for certain that "you may" implies a voluntary choice. Therefore, the rule writers must have forgotten to include hero abilities (and most probably feats, as they are closely related) in the top-mentioned rulebook excerpt, since they feature voluntary fatigue suffering.

Therefore, the rules statement "If any other game effect forces a hero to suffer fatigue in excess of his stamina, he instead suffers damage equal to the excess fatigue equal to the excess fatigue that would have been suffered" cannot include hero abilities (and most probably feats), as they factually have been forgotten in the top-mentioned rulebook excerpt.

Demonstration done. Case closed.

To use a quote I recently learned, you're not even wrong :)

You're making your case by relying on the proof of a negative. You cannot prove nor disprove that a negative is true.

You imply that the rules unintentionally forgot to include hero abilities and feats in reference to the use of fatigue. Another poster suggests that because this ability in question comes from the Conversion Kit, it's likely that the rules writer was unaware that hero abilities and feats could present this issue.

In counterpoint to both, I suggest you look at Jain's hero ability:

"When you suffer any amount of (wounds) from an attack, you may choose to suffer some or all of that amount as (fatigue) instead: you cannot suffer (fatigue) in excess of your Stamina."

Funny: you are taking one example of bad rule writing to justify another example of bad rule writing.

What would happen if the phrase you cannot suffer (fatigue) in excess of your Stamina wasn't added on Jain's ability? If she tried to suffer fatigue in excess to her stamina to prevent wounds, she would, according to the forced fatigue-suffering rules, have to take wounds… Which is also what she has to do if she does not attempt to suffer fatigue in excess to her stamina and simply takes the damage as wounds. Therefore, the phrase you cannot suffer (fatigue) in excess of your Stamina is completely useless on Jain's card, as the card would play exactly the same if that phrase wasn't there!

I am making my case by relying on the English language rules, rules that rules writers have to abide to. "You may" is voluntary - no sane rules writer would change this. To include a "you may" deed (not even effect, since suffering fatigue voluntarily is something you do, not an effect that is happening to you) into a category of forced effects , that would be irrational.

Since I assume none of the rules writers of Descent 2 is crazy, I assume Karnon's (or Sir Valadir's) ability does not follow the forced effects rule but the voluntary fatigue suffering rule, even though it is not included in the voluntary fatigue suffering list. They must have forgotten it (or merged it in the "skill" word), because the alternative is, from the point of view of the English language, irrational.

Posted at

Ispher said:

Funny: you are taking one example of bad rule writing to justify another example of bad rule writing.

What would happen if the phrase you cannot suffer (fatigue) in excess of your Stamina wasn't added on Jain's ability? If she tried to suffer fatigue in excess to her stamina to prevent wounds, she would, according to the forced fatigue-suffering rules, have to take wounds… Which is also what she has to do if she does not attempt to suffer fatigue in excess to her stamina and simply takes the damage as wounds. Therefore, the phrase you cannot suffer (fatigue) in excess of your Stamina is completely useless on Jain's card, as the card would play exactly the same if that phrase wasn't there!

I am making my case by relying on the English language rules, rules that rules writers have to abide to. "You may" is voluntary - no sane rules writer would change this. To include a "you may" deed (not even effect, since suffering fatigue voluntarily is something you do, not an effect that is happening to you) into a category of forced effects , that would be irrational.

Since I assume none of the rules writers of Descent 2 is crazy, I assume Karnon's (or Sir Valadir's) ability does not follow the forced effects rule but the voluntary fatigue suffering rule, even though it is not included in the voluntary fatigue suffering list. They must have forgotten it (or merged it in the "skill" word), because the alternative is, from the point of view of the English language, irrational.

Jain's added language is not irrelevant. It just isn't relevant yet. Or perhaps it is, I haven't studied every single card and ability in the game, but I can see an Overlord card or even another hero ability or skill that is triggered off of a hero using their ability. In which case, there might be both a benefit and an added risk to Jain using her ability while at her max Stamina, were she not capped by the language.

However, looking more closely at the rules, I think I see now what your point is. The issue is that the situation of abilities and feats not covered explicitly covered. I do think the rules provide a solution for both, though.

The ability includes a may option, and the may is placed on the suffering fatigue act. The rules state that wound conversion of suffered fatigue is for a game effect that forces a hero to suffer fatigue. Karnon's ability allows him to voluntarily suffer fatigue, which is at odds with the rule. Looking at it from that perspective, I think the correct application of the rules is that Karnon can only use his ability when he can suffer fatigue, and may not use it if he is already at his max fatigue.

However, his feat does not use the may construct. It simply says that after he completes his feat act, he suffers 1 fatigue, In this case, suffer fatigue is not voluntary, it is a forced condition of the heroic feat, and Karnon may use it even if he's already at his max Stamina, and would suffer 1 wound instead.

Posted at

kingbobb said:

However, looking more closely at the rules, I think I see now what your point is. The issue is that the situation of abilities and feats not covered explicitly covered. I do think the rules provide a solution for both, though.

The ability includes a may option, and the may is placed on the suffering fatigue act. The rules state that wound conversion of suffered fatigue is for a game effect that forces a hero to suffer fatigue. Karnon's ability allows him to voluntarily suffer fatigue, which is at odds with the rule. Looking at it from that perspective, I think the correct application of the rules is that Karnon can only use his ability when he can suffer fatigue, and may not use it if he is already at his max fatigue.

However, his feat does not use the may construct. It simply says that after he completes his feat act, he suffers 1 fatigue, In this case, suffer fatigue is not voluntary, it is a forced condition of the heroic feat, and Karnon may use it even if he's already at his max Stamina, and would suffer 1 wound instead.

This is my take on the Force vs. Optional debate as well. And it feels right that a player can use his Heroic Feat regardless of stamina caps; if/when he needs to.

I had another point to bring up regarding the format "You may spend 1[resource] to [effect] 1"; now that I've looked over the cards and found examples I'll list it here, as it is quite relevant to part of the OP.

Karnon: "Each time a monster attacks you, after rolling dice, you may suffer 1<fatigue> to cancel 1<surge> rolled on the attack."

Jain FairWood's: "When you suffer any amount of <heart> from an attack, you may choose to suffer some or all of that amount as <fatigue> instead; you cannot suffer <fatigue> in excess of your Stamina"

Red Scorpian: "At the end of your turn, you may suffer 1<fatigue> to recover 1<heart>, or suffer 1 <heart> to recover 1<fatigue>"

I'm quite certain the intention behind Karnon's ability is to only be activated once PER attack roll; and the same for Red Scorpian (once per "end of turn"). Jain's states quite clearly that you may spend more than 1; where as the other two abilities declare 1 for 1 when triggered. The distinction appears to mark the fact that a "1 for 1" wording does not translate to "X for X"; unless it is worded as such: "FOR EACH 1 spent, 1 [effect]"

Posted at

Antistone said:

First, it says "any OTHER game effect", which implies that movement and skills are already considered examples of being "forced" to spend fatigue.

No, it means movement and skills are "game effects", and they are now talking about others. If does not mean M&S are forced.

Antistone said:

I can see no remotely reasonable argument that the person writing that rule was attempting to explain that optional fatigue was capped and forced fatigue converted to wounds.

You mean other than the use of the words "voluntarily" and "forces"?

kingbobb said:

You cannot prove nor disprove that a negative is true.

That is false. You cannot exhaustively prove that "No A are B" unless you can prove that A is a finite set and apply the rule to all members of A. To disprove it, you only need to find one instance that contradicts the assertion.

Ispher said:

What would happen if the phrase you cannot suffer (fatigue) in excess of your Stamina wasn't added on Jain's ability?

The camp that argues that skills, abilities, and feats are mutually exclusive terms could make the following argument if that extra clause was not included. Jain's HA says "you may choose to suffer some or all of that amount as [fatigue] instead". Since it's not a "skill" the "suffering" cap on page 13 does not apply, so I place all those fatigue tokens on Jain's card. The other rule states "If any other game effect forces a hero to suffer fatigue …" -- Jain was not forced to suffer fatigue, she chose to do so, so no fatigue to damage conversion occurs. According to Hero Sheet Anatomy on page 7: "Stamina represents the maximum amount of fatigue it may suffer" and the rules on page 15: "Heroes cannot suffer fatigue past their Stamina value", so I discard the extra fatigue. This is a [too] literal reading of the rules. The same argument can be made for Karnon's ability.

Rulebook writers are fallible humans too. They may leave something out, misstate something, or include redundant or ambiguous statements. That is what FAQ and errata are for. I do believe that they should try to be as concise and precise as time allows.