Has anyone used finger of death in AL? I'm specifically interested in whether you got a zombie out of it and how smoothly did that zombie transfer to the next session/DM.
I will make the assumption that the player only cast FoD one time in the previous session, and got one Zombie. The Zombie he got from the previous session was destroyed in the last session. If the player argues they will be reminded that there are other players at the table and I will in no way impinge on their play time (if you are moving a demi-plane worth of zombies, there will only be one round of combat as the whole things stagnates as Boss FoD moves a thousand minis...) and that as the final arbiter of rules at *this particular table* you get one zombie. or none, if you prefer. But as I cannot tell someone how to play the game the door can always be accessed.
Sure, it may come off as a jerk move, "My way or the highway," but if I have up to six other players at the same table, Boss FoD does not get to have things their way. :) Most players are polite enough to understand this, and if the player is not polite enough to understand the shared table, than I am sure I am not the right DM for them anyway. :)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Untrained and undisciplined troops take heavy casualties; trained and disciplined troops inflict them."
I agree with FireberdGnome on this one. No big deal to let a player bring a zombie along, other than the ruckus it will cause when they're in a civilized area. :) But no way would I allow a horde of them.
I think the player should probably record every zombie on the logsheet including when zombies die. That should eliminate any ambiguity as to how many zombies should be available. I agree that it's violating the social contract to bring a horde of zombies to the table and I understand your point of view. Where we disagree is that I feel that disallowing the horde isn't so much a ruling as it is a house rule and that's also not okay in AL (actual rule not just social contract). Do you also disallow conjure woodland beings because it slows down the game a lot too?
Summoning spells are completely legitimate. There are pros and cons, but that is pretty normal. I have even played a necromancer in AL that habitually had four zombies/skeletons in tow. (and burned the lvl3 spell every morning :/ )
But when you start talking about scores of Zombies it becomes too much. That is where I begin to ask (maybe even aloud...) what the point is. Are Zombies in tier3 that worthwhile? or, is it "Look at my cleverness and how I can get a million minions!" I understand the value of summons, even weak ones (every attack that goes after a zombie is an attack that isn't hitting PCs and all that; We don't worry too much about traps because Zed and Zeke will walk into them first...).
As the primary concern for me is a combination of time soak and traffic on the table, I am sure a moderate number could be reached in compromise (four works ;) ), and if that is 'too house-ruly' for a player, they are free to call the AL police after they leave the table. :) Or, if the AL DM is REQUIRED BY ALL THAT IS RIGHT AND HOLY (that's not shouting, that's Thaumaturgy ;) ) then the DM can always cede the table and go find something better to do with their time. (that is, the DM is not beholden to the players and players that demand things can find themselves out a DM. "You're right, I can't rule the way I want to in a corner case, so, I declare this home brew and not AL.")
As an example, not FoD related, I had a DM run Invisibility as if it had the same effectiveness it had in previous editions. He would have the bad guy cast Invis, and then he would pick up the mini as you could not tell where they were. Bear in mind the bad guy had not used a Hide Action to escape notice. Now, to find the bad guy you had to use your Action to search using Perception. Clearly this is against the rules; all invisibility does is impose Disadvantage on attacks directed at the invisible target. I said that (as a player, mind you) and the DM said, basically, this is how I am ruling it. My response was "Ok." We talked after the game, off the table and he stuck by his guns. The guy is a great DM (he ran about seven sessions I got to play in while traveling for work), and we got along well. I could have argued and argued, and argued some more. I was right. I had the rules to back me up. But if I had chosen that course where would I have ended up?
GNOME
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Untrained and undisciplined troops take heavy casualties; trained and disciplined troops inflict them."
You seem very reasonable and I doubt whether it's possible in AL to legitimately maintain more than 10ish FoD zombies given the constraints on long rests, spell slots, play time, and attrition.
I am curious that you think FoD is somehow illegitimate because it's not as common as summoning spells. Maybe I'm misreading your text, but it seems like you would restrict the necromancer to ~4 CR 1/4 zombies for the sake of fairness in table time. While at the same table, you would allow someone to use their 8th level slot in combat to summon 24 CR 1/4 fey creatures. If I was the necromancer at that table, I would rightly be quite upset.
Part of the point of having the AL rules be consistent everywhere is so that arguments about rules don't have to happen.
Still, it's nice to know that you wouldn't be too fazed with someone showing up to the table and claiming they had a few zombies in tow from FoD. I hope other AL DMs are that reasonable too.
You seem very reasonable and I doubt whether it's possible in AL to legitimately maintain more than 10ish FoD zombies given the constraints on long rests, spell slots, play time, and attrition.
I am curious that you think FoD is somehow illegitimate because it's not as common as summoning spells. Maybe I'm misreading your text, but it seems like you would restrict the necromancer to ~4 CR 1/4 zombies for the sake of fairness in table time. While at the same table, you would allow someone to use their 8th level slot in combat to summon 24 CR 1/4 fey creatures. If I was the necromancer at that table, I would rightly be quite upset.
Part of the point of having the AL rules be consistent everywhere is so that arguments about rules don't have to happen.
Still, it's nice to know that you wouldn't be too fazed with someone showing up to the table and claiming they had a few zombies in tow from FoD. I hope other AL DMs are that reasonable too.
What an AL DM will allow to be brought from module to module varies widely. Some of the common issues are:
- Zombies maintained by a Necromancer using Animate Dead.
- Zombies created by FoD
- Simulacrum/Wish shenanigans (i.e. more than one simulacrum)
- Infinite spell slot coffeelock
In my experience, most AL DMs just say no to most of these. There are a variety of reasons varying from having a large impact on playability to causing a large swing in party balance.
If you think about it, as low as a 13th level wizard could spend 100 downtime days killing random humanoids to create an army of zombies. They could even do this by providing a euthanasia service to gravely ill or dying creatures. Due to bounded accuracy, those 100 zombies are actually a significant threat to a lot of creatures and due to zombie reilience they are actually fairly hard to kill. Find a life cleric/(ranger/druid) buddy with the goodberry spell and you can return the zombies to full health after every fight. BUT :) ... no one would have any fun playing at a table with a character with a zombie army at their disposal. Having such an army, although "legal" by the rules, would detract from the enjoyment of the others at the table which is another reason why such tactics could be banned by the DM.
What an AL DM will allow to be brought from module to module varies widely. Some of the common issues are:
- Zombies maintained by a Necromancer using Animate Dead.
- Zombies created by FoD
- Simulacrum/Wish shenanigans (i.e. more than one simulacrum)
- Infinite spell slot coffeelock
In my experience, most AL DMs just say no to most of these. There are a variety of reasons varying from having a large impact on playability to causing a large swing in party balance.
If you think about it, as low as a 13th level wizard could spend 100 downtime days killing random humanoids to create an army of zombies. They could even do this by providing a euthanasia service to gravely ill or dying creatures. Due to bounded accuracy, those 100 zombies are actually a significant threat to a lot of creatures and due to zombie reilience they are actually fairly hard to kill. Find a life cleric/(ranger/druid) buddy with the goodberry spell and you can return the zombies to full health after every fight. BUT :) ... no one would have any fun playing at a table with a character with a zombie army at their disposal. Having such an army, although "legal" by the rules, would detract from the enjoyment of the others at the table which is another reason why such tactics could be banned by the DM.
I disagree with the premise of your post. It is not up to the DM to allow or disallow, that's for the AL rules to determine. The AL DM should "allow" anything that is allowed by the rules. In AL, the DM's role is to enforce the rules and make rulings regarding this rules. They are explicitly not allowed to make their own rules (like banning FoD zombies). Simulacrum/Wish shenanigans are specifically disallowed by AL rules and it's questionable as to whether coffeelocks are allowed by RAW or RAI (DM ruling either way is reasonable). Killing NPCs isn't an allowed downtime activity. Zombies (made during adventures) could at least be documented by the caster just like anything else in AL.
Yeah sorry if a player has it documented then they are good to go with their zombies. It's not a DM call since it's stated in the rules. That doesn't mean they can use downtime for it, just that they can acquire zombies during adventures, note them, and get permanent zombies. You prevent that it's no longer an AL legal game.
Yeah, sorry, if you're that insistent then I will refuse to seat you. If there is a local store policy (as there is no longer an AL CoC) that prevents me from refusing to seat you I will suddenly have to go home to tend a sick velociraptor while washing my hair. I have no obligation to run a game I am not enjoying.
See, this kind of insistence stinks of a deeper player issue. I have been playing and running games for near 40 years and "But the rules say!" defense is the bastion of, well, poor players. (I know, I used to be one of them...) What are you trying to accomplish by 'winning' at D&D? Is that fun? Because from many other player's perspective all this insistence does is disrupt the game and make it a chore rather than entertainment.
One of the DM's role is to arbitrate the rules to enhance the game. Let them arbitrate. Don't try to straitjacket them. Try letting go and let the DM keep the game rolling, trust the DM to make the game fun and entertaining.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Untrained and undisciplined troops take heavy casualties; trained and disciplined troops inflict them."
Lmao but the rules say so is the exact reason I play AL. Rules protect players from the many poor DMs out there with no concept of balance. AL does allow DMs to “keep the game rolling” but not by changing rules. Again to protect players from poor DMs.
And I’m not saying you cant arbitrate your own games but AL follows RAW and uses “DM arbitration” only in grey areas that aren’t defined by rules. You can certainly refuse to seat but refusing to seat because you don’t want to follow AL is a reason liable to make you lose a seat as an AL DM.
In terms of slowing play, the player should be expected to have zombie / skeleton stat blocks at the ready and do their turns in an orderly manner.
See, this kind of insistence stinks of a deeper player issue. I have been playing and running games for near 40 years and "But the rules say!" defense is the bastion of, well, poor players. (I know, I used to be one of them...) What are you trying to accomplish by 'winning' at D&D? Is that fun? Because from many other player's perspective all this insistence does is disrupt the game and make it a chore rather than entertainment.
One of the DM's role is to arbitrate the rules to enhance the game. Let them arbitrate. Don't try to straitjacket them. Try letting go and let the DM keep the game rolling, trust the DM to make the game fun and entertaining.
Everyone in the AL game has agreed to follow the same rules. "But the rules say..." is essentially the only recourse players have when DMs aren't following those rules. The players shouldn't argue with the DM once a final ruling has been made, but pointing out the rules should be encouraged because it makes everyone better at the game.
I disagree with your assertion that it is a role of the DM to "enhance" the game. When I sign up to play in AL, I'm not signing up for an enhanced game. Maybe some DM out there thinks x, y, or z enhances the game. If it's not actually in the rules, the DM shouldn't be doing/enforcing it.
As far as arbitrating the rules goes, I think you have an overly broad definition. Hypothetically, if a player showed up at your table with an AL certificate that allowed them to start every adventure with 10 zombies under their control, would you allow it? If yes, then why wouldn't you allow 10 properly-documented FoD zombies when the game rules allow it? If no, what gives you the authority to overrule official campaign documentation where "I'm the DM" isn't a good answer?
One final thought, you ask the players to trust the DM to make the game fun and entertaining, but don't seem to give players that same trust. There's no way I'd trust a DM to make the game fun if one of their first rulings completely negates one of my spells/features. Think about how a warlock player would feel when you just relegated their mystic arcanum to a mere damage spell. Trust has to go both ways.
If the player has every single zombie they claim to have properly and completely documented then they would be AL legal and would be allowed to participate in the module.
That said, the DM has a lot of leeway in running modules, in particular they are allowed to make changes to balance that go beyond the recommendations from very weak to very strong.
ALDMG:
"You’re Empowered. Make decisions about how the group interacts with the adventure; adjust or improvise but maintain the adventure’s spirit. This doesn’t allow you to implement new rules, however."
"Challenge Your Players. Gauge the experience level of your players, what they like in a game, and attempt to deliver what they’re after. Everyone should be able to shine. You may adjustment the encounter by adding or removing thematically appropriate monsters."
If a character showed up with an army of zombies then there might be very few if any left after the first encounter. That would be entirely AL legal as well and would need to be appropriately documented on the character sheet that the character has no more zombies remaining.
In practice, as a player, I've only encountered a couple of folks who carried over monsters/pets from one adventure to the next. It can make it a bit more challenging for the DM to balance since the party might be otherwise weak but the zombies may move them up the scale. Having a couple of extra zombies running around didn't really change things that much. However, having an army of undead would likely require balance changes that the DM is completely free to make.
When they show up with their 13 zombies, all documented, they may just bump into the town Cleric who mistakenly destroys them all with her Channel Divinity action. *Whoops!*
If the player has every single zombie they claim to have properly and completely documented then they would be AL legal and would be allowed to participate in the module.
That said, the DM has a lot of leeway in running modules, in particular they are allowed to make changes to balance that go beyond the recommendations from very weak to very strong.
...
If a character showed up with an army of zombies then there might be very few if any left after the first encounter. That would be entirely AL legal as well and would need to be appropriately documented on the character sheet that the character has no more zombies remaining.
When they show up with their 13 zombies, all documented, they may just bump into the town Cleric who mistakenly destroys them all with her Channel Divinity action. *Whoops!*
I totally agree with both of these viewpoints as long as it seems natural and doesn't feel like the DM just being punitive. I'm even okay with the DM actually being punitive as long as the player is having fun and doesn't feel like they're being singled out/bullied. Either way, a good wizard/warlock probably has a way to keep their zombies safe/undetected until they're needed. If I had zombies I would either try to get the demiplane spell or a portable hole. Both are good places to store things that don't need to breath/eat. I'm sure there are others too, but I haven't thought too much about it.
If the player has every single zombie they claim to have properly and completely documented then they would be AL legal and would be allowed to participate in the module.
That said, the DM has a lot of leeway in running modules, in particular they are allowed to make changes to balance that go beyond the recommendations from very weak to very strong.
...
If a character showed up with an army of zombies then there might be very few if any left after the first encounter. That would be entirely AL legal as well and would need to be appropriately documented on the character sheet that the character has no more zombies remaining.
When they show up with their 13 zombies, all documented, they may just bump into the town Cleric who mistakenly destroys them all with her Channel Divinity action. *Whoops!*
I totally agree with both of these viewpoints as long as it seems natural and doesn't feel like the DM just being punitive. I'm even okay with the DM actually being punitive as long as the player is having fun and doesn't feel like they're being singled out/bullied. Either way, a good wizard/warlock probably has a way to keep their zombies safe/undetected until they're needed. If I had zombies I would either try to get the demiplane spell or a portable hole. Both are good places to store things that don't need to breath/eat. I'm sure there are others too, but I haven't thought too much about it.
:) ... and wouldn't you know it ... a portable hole is a season 8 unlock ... so folks who want an army of undead in AL should act NOW! Get those portable holes to store your shock troops! However, remember that if you are using animate dead then you will still need to cast it every day to keep them going even if they are in storage.
Now ... I am wondering whether it would be worth making an AL character with a portable hole with stored undead for emergencies :)
:) ... and wouldn't you know it ... a portable hole is a season 8 unlock ... so folks who want an army of undead in AL should act NOW! Get those portable holes to store your shock troops! However, remember that if you are using animate dead then you will still need to cast it every day to keep them going even if they are in storage.
Now ... I am wondering whether it would be worth making an AL character with a portable hole with stored undead for emergencies :)
Animate dead actually doesn't require recasting the spell unless you want to maintain or reassert control over the undead. If you don't cast the spell every 24 hours, you just lose control over the undead. "This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one." So you could keep the zombies in the bag until needed and then either just release them (chaos ensues), or try to anticipate when the battle will be and cast the spell a minute before (controlled chaos ensues).
Edit: Now I'm questioning if this is true. "The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you’ve given it. To maintain control of the creature for another 24 hours, you must cast this spell on the creature again before the current 24-hour period ends. This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one."
Has anyone used finger of death in AL? I'm specifically interested in whether you got a zombie out of it and how smoothly did that zombie transfer to the next session/DM.
I would let a PC have a FoD zombie. It's one zombie. In a Tier3 party. Oh, wow. How unbalancing. :p
And think the wizard could have had a Simulacrum, instead!
"Untrained and undisciplined troops take heavy casualties; trained and disciplined troops inflict them."
- BG Jack Rogers, USA
But it's not just one zombie, it's as many zombies as you make. What if a player had a demiplane full of them?
I will make the assumption that the player only cast FoD one time in the previous session, and got one Zombie. The Zombie he got from the previous session was destroyed in the last session. If the player argues they will be reminded that there are other players at the table and I will in no way impinge on their play time (if you are moving a demi-plane worth of zombies, there will only be one round of combat as the whole things stagnates as Boss FoD moves a thousand minis...) and that as the final arbiter of rules at *this particular table* you get one zombie. or none, if you prefer. But as I cannot tell someone how to play the game the door can always be accessed.
Sure, it may come off as a jerk move, "My way or the highway," but if I have up to six other players at the same table, Boss FoD does not get to have things their way. :) Most players are polite enough to understand this, and if the player is not polite enough to understand the shared table, than I am sure I am not the right DM for them anyway. :)
"Untrained and undisciplined troops take heavy casualties; trained and disciplined troops inflict them."
- BG Jack Rogers, USA
I agree with FireberdGnome on this one. No big deal to let a player bring a zombie along, other than the ruckus it will cause when they're in a civilized area. :) But no way would I allow a horde of them.
I think the player should probably record every zombie on the logsheet including when zombies die. That should eliminate any ambiguity as to how many zombies should be available. I agree that it's violating the social contract to bring a horde of zombies to the table and I understand your point of view. Where we disagree is that I feel that disallowing the horde isn't so much a ruling as it is a house rule and that's also not okay in AL (actual rule not just social contract). Do you also disallow conjure woodland beings because it slows down the game a lot too?
Summoning spells are completely legitimate. There are pros and cons, but that is pretty normal. I have even played a necromancer in AL that habitually had four zombies/skeletons in tow. (and burned the lvl3 spell every morning :/ )
But when you start talking about scores of Zombies it becomes too much. That is where I begin to ask (maybe even aloud...) what the point is. Are Zombies in tier3 that worthwhile? or, is it "Look at my cleverness and how I can get a million minions!" I understand the value of summons, even weak ones (every attack that goes after a zombie is an attack that isn't hitting PCs and all that; We don't worry too much about traps because Zed and Zeke will walk into them first...).
As the primary concern for me is a combination of time soak and traffic on the table, I am sure a moderate number could be reached in compromise (four works ;) ), and if that is 'too house-ruly' for a player, they are free to call the AL police after they leave the table. :) Or, if the AL DM is REQUIRED BY ALL THAT IS RIGHT AND HOLY (that's not shouting, that's Thaumaturgy ;) ) then the DM can always cede the table and go find something better to do with their time. (that is, the DM is not beholden to the players and players that demand things can find themselves out a DM. "You're right, I can't rule the way I want to in a corner case, so, I declare this home brew and not AL.")
As an example, not FoD related, I had a DM run Invisibility as if it had the same effectiveness it had in previous editions. He would have the bad guy cast Invis, and then he would pick up the mini as you could not tell where they were. Bear in mind the bad guy had not used a Hide Action to escape notice. Now, to find the bad guy you had to use your Action to search using Perception. Clearly this is against the rules; all invisibility does is impose Disadvantage on attacks directed at the invisible target. I said that (as a player, mind you) and the DM said, basically, this is how I am ruling it. My response was "Ok." We talked after the game, off the table and he stuck by his guns. The guy is a great DM (he ran about seven sessions I got to play in while traveling for work), and we got along well. I could have argued and argued, and argued some more. I was right. I had the rules to back me up. But if I had chosen that course where would I have ended up?
GNOME
"Untrained and undisciplined troops take heavy casualties; trained and disciplined troops inflict them."
- BG Jack Rogers, USA
You seem very reasonable and I doubt whether it's possible in AL to legitimately maintain more than 10ish FoD zombies given the constraints on long rests, spell slots, play time, and attrition.
I am curious that you think FoD is somehow illegitimate because it's not as common as summoning spells. Maybe I'm misreading your text, but it seems like you would restrict the necromancer to ~4 CR 1/4 zombies for the sake of fairness in table time. While at the same table, you would allow someone to use their 8th level slot in combat to summon 24 CR 1/4 fey creatures. If I was the necromancer at that table, I would rightly be quite upset.
Part of the point of having the AL rules be consistent everywhere is so that arguments about rules don't have to happen.
Still, it's nice to know that you wouldn't be too fazed with someone showing up to the table and claiming they had a few zombies in tow from FoD. I hope other AL DMs are that reasonable too.
What an AL DM will allow to be brought from module to module varies widely. Some of the common issues are:
- Zombies maintained by a Necromancer using Animate Dead.
- Zombies created by FoD
- Simulacrum/Wish shenanigans (i.e. more than one simulacrum)
- Infinite spell slot coffeelock
In my experience, most AL DMs just say no to most of these. There are a variety of reasons varying from having a large impact on playability to causing a large swing in party balance.
If you think about it, as low as a 13th level wizard could spend 100 downtime days killing random humanoids to create an army of zombies. They could even do this by providing a euthanasia service to gravely ill or dying creatures. Due to bounded accuracy, those 100 zombies are actually a significant threat to a lot of creatures and due to zombie reilience they are actually fairly hard to kill. Find a life cleric/(ranger/druid) buddy with the goodberry spell and you can return the zombies to full health after every fight. BUT :) ... no one would have any fun playing at a table with a character with a zombie army at their disposal. Having such an army, although "legal" by the rules, would detract from the enjoyment of the others at the table which is another reason why such tactics could be banned by the DM.
I disagree with the premise of your post. It is not up to the DM to allow or disallow, that's for the AL rules to determine. The AL DM should "allow" anything that is allowed by the rules. In AL, the DM's role is to enforce the rules and make rulings regarding this rules. They are explicitly not allowed to make their own rules (like banning FoD zombies). Simulacrum/Wish shenanigans are specifically disallowed by AL rules and it's questionable as to whether coffeelocks are allowed by RAW or RAI (DM ruling either way is reasonable). Killing NPCs isn't an allowed downtime activity. Zombies (made during adventures) could at least be documented by the caster just like anything else in AL.
Yeah sorry if a player has it documented then they are good to go with their zombies. It's not a DM call since it's stated in the rules. That doesn't mean they can use downtime for it, just that they can acquire zombies during adventures, note them, and get permanent zombies. You prevent that it's no longer an AL legal game.
Yeah, sorry, if you're that insistent then I will refuse to seat you. If there is a local store policy (as there is no longer an AL CoC) that prevents me from refusing to seat you I will suddenly have to go home to tend a sick velociraptor while washing my hair. I have no obligation to run a game I am not enjoying.
See, this kind of insistence stinks of a deeper player issue. I have been playing and running games for near 40 years and "But the rules say!" defense is the bastion of, well, poor players. (I know, I used to be one of them...) What are you trying to accomplish by 'winning' at D&D? Is that fun? Because from many other player's perspective all this insistence does is disrupt the game and make it a chore rather than entertainment.
One of the DM's role is to arbitrate the rules to enhance the game. Let them arbitrate. Don't try to straitjacket them. Try letting go and let the DM keep the game rolling, trust the DM to make the game fun and entertaining.
"Untrained and undisciplined troops take heavy casualties; trained and disciplined troops inflict them."
- BG Jack Rogers, USA
Lmao but the rules say so is the exact reason I play AL. Rules protect players from the many poor DMs out there with no concept of balance. AL does allow DMs to “keep the game rolling” but not by changing rules. Again to protect players from poor DMs.
And I’m not saying you cant arbitrate your own games but AL follows RAW and uses “DM arbitration” only in grey areas that aren’t defined by rules. You can certainly refuse to seat but refusing to seat because you don’t want to follow AL is a reason liable to make you lose a seat as an AL DM.
In terms of slowing play, the player should be expected to have zombie / skeleton stat blocks at the ready and do their turns in an orderly manner.
Everyone in the AL game has agreed to follow the same rules. "But the rules say..." is essentially the only recourse players have when DMs aren't following those rules. The players shouldn't argue with the DM once a final ruling has been made, but pointing out the rules should be encouraged because it makes everyone better at the game.
I disagree with your assertion that it is a role of the DM to "enhance" the game. When I sign up to play in AL, I'm not signing up for an enhanced game. Maybe some DM out there thinks x, y, or z enhances the game. If it's not actually in the rules, the DM shouldn't be doing/enforcing it.
As far as arbitrating the rules goes, I think you have an overly broad definition. Hypothetically, if a player showed up at your table with an AL certificate that allowed them to start every adventure with 10 zombies under their control, would you allow it? If yes, then why wouldn't you allow 10 properly-documented FoD zombies when the game rules allow it? If no, what gives you the authority to overrule official campaign documentation where "I'm the DM" isn't a good answer?
One final thought, you ask the players to trust the DM to make the game fun and entertaining, but don't seem to give players that same trust. There's no way I'd trust a DM to make the game fun if one of their first rulings completely negates one of my spells/features. Think about how a warlock player would feel when you just relegated their mystic arcanum to a mere damage spell. Trust has to go both ways.
You guys are so right.
Wow. How could I be so oblivious.
What I am really ashamed of is I stuck my hand back in this hornets nest. I really am an idiot sometimes.
"Untrained and undisciplined troops take heavy casualties; trained and disciplined troops inflict them."
- BG Jack Rogers, USA
Ok. I agree :)
If the player has every single zombie they claim to have properly and completely documented then they would be AL legal and would be allowed to participate in the module.
That said, the DM has a lot of leeway in running modules, in particular they are allowed to make changes to balance that go beyond the recommendations from very weak to very strong.
ALDMG:
"You’re Empowered. Make decisions about how the group interacts with the adventure; adjust or improvise but maintain the adventure’s spirit. This doesn’t allow you to implement new rules, however."
"Challenge Your Players. Gauge the experience level of your players, what they like in a game, and attempt to deliver what they’re after. Everyone should be able to shine. You may adjustment the encounter by adding or removing thematically appropriate monsters."
If a character showed up with an army of zombies then there might be very few if any left after the first encounter. That would be entirely AL legal as well and would need to be appropriately documented on the character sheet that the character has no more zombies remaining.
In practice, as a player, I've only encountered a couple of folks who carried over monsters/pets from one adventure to the next. It can make it a bit more challenging for the DM to balance since the party might be otherwise weak but the zombies may move them up the scale. Having a couple of extra zombies running around didn't really change things that much. However, having an army of undead would likely require balance changes that the DM is completely free to make.
When they show up with their 13 zombies, all documented, they may just bump into the town Cleric who mistakenly destroys them all with her Channel Divinity action. *Whoops!*
I totally agree with both of these viewpoints as long as it seems natural and doesn't feel like the DM just being punitive. I'm even okay with the DM actually being punitive as long as the player is having fun and doesn't feel like they're being singled out/bullied. Either way, a good wizard/warlock probably has a way to keep their zombies safe/undetected until they're needed. If I had zombies I would either try to get the demiplane spell or a portable hole. Both are good places to store things that don't need to breath/eat. I'm sure there are others too, but I haven't thought too much about it.
:) ... and wouldn't you know it ... a portable hole is a season 8 unlock ... so folks who want an army of undead in AL should act NOW! Get those portable holes to store your shock troops! However, remember that if you are using animate dead then you will still need to cast it every day to keep them going even if they are in storage.
Now ... I am wondering whether it would be worth making an AL character with a portable hole with stored undead for emergencies :)
Animate dead actually doesn't require recasting the spell unless you want to maintain or reassert control over the undead. If you don't cast the spell every 24 hours, you just lose control over the undead. "This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one." So you could keep the zombies in the bag until needed and then either just release them (chaos ensues), or try to anticipate when the battle will be and cast the spell a minute before (controlled chaos ensues).
Edit: Now I'm questioning if this is true. "The creature is under your control for 24 hours, after which it stops obeying any command you’ve given it. To maintain control of the creature for another 24 hours, you must cast this spell on the creature again before the current 24-hour period ends. This use of the spell reasserts your control over up to four creatures you have animated with this spell, rather than animating a new one."