Does a melee attack need LOS? Luck? or Liquor?

[Ch1can0]

thx for info!

Chicano.

[DoesntCompute]

Yes. If two units are next to each other but there is a ruin between them, they are not adjacent therefore cannot attack each other.

[Kenntak]

Adjacent units do not need to check los.

[daevablacc]

NO! The ruin creates non-adjacency if neither figure is considered tall enough to be taller than the ruin. So if you are actually adjacent to someone, LOS is not necessary. The rule book covers the conditions regarding height that must be met for adjacency.

[netherspirit]

Engaged units do not need to check LOS.

If there is a ruin between 2 figs, they both have to be taller than the ruin to be engaged.

[daevablacc]

If there is a ruin between 2 figs, they both have to be taller than the ruin to be engaged.
Yeah, my bad :oops:

[toddrew]

I was explaining the HS gameplay to a new player the other day, and pointing out the special HS meaning of adjacency early on helps to clarify lots of situations - this one in particular.

[Jaz1597]

Okay, new question...I think I know the answer to this, but I'd just like clarification.

Say two figures are engaged, but they are on different levels. The one on the lower level is tall enough that he can be engaged, but the figure's head (from where you determine LOS) is below said level, and thus cannot "see" the higher figure. (Picture Jotun or Carr for example, where a sword accounts for the highest part of the figure).

Is this true adjacency?

[sigmazero13]

Yes. Adjacency is not dependent upon LOS; LOS is only important for ranged attacks and some special abilities.

If "by the numbers" they are adjacent, it doesn't matter. Remember, adjacency among different levels is dependent primarily on the height of the "lower" figure; if the difference in height between the two figures is less than the lower figure's height, they are adjacent, otherwise they are not. The actual size of the sculpt is irrelevant :)

[Ch1can0]

So adjacent units do not need to check los, that´s a clear answer, thx.

Last newbish questions about this: So if there is a ruin between Jotun and a Grut Orc, Jotun can´t attack ´cause the grut is smaller than the ruin, right? Does the ruin actually got a size by numbers or does it depend from the actual size of the sculpt this time?

[MacG]

From the rulebook:

For example, a ruin has a height of 6. If Finn (height of 5) and Deathwalker (height of 7) are next to each other with a ruin in between them, they are not engaged.

(I'm using the 2nd edition rules, Pg. 12, 3rd to last paragraph.)

Since the grut is too short, Jotun can't attack. (Unless you use Reaper's ALTERNATE Jotun with Reach, at which point you should ask him.)

[Jaz1597]

If "by the numbers" they are adjacent, it doesn't matter.

Cool, that's what I thought.

[Rodriquez]

Okay, new question...I think I know the answer to this, but I'd just like clarification.

Say two figures are engaged, but they are on different levels. The one on the lower level is tall enough that he can be engaged, but the figure's head (from where you determine LOS) is below said level, and thus cannot "see" the higher figure. (Picture Jotun or Carr for example, where a sword accounts for the highest part of the figure).

Is this true adjacency?

if the lower lvl fiqure's height is at or below the lvl that the higher lvl fiqure is standing on they are not engaged or adjacent.

however if the attacking fiqure is a ranged unit than they would be in range. since they would be able to "look" up or down and see the other fiqure

[Oprime]

What about this...
Can the Greek attack Johnny?
http://upload4.postimage.org/274821/nilfgroup001.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/274821/photo_hosting.html)
http://upload4.postimage.org/274822/nilfgroup002.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/274822/photo_hosting.html)
http://upload4.postimage.org/274824/nilfgroup003.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/274824/photo_hosting.html)

I say No because IMO nilfs wing would act like a ruin.

but by rule they are ajacent and do not require LOS to melee attack? right?

[Agent Minivann]

Swords go through dragon wings.

[Venom]

good questionOPrime. that pic sure does help see your point of view. i would have thought that the Greek didn't have LOS b/c of the wing as well. maybe this is one that we should send to Hasbro.

[shakey_snake]

What about this...
Can the Greek attack Johnny?
right?Johnny needs to be on the center of his hex.

[Teamski]

I would definately say that the LOS is blocked, without a doubt. It makes you wonder if this was done on purpose to allow Nilfheim to shield other figures. A very interesting find!

-Ski

[Oprime]

What about this...
Can the Greek attack Johnny?
right?Johnny needs to be on the center of his hex.

ummm, O... K...
It was just a quick reenactment shoot,
and actualy would make them both more concealed from each other.....

[netherspirit]

Swords go through dragon wings.

No they don't. It would be the same thing as a ruin.

Also, very interesting find with the wings. Very cool stuff.

[toddrew]

I wouldn't consider them engaged - Nilfheim's wing acting as a barrier in this case. But a good question for Hasbro to get an official ruling.

[daevablacc]

Because the figures meet ADJACENCY rules, no LOS is needed. The greek may engage the cowboy (IMHO)

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Yeah, I'm thinking they can attack. They're engaged. No LOS needed.
R/L situation: The greek is squatting and doing a sword slash under the wing?

This is another great example and reason we should do pictures with the FAQs section! :!:

Great food for thought, OPrime!

Now, I have questions:

:?: If the Greek was not adjacent to Nilfheim, but rather there was one space open between them - could he attack the wing if it was next to him?

:?: If Johnny and the Greek were there first, could Nilfheim land like that? Isn't that sorta passing through engaged figures?

[Oprime]

@H.E.H
Im pretty sure the answer to the first question is NO.
When figuring adjacencey you only factor in the bases (inc height)

And in the example johnny and nilf = same team.
Greek lone survivor of the attacking group. :cry:

[netherspirit]

Looking at the FAQ it says, you don't need line of sight to attack an engaged figure. Adjacent does not always equal engaged. The 2 exceptions are height and the ruin between figures.

I don't see how this would be any different than if it was a ruin between the 2 figures.

[toddrew]

Im pretty sure the answer to the first question is NO.
When figuring adjacencey you only factor in the bases (inc height)


This isn't entirely true - if a ruin is between two figures, they aren't adjacent unless each of their heights are greater than that of the ruin. The question in this case is whether Nilf's (a typo away from being dirty :twisted: ) wing is treated as a barrier or not.

EDIT: disregard this post, as I now see that OPrime is talking about H_E_H's question of being able to attack Nilf's wing w/o being next to Nilf's base. In which case, yeah, the Greek wouldn't :)

[netherspirit]

Also, I don't see why it wouldn't be counted as a ruin or blocker because if it was Syvarris standing one space back he wouldn't be able to attack.

[toddrew]

Also, I don't see why it wouldn't be counted as a ruin or blocker because if it was Syvarris standing one space back he wouldn't be able to attack.

Syvarris wouldn't be able to attack due to LOS, but if it is ruled that Johnny and the Greek are adjacent in this instance (i.e. that Nilf's wing does not disrupt the engagement) then it would fall under the "melee attacks do not need LOS" ruling.

[netherspirit]

They are adjacent, but are they engaged? Thats the question.

Adjacent does not always equal engaged. As my post above, there are 2 exceptions, height and a ruin between them.

If his wing doesn't stop them from being engaged, I would be very upset, because that would be a ridiculously stupid ruling....

[toddrew]

They are adjacent, but are they engaged? Thats the question.

Adjacent does not always equal engaged. As my post above, there are 2 exceptions, height and a ruin between them.

If his wing doesn't stop them from being engaged, I would be very upset, because that would be a ridiculously stupid ruling....

Due to my ponderous nature, I was slow in posting the same thought about adjacency/engagement at the same time as you, but it appeared 4 minutes later :) But, yeah, that is the real question here, does Nilf's wing disrupt the engagement (if so new nickname "Wedding Crasher") of Johnny and the Greek. I would hope so, but the more I think about it, the more I think that the official ruling would be that Johnny and the Greek are still engaged, just no LOS, therefore able to attack via melee (no Shotgun Blast though.)

[Oprime]

Looking at the FAQ it says, you don't need line of sight to attack an engaged figure. Adjacent does not always equal engaged. The 2 exceptions are height and the ruin between figures.

I don't see how this would be any different than if it was a ruin between the 2 figures.

If two figs are higer than a ruin between them they are adjacent. Right?

So why would it be different the other way? going down.

If you notice Nilfs wing does not extend all the way to the ground (2nd pic)
and thier feet and ankles are adjacent. They Do NOT have los , but that is not required for melee attacks.

[netherspirit]

Looking at the FAQ it says, you don't need line of sight to attack an engaged figure. Adjacent does not always equal engaged. The 2 exceptions are height and the ruin between figures.

I don't see how this would be any different than if it was a ruin between the 2 figures.

If two figs are higer than a ruin between them they are adjacent. Right?

So why would it be different the other way? going down.

If you notice Nilfs wing does not extend all the way to the ground (2nd pic)
and thier feet and ankles are adjacent. They Do NOT have los , but that is not required for melee attacks.

They do not have line of sight, but it doesn't say it isn't required for melee attacks, it says it isn't required for ENGAGED figures.

[shakey_snake]

What about this...
Can the Greek attack Johnny?
right?Johnny needs to be on the center of his hex.

ummm, O... K...
It was just a quick reenactment shoot,
and actualy would make them both more concealed from each other.....Understandable, but usually, when checking line of sight we always make sure that the characters are centered on their hexes first. I can usually change the outcome of things.

The rule book states (2nd ed, page 6) "Most of the time, if a figure is next to another they are engaged. Here are the exceptions to that rule" there is a height difference
or a ruin is between two figures where one or both of them has a height of 6 or lower.

So, I'm going to disagree with everyone and say that dan and the greek are engaged. Nilf's wings cannot block engagement, because it is not one of the two exceptions listed in the rulebook. It's all in the book.

[netherspirit]

What about this...
Can the Greek attack Johnny?
right?Johnny needs to be on the center of his hex.

ummm, O... K...
It was just a quick reenactment shoot,
and actualy would make them both more concealed from each other.....Understandable, but usually, when checking line of sight we always make sure that the characters are centered on their hexes first. I can usually change the outcome of things.

The rule book states (2nd ed, page 6) that figures "next to" each other are engaged unless 1 of two situations occur: there is a height difference
or a ruin is between two figures where one or both of them has a height of 6 or lower.
So, I'm going to disagree with everyone and say that dan and the greek are engaged. Nilf's wings cannot block engagement. It's all in the book.

It would be ridiculously stupid if they ruled it that way...

[toddrew]

It would be ridiculously stupid if they ruled it that way...

What, you don't like H_E_H's suggestion of the Greek poking Johnny from under Nilf's wing :D

[shakey_snake]

the plot thickens:
p7
Who can attack? any figure on your chosen Army Card within RAnge and with clear line of sight, can attack. If no figure on your army card meets these two conditions, you can't attack.

So the two figures are engaged, but they can't attack each other.

[netherspirit]

But the FAQ says that engaged figures don't need LOS.

So the question is really, do Nif's wings stop them from being engaged.

Also, check your PM's shakey.

[shakey_snake]

Ah, the FAQ.

LOS doesn't determine engagement. The two concepts aren't even in the same section together.
So, they are engaged.

H_E_H's suggestion for the win! :frustrated:

[toddrew]

I don't know if anyone else already did, but I submitted the question of whether Nilf's wings disrupt engagement to hasbro.

[netherspirit]

Awesome, toddrew, can't wait to hear what they say.

[TheRealQ]

Wow, great thread. I don't own Nilf yet so I went out to Hasbro.com to check out his wings. According to the picture on the site his wings can't be targeted. I wonder if this is to represent that his wings are inpenetrable or that they don't possess a large enough percentage of living material to matter.

Another thing to consider that is a major difference between Nilf and the ruins is that Nilf represents an animate creature and the ruin is a static ediface. Under no mundane concept would the ruin ever move out of the way whereas Nilf's wing has to potential move if it were truly animate.

This is one situation where there seems to be more questions than answers...specially with there being a possible conflict in ruling between different entries in the rulebook and FAQ. As such I can't decide on either side of this argument and look forward to whatever the ruling is from Hasbro.

[toddrew]

Wow, great thread. I don't own Nilf yet so I went out to Hasbro.com to check out his wings. According to the picture on the site his wings can't be targeted. I wonder if this is to represent that his wings are inpenetrable or that they don't possess a large enough percentage of living material to matter.



I'll have to check the official site - I thought that Nilf's wings were red on the card. I've had RV for a week, but tonight will be the first chance to play him.

EDIT: yeah, clearly from the site, both Braxas and Nilf don't have their wings included as hit zones. I wonder what the rationale is for some figures to have their wings included and not others.

EDIT of the EDIT: and clearly from the cards in hand - their wings are hitzones :)

[daevablacc]

I have no doubt they are ENGAGED because body parts are never mentioned as an exception. Also, in LOS all you need is any teensy bit of targetable area exposed to attack. So, it would be consistant that since the wing is not a solid wall and does allow some slight access underneath that they should be able to attack each other.

Also, IMO it would be "ridiculously stupid" ;) for them to not be able to attack due to what TheRealQ mentioned regarding the wing not being a static object.


My prediction: Hasbro will rule them engaged and able to attack despite having the MILF between them.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

I have no doubt they are ENGAGED because body parts are never mentioned as an exception. Also, in LOS all you need is any teensy bit of targetable area exposed to attack. So, it would be consistant that since the wing is not a solid wall and does allow some slight access underneath that they should be able to attack each other.

Also, IMO it would be "ridiculously stupid" ;) for them to not be able to attack due to what TheRealQ mentioned regarding the wing not being a static object.


My prediction: Hasbro will rule them engaged and able to attack despite having the MILF between them.

You know where I stand on this - I think Sully and Greek are engaged and may attack.

The iffy, balancing-in-favor-of-the-other rulling is if the Greek cannot see any part of Johnny - and I don't think there is any LOS available to the death defying Greek. :cry:
Sure LOS is not needed for engaged figures, but in this instance, I could see it coming down to this descrepancy being the deciding factor.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Wow, great thread. I don't own Nilf yet so I went out to Hasbro.com to check out his wings. According to the picture on the site his wings can't be targeted. I wonder if this is to represent that his wings are inpenetrable or that they don't possess a large enough percentage of living material to matter.



I'll have to check the official site - I thought that Nilf's wings were red on the card. I've had RV for a week, but tonight will be the first chance to play him.

EDIT: yeah, clearly from the site, both Braxas and Nilf don't have their wings included as hit zones. I wonder what the rationale is for some figures to have their wings included and not others.

Braxas and Nilfheim's target zones are completely red on their cards.

That is funky that the official site has otherwise! But not entirely surprising...

[Teamski]

If the greek cannot attack Johnny (as is the case here) they would not be engaged. I don't see how this would ever be the case. A ruin does not allow 2 units to be engaged unless they can see over it at eachother. I must be missing something here. Johnny should be free to attack someone he is not engaged with in this example..... :frustrated:

-Ski

[shakey_snake]

A ruin does not allow 2 units to be engaged unless they can see over it at eachother.

I'm afraid that is incorrect. Me-Burq-sa (height of 7) and DW9K (height 7) are engaged with each other when on opposite sides of a ruin (height of 6), even though neither of them can see each other. The rulebook is fairly explict about that.

Height determines engagement. LOS does not.

Can they attack each other? The FAQ and Rulebook disagree on that. The rulebook says that all figures must have LOS to attack, the FAQ states that melee figures do not.


They are adjacent, but are they engaged? Thats the question.

Adjacent does not always equal engaged. As my post above, there are 2 exceptions, height and a ruin between them.
I (once again) disagree.

Adjacent always = engaged.
if there is a height difference or a ruin between two short figures, they are "next to" each other, but neither adjacent or engaged.
Re-read the first paragraph under "ENGAGEMENT RULES" on page 12 (page 6 for the PDF)

[Oprime]

I will be interested in what hasbro has to say.
Thanks toddrew.

[Revdyer]

If the ruling is that Johnny and the Greek are not engaged because of Nilf's wing, does that mean that Nilf could distrupt an engagement that was already in progress, thus providing a new way to disengage???

[netherspirit]

Lets think about this...

There are only 2 ways a figure can't attack another adjacent figure.

Height and Ruin.

Height: logically because they can't reach each other. Would that be a correct assumption?

Ruin: The ruin is blocking LOS. They can't see each other so they can't attack. That and they can't reach each other. That is why I think they added that in the rulebook, because the figures can't see each other through the ruin. This (until now) was the only for 2 figures to be on adjacent spaces and not attack.

How is the wing any different?

[shakey_snake]

How is the wing any different? Someone gets to move the wing.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

If the ruling is that Johnny and the Greek are not engaged because of Nilf's wing, does that mean that Nilf could distrupt an engagement that was already in progress, thus providing a new way to disengage???
I was wondering that, but not as a new way to disengage, but another way that big ol' Nilf couldn't land somewhere
:roll:

[netherspirit]

How is the wing any different? Someone gets to move the wing.

Ummm, okay, I don't really see what that has to do with anything....It blocks line of sight, which is the reason 2 figures on adjacent spaces can't attack one another with a ruin between them.

Guess we will just have to see what Hasbro says...

[Revdyer]

I'm not yet convinced that the reason the ruins prevent engagement is because of the lack of sight through them. I think that part of the rationale for the blockage is simply that one cannot punch, shoot, stab, slash, or whatever through a stone wall.

On the other hand, if you shout to a dragon, "Shield me with your wing!" that might be as effective a block as a ruined castle wall. What I need is a large piece of dragon wing to test how difficult it is to punch, shoot, stab, slash, or whatever through it.

Now all I have to do is find me some dragon who'll cooperate with the experiment.

[netherspirit]

In HS there are 2 requirements to attack.

Range
LOS

The ruin blocks line of sight, therefore you can't attack.

Engaged figures don't need line of sight, because there was only one way to block LOS between 2 adjacent figures, the ruin and that was adressed in the rulebook, now there is another :)

Thats just my reasoning...there really isn't much more point in arguing about this....we have said just about everything on both sides of the fence. Now we wait for Hasbro's reponse. :)

[sigmazero13]

Here's an example situation, in the picture below. Dünd cannot see the Marrden Hound. Are they adjacent/engaged? (note that the height of the cliff is way higher than the figures).

I would say yes, as the FAQ clarifies that LOS has no relevance on engagement. The rulebook SPECIFICALLY lists Ruins; since it doesn't SPECIFICALLY talk about the wings (nor does the rules for the dragon specify it, either), I would say that by rule, they are still engaged; "logically", this would make sense as well, as a wing isn't exactly the best protection against a determined warrior.

Just my interpretation, of course :)

http://www.heroscapers.com/oldgallery/albums/userpics/10063/normal_adjacent.jpg[/img]

[feekonea]

well you could turn the characters around during your turn anyways, ao there should be no reason you cant.

[sigmazero13]

feekonea - well, you could for 1 movement point, but if you ended up in this situation after a move and didn't have any movement points left, you'd be stuck like that. Or, let's say Major X17 is standing next to Dund, then he'd be stuck there also.

But I just put that situation there as an example of situations where figures are clearly adjacent, even though they can't "see" each other :)

[TheRealQ]

The more I read this the more I am leaning toward the idea that they can indeed attack one another. I think if they wanted to give a figure the ability to block attacks that they would have listed it as an ability on their card.

[Agent Minivann]

I think that they can attack. Not any interpretation of the rules, but just the "feel" of the situation and the "spirit" of the rules say to me that they can attack. That and, I'm sticking with my guns that swords go through dragon wings, especially ones that are "enhanced" by valkyrie generals.

Hurry up Hasbro, make a freaking ruling! Oh snap, just realized this thread is going to be huge and bloated like a dead beached whale by the time a ruling is made...long weekend.

[Oprime]

The more I read this the more I am leaning toward the idea that they can indeed attack one another. I think if they wanted to give a figure the ability to block attacks that they would have listed it as an ability on their card.

Yeah as I stated in my first post I believed that an attack was not possible.

But the more I think about it ,and analyze it, I think that an attack can be made.
Reason being , the gap at the bottom of the wing clearly does not interupt adjaceny.

Think about this, if Johnny leaves the greek would get a passing swipe for breaking engagement.

That is just not the case with a ruin.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Hurry up Hasbro, make a freaking ruling! Oh snap, just realized this thread is going to be huge and bloated like a dead beached whale by the time a ruling is made...long weekend.
My thoughts too! I keep coming back to this thread like it was a some contest. Not to see who's right or wrong, but just to get a ruling on this unique situation.

[toddrew]

Still no word back from Chris at Hasbro (is he still the one? I haven't submitted a question in a few months :) ) - and I don't expect one until Tuesday at the earliest. I'll resubmitt it if I haven't heard back by Wednesday, just to be sure it hadn't been lost in the Memorial Weekend shuffle.

I was able to play Nilf for the first time last night, and like H_E_H alluded to, I quickly discovered that there was rarely a spot to land! Our board had lots of trees and elevated bridges. It was rough, but he still chewed up, er 'sharded', lots of orcs and elves before being parked in a relatively safe place until the game ended.

O, and no situations like the one here causing the consternation arose :D

[Teamski]

I guarrantee that Hasbro will state that Johnny cannot be attacked since you are attacking through another figure with no LOS. I just can't see this going any other way. OK, now I'll shut up.....

-Ski

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

:popcorn:

[LilNewbie]

Not to start anything but if they state he can't attack him due to LOS issues then that contradicts the FAQ

When a figure is making an attack against an adjacent enemy figure, does line of sight need to be determined?
You do not need Line of Sight when figures are engaged. This is a gray area in the current instructions and it will be cleared up in the 3rd edition.


They are either going to have to rule they are not considered engaged (hence no attack possible due to no LOS) or they are engaged and they can attack since no LOS is needed.

I'm curious on their ruling also and not trying to take sides. Just looking for a fair ruling.

Newb.

[netherspirit]

When they made that FAQ ruling the only thing that blocked line of sight or adjacency between 2 figures on adjacent spaces was the ruins, and they were handled in the rulebook.

[toddrew]

Well, not the quick resolution were looking for, but they're working on it:

Response (Chris) 05/30/2006 10:48 AM
Hi Todd,

Thank you for contacting Hasbro with your question on Heroscape! That is an excellent question!

We are sharing your question with those internal parties who are more familiar with this piece of our business. We will respond to you, as soon as we receive the information from them.

We thank you, in advance, for your patience.

[Oprime]

The suspense builds......

[TheRealQ]

Does anyone else hear the music to Final Jeopardy play when they click on this thread? :popcorn:

[GaryLASQ]

any chance on getting a new "Rules to Submit to Hasbro" thread going? like the one we had on HQ? i'd start one but i'm not worthy.

[netherspirit]

any chance on getting a new "Rules to Submit to Hasbro" thread going? like the one we had on HQ? i'd start one but i'm not worthy.

Sure you are.

[toddrew]

Actually, just saw a thread like this started by Bunjee - I'll look up a link.

Here it is:
http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=556

Once I receive an answer, I'll post it there as well.

[Agent Minivann]

Does anyone else hear the music to Final Jeopardy play when they click on this thread? :popcorn:

No, because this is definitely taking more than 30 seconds. :roll:

[sigmazero13]

When they made that FAQ ruling the only thing that blocked line of sight or adjacency between 2 figures on adjacent spaces was the ruins, and they were handled in the rulebook.
I don't know exactly when the ruling was made in relation to when Dünd and the Marrden Hounds were released, but I respectfully disagree with this post. The picture in my earlier post has a possible (and not too far-fetched) example of how you could be "adjacent" but have no LOS. I suspect there could be other double-hex figures where this is possible, too.

[netherspirit]

What I meant by that post was the way the ruins sit on the board, you can have 2 figures on adjacent spaces facing each but not see each other. They handled that in the rulebook, now we have another situation where to figures are on adjacent spaces facing each other but can't see each other because of something between them.

The ruins were the only things that could split apart too adjacent spaces, thus blocking LOS and adjacency between two figures.

In your scenario you can flip the figures to gain LOS (not that its needed) to attack, in the Wing situation you can not.

[sigmazero13]

I think I see what you are saying, and I think I may have misinterpreted your point earlier.

However, I submit that the ruins cause two squares to NOT be adjacent, based on this rule. IE, if there is a ruin between two figures, they are NOT considered to be adjacent, as you point out. The rules specifically say they aren't. (and it's worth pointing out in the Engagement rules, the terms "adjacent" and "engaged" seem to be used interchangably).


With the Wing situation, though, I also would say that it shouldn't matter. Dund and the Marrden Hounds have fairly "low" sight-points. I don't have the new figures yet, so I can't take my own picture, but here's an example of what a situation could be:
http://upload4.postimage.org/315636/ExampleLOSPic.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/315636/photo_hosting.html)
The Blue is the dragon (and based on the earlier picture, I think the Wings are pretty close to where they would cover). Green is Dünd, and the bright red is some random single-base figure. If Dund's head is in the "farther away" hex, I think he could see the Red figure's feet! Why would they not then be adjacent in that situation?

Or, to take it a step further, assume that the Red figure is a double-hex figure that also occupies the dark red space. In that case, Dünd can DEFINITELY see the figure. Why would they not be adjacent there? In this case, if the red is a double-hex figure, even if the Green figure was only in the space close to both the Dragon and the bright-red-dot, he could see the dark-red space; why would they not be adjacent in that situation?

Finally, what if Dünd was, say, Su-Bak-Na. Not having the new Dragon, I can't say for sure whether Su-Bak-Na could see "over" the Dragon's wings, but it's possible. If so, why would he then not be adjacent?


What my point here is that I think it's possible to HAVE a LOS with some figures. If SOME figures can see the target, why would they not be adjacent in that situation? If those figures ARE adjacent, why would other figures NOT be adjacent? Should adjacency have anything to do with LOS? My opinion is "no". Even with the Ruin, and I haven't taken a picture yet to verify this but I will try tonight, if two size-7 figures are next to the Ruin, but can't "see" each other, by the rules they could still attack each other, as the Ruin has a height of 6.

Just my take and interpretation, as always :)

[netherspirit]

I think a more appropriate question would be, can you attack through a part of another figure.

[toddrew]

Just to build suspense: no word back from Hasbro yet :)

[sigmazero13]

netherspirit - I think that's a good, fair question. It depends on how you define "through" in this case (and I don't mean that in a rules-lawyery sense).

For ranged attacks, you can attack "through" another figure if you have line of sight. For example, if you can see through a figure's legs, you can shoot what's on the other side. Or, if a double-hex figure is standing so that it's head, which is just out of range, can see the target, but the "butt", which is IN range, would be "blocked", you can still shoot the target. Or in the reverse situation, if the part of the target you can "see" is out of range, but that part that is range you can't see, you can still shoot it, by rule (and this one was ruled by Hasbro, if I recall, shortly before the move to this server).


In the case of the Wing, there IS a "gap" between the bottom of the wing and the ground. Thus, the wing doesn't completely cover the whole area between the hexes; it may block LOS, but instead of attacking "through" the wing, you could argue that you are attacking "under" the wing :)

[netherspirit]

Perhaps they could attack under it, but think about this:

Why can't Su-Bak-Na attack OVER the ruin at a figure that is smaller than the ruin?

This, I believe is the same thing.

[reapersaurus]

This is yet another one of the examples of rules issues directly caused by the mini they happened to choose to represent the character.

See, I view the game a bit less literally than what the mini is on the field.
It's more about the characters to me, and the fig is just a positional representation on the field that's fun to play.

In other words, whenever possible I don't use the figure as a straitjacket, or even nearly as important as the spirit of the overall game.

In this case, I think it's absurd that adjacent squares would not be able to attack each other simply because the designers happened to approve a cool-looking dragon fig that has low-hanging wings.

I would simply look at that situation, go "Eh - the mini's cool-looking, but those wings sure aint intended to stop melee combat."

[TheRealQ]

Why am I agreeing with reapersaurus on this one? He's right. Trying to find a strategy that somehow bypasses what we know of the rules is getting a little testy. I will argue a point is there is a foundation in print but I'm not going to make something new up for an overlooked scenario. I think we did the right thing by sending the question to Hasbro, but to speculate on our own is ruining the fun of the game.

Sheesh, first Jason now Reapersaurus who next am I going to side with?

[Teamski]

Why am I agreeing with reapersaurus on this one? He's right. Trying to find a strategy that somehow bypasses what we know of the rules is getting a little testy. I will argue a point is there is a foundation in print but I'm not going to make something new up for an overlooked scenario. I think we did the right thing by sending the question to Hasbro, but to speculate on our own is ruining the fun of the game.

Sheesh, first Jason now Reapersaurus who next am I going to side with?

I am also thrilled that Hasbro will make the call on this, eventually. I have to occupy the bleachers on the other side on this one. I just don't see how a unit on one side of the wing can attack a figure he cannot see on the other! This defies the LOS rules as laid out in the book...... :shrug:

-Ski

[shakey_snake]

yeah, the real interesting part about this is that the 2nd edition rules and FAQ conflict.
Yet the FAQ says that this will be cleared up in the 3rd edition rules.
So, my bet is still on the FAQ.

[shakey_snake]

Rob and Craig must have the week off or something.

[toddrew]

Rob and Craig must have the week off or something.

Memorial Day Week(that never)ends :)

Still no reply, other than the one stating that there will be a reply.

[sigmazero13]

Perhaps they could attack under it, but think about this:

Why can't Su-Bak-Na attack OVER the ruin at a figure that is smaller than the ruin?

This, I believe is the same thing.
I disagree that they are the same thing. The ruins were SPECIFICALLY intended to work in this way. I don't believe that the Dragon was specifically intended to be able to "shield" other figures from melee attacks.

I agree that the FAQ is at odds with the current rules regarding "melee" attacks. However, whatever the ruling is, it needs to be consistent. If it happens that I'm wrong on this one, then that means that Melee should ALWAYS require line of sight. That means in my picture of Dünd and the Hounds, Dünd can't attack unless he actually DOES turn around first. Two figures with a height of 7 on opposite sides of a ruin CANNOT attack each other if they can't actually SEE each other.

My opinion is that it needs to bounce both ways. Having a specific exception for this one dragon just because, as reapersaurus points out, it looks look seems to go against what I perceive as the intent of the game as a whole.


Plus, I think attacking "under" and attacking "over" are two different things. It doesn't require much "reach" to attack under something, as both people's feet are at the same level. Attacking OVER a wall to reach something smaller on the other side WOULD require more "reach".


As always, just my opinion, and just speculation to keep the conversation interesting while we wait for a ruling from the PTB :)

[daevablacc]

I just wanted to remind everyone that LOS only applies to ranged attacks. The situation in question in not a ranged one.

Nether, I would say the reason Su-Bak-Na is not allowed to attack an arrow grut over a ruin even though SBN can see him is coz LOS is not part of engagement rules.

[netherspirit]

I just wanted to remind everyone that LOS only applies to ranged attacks. The situation in question in not a ranged one.

Nether, I would say the reason Su-Bak-Na is not allowed to attack an arrow grut over a ruin even though SBN can see him is coz LOS is not part of engagement rules.

I realize that the ruins were specifically stated in the rules. But my question was more to WHY they decided to rule it like that? If parts of a figure can block LOS (as his wing would block LOS if it was a ranged attack, thus they can't attack through his wing) I don't think it should be any different for a melee attack.

Technically just reading the rulebook, LOS is needed for a melee attack. Its the FAQ that is at odds with the rulebook.

[shakey_snake]

I don't think it should be any different for a melee attack.Well, you're almost alone.

[toddrew]

I don't think it should be any different for a melee attack.Well, you're one almost alone.

Shakey, you're approaching this wrong: view it in heroscape terms: he's an 864 point (and growing) army :D

Seriously though, loving the debate in this thread. for the most part.

[AmishBurrito]

:? *edge of seat, awaiting official ruling*

[Revdyer]

Geez, I've hidden out from this one; but I have to ask -- is there a difference between solid objects (like ruins) and squishy ones (like the body parts of some of the figures...DWs might be solid, not squishy)?

[toddrew]

Geez, I've hidden out from this one; but I have to ask -- is there a difference between solid objects (like ruins) and squishy ones (like the body parts of some of the figures...DWs might be solid, not squishy)?

One thing to keep in mind when examining the rules is that they (even the advanced "Master Game" rules) are intended to lean towards simple and consistent mechanics (which inevitably leads to conflict between 2 or more simple mechanics as the game introduces new figures and landscapes.)

Up through now, all figures block LOS and there by act as shields (except maybe in the instance of this thread :) ) - no difference between solid and squishy :)

[netherspirit]

Up through now, all figures block LOS and there by act as shields - no difference between solid and squishy :)

Yes, but only against ranged attacks. Which makes no sense. An arrow from Syvarris couldn't go "through" the wing but a greek swinging a sword can? Thats inconsistent and I think they should require LOS for all attacks.

[Revdyer]

toddrew's phrase: "simple and consistent mechanics" is the one that I would endorse. That might mean I'd be playing "house rules" rather than tourney or official ones. But, hey, I bought the game, they didn't.

[shakey_snake]

Up through now, all figures block LOS and there by act as shields - no difference between solid and squishy :)

Yes, but only against ranged attacks. Which makes no sense. An arrow from Syvarris couldn't go "through" the wing but a greek swinging a sword can? Thats inconsistent and I think they should require LOS for all attacks.
I agree with you here, however, I don't think it will be the offical ruling.

[Revdyer]

I think they should require LOS for all attacks.

As a professional ethicist, it is that slippery word "should" that causes all the problems. Is that a moral "should," and ethical "should," a logical "should," or an American "should" (which means "I'd benefit from that")?

[shakey_snake]

Up through now, all figures block LOS and there by act as shields - no difference between solid and squishy :)

Yes, but only against ranged attacks. Which makes no sense. An arrow from Syvarris couldn't go "through" the wing but a greek swinging a sword can? Thats inconsistent and I think they should require LOS for all attacks.


rethinking.. this would mean that at some point, adjacent unit's won't be able to attack each other. So would they get a disengagement swipe if one fig moves away?

[toddrew]

rethinking.. this would mean that at some point, adjacent unit's won't be able to attack each other. So would they get a disengagement swipe if one fig moves away?

I was waiting for the ruling before jumping into this ripple of engagements being broken by actions other than the figure leaving the engagement - but I would say that the passing/disengagement swipe is only caused by an engaged figure's movement breaking the engagement.

[sigmazero13]

Up through now, all figures block LOS and there by act as shields - no difference between solid and squishy :)

Yes, but only against ranged attacks. Which makes no sense. An arrow from Syvarris couldn't go "through" the wing but a greek swinging a sword can? Thats inconsistent and I think they should require LOS for all attacks.
I guess I don't think of it as Syvarris' arrow not being able to "go through" the wing; rather, I think of it more as Syvarris not being able to see the target to get a clear shot, and so doesn't shoot at all.

With a Sword, however, if you know they are there, you can just swing away.

This is one of those areas, though, that "real world physics" can fall flat. Why would not a Deathwalker's machine gun just be able to shoot the heck out of the wing and whatever's on the other side? How can a Monk, fighting with bare hands, do anything more than break his knuckles on the armor of a full metal robotic entity?


My contention in why I lean the way I do is still based on the drawing I made. Why would a Double-hex figure be allowed to attack, just because they can "see" it, where a single-hex figure couldn't?


I guess the crux of the matter comes down to this: While Ruins were SPECIFICALLY given the power to "cut off" adjacent hexes, they are the only things that do. Were the Dragon's wings intended to do the same thing? My opinion is no, because, for one thing, it doesn't completely "cut off" the two hexes anyway (in fact, it doesn't even touch the ground at all).


I think this is a good discussion, and regardless of which way it's ruled, I think it's helped us all to at least see things from different perspectives, even if we don't agree with them :)

[netherspirit]

With a Sword, however, if you know they are there, you can just swing away.

Yes, but how does he know he's there if he can't see him? :P

[toddrew]

I think this is a good discussion, and regardless of which way it's ruled, I think it's helped us all to at least see things from different perspectives, even if we don't agree with them :)

Yeah, that's what I meant by "good discussion" earlier. Thanks for the words, sigma :)

[marshalllawless]

If we are to accept that a two-hex figure with mobile appendages can attack from either end, then should we not also accept that this dragon in the photograph is a mobile, living thing whose wing does not stay in the same position at all times, as Reapersaurus has aptly pointed out? The wing is not rooted to the ground, and it could be presumed may occupy varied space over the course of moments in combat, even when the core of the body remains on same hexes. It's not a ruin.

Depending on the order of movement, could not one of the two smaller figures have seen feet along the ground on his or her way to that spot against the wing? In which case he could swing beneath the wing without LOS in hopes of striking true?

I'd say these figures are engaged and melee should proceed, but with a house rule of subtracting one attack die from each, and adding one defense die, due to blind swiping in a limited zone with the distraction of a large wing flapping around between them. They are harder-to-hit targets, but they are not impossible ones because of the wing.

This has been the most interesting discussion I've seen online in a long time. You are all very well-versed in cordial, well-constructed dialogue and should be commended for it, and for not being mean-spirited or vulgar, even in insinuation, especially when it has dragged on so long. Thanks for maintaining a robust but appropriate decorum.

[netherspirit]

If we are to accept that a two-hex figure with mobile appendages can attack from either end, then should we not also accept that this dragon in the photograph is a mobile, living thing whose wing does not stay in the same position at all times, as Reapersaurus has aptly pointed out?

If you use that argument for this situation then you could also use it to say that Wings and other appendages do not block LOS for ranged attackers.

[sigmazero13]

With a Sword, however, if you know they are there, you can just swing away.

Yes, but how does he know he's there if he can't see him? :P
Point taken :)

However, a 2-hex figure WOULD be able to "see" him in many situations :) Or a really tall one, or one low to the ground.

I guess for me, if it ends up where the wing DOES block adjacency, it should be universal; ie, the wing either blocks it or it doesn't, and if it does, it would do the same for a 2-hex figure as well as a 1-hex figure, and regardless of who can "see" the target.

In the case of Adjacency, I don't think LOS should matter, based on the FAQ. Unless, of course, the FAQ is wrong. :)

[Roxas]

Be realistic, you can hit the guy if your next to em, it doesnt matter about los

[Teamski]

Be realistic, you can hit the guy if your next to em, it doesnt matter about los

If somebody is standing behind a sheet hanging from a clothes line, right next to you, would you see him? No. So, to be realistic, if a guy is standing behind a wing, you wouldn't see him either. I don't go with your logic on this one....

-Ski

[Revdyer]

And, for the umpteenth time, being "realistic" in a game with plastic Marro Drones, is a bit of a stretch to begin with. <snort> (there are no smilies with things coming out of their noses, because smilies have no noses) (but I'd be willing to wager that ud could make a graphic of one)

[TheRealQ]

I guess no one has heard from Hasbro yet? Remind me, who sent a letter?

[netherspirit]

toddrew sent the letter.

[Oprime]

And, for the umpteenth time, being "realistic" in a game with plastic Marro Drones, is a bit of a stretch to begin with. <snort> (there are no smilies with things coming out of their noses, because smilies have no noses) (but I'd be willing to wager that ud could make a graphic of one)

Good use of the word Umpteenth :lol:

[morgonis]

picture this, any random ranged guy 5 spaces out, on the same level as nif and a guy hideing behind the wings...

the random ranged guy would have LoS on hideing guys feet...

just tossed that out there, saw someone post it would block the guy from all ranged so why not engagement :)

as for my opnion,,,id still call the guy engaged and attackable, anything else id have to call a unbalanceing effect, and i strongly doubt the wing was ment to be a shield, as if that was the desired effect they would have documented it somewhere...on the card, in the box, on the site,,somewhere.

agreeing with the guy that said its just for "cool looks" not for some new rule minipulations.

[netherspirit]

agreeing with the guy that said its just for "cool looks" not for some new rule minipulations.

Again, if the model isn't supposed to matter at all then figures should not block LOS. I am just not seeing the validity of that argument. If you make it for this situation you have to make it for every situation.

Its not manipulating the rules, its questioning the FAQ that says adjacent figures don't need LOS to attack.

[toddrew]

I guess no one has heard from Hasbro yet? Remind me, who sent a letter?

toddrew sent the letter

yep, it was me, and still no reply. Usually I get something fairly promptly, but more complicated questions have taken a couple of weeks before. Don't know if they got lost in the shuffle or just difficulty reaching Rob, Craig, or whoever. But, I've always received an answer :)

[Barfodor]

Just keep waiting. Waiting and hoping.

[TheRealQ]

yep, it was me, and still no reply. Usually I get something fairly promptly, but more complicated questions have taken a couple of weeks before. Don't know if they got lost in the shuffle or just difficulty reaching Rob, Craig, or whoever. But, I've always received an answer :)

Groovy. I'll just wait for the answer then. I still think this can go either way.

[ultradoug]

I can end this topic with one screen shot:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/coolmondoug/endoftopic.jpg

the end.

[netherspirit]

Gee thanks for posting that, we completely missed that!!! OMG END OF DISCUSSION WE ARE ALL STUPID!!! :roll:

We quoted that on the first page. The question is Does the Wing Break the Engagement? Among other things....

[ultradoug]

why would the wing dreak the engagement, your next to the figure, if you cant fit the figure next to that unit because of the wing , tail etc, you can not place that figure on that hex, you are never alowed to move your oppenents units, so you can not "turn" your unit to make your oppenent move away from you by "pushing" them away with your wing/tail.
once you are engaged thats it.

[DoesntCompute]

why would the wing dreak the engagement, your next to the figure, if you cant fit the figure next to that unit because of the wing , tail etc, you can not place that figure on that hex, you are never alowed to move your oppenents units, so you can not "turn" your unit to make your oppenent move away from you by "pushing" them away with your wing/tail.
once you are engaged thats it.

Agreed. If the units are engaged, you may attack. The question of the thread is, are the units engaged?

[toddrew]

why would the wing dreak the engagement, your next to the figure, if you cant fit the figure next to that unit because of the wing , tail etc, you can not place that figure on that hex, you are never alowed to move your oppenents units, so you can not "turn" your unit to make your oppenent move away from you by "pushing" them away with your wing/tail.
once you are engaged thats it.

Some are wondering (me included) if Nilf's wing is acting as ruin does, separating two adjacent hexes from LOS and there by affectively causing a disengagement. This is the first figure that's sculpt can physically bring this question up, as you say, because all other figures until now simply don't allow for a figure to move to such a space (tails in the way, etc.)

[shakey_snake]

why would nilf's wings break engagement?

Engagement has nothing to do with LoS.
Engagement has only to do with bases and height.

[Teamski]

why would nilf's wings break engagement?

Engagement has nothing to do with LoS.
Engagement has only to do with bases and height.

Because you can't attack through another figure if you can't see your target as per the rules....

Edited......

-Ski

[shakey_snake]

"shooting" is attacking, not engagement.

[netherspirit]

Now we are going in circles.

[toddrew]

why would nilf's wings break engagement?

Engagement has nothing to do with LoS.
Engagement has only to do with bases and height.

Before reading further, let me state - I don't think the wing breaks engagement, by the rules for the very reason that there is space between the wing and ground, unlike a ruin.

A ruin does, however, cause a break in engagement due to height in a similar way that the wing could be construed to.

Simple question is, does the wing behave like a ruin, not sure what this says about my character, but I'm curious to know :)

[Teamski]

Now we are going in circles.

We've been going around in circles for the last 130 posts!

-Ski

[netherspirit]

Round and round it goes, where it stops nobody knows...

[Malechi]

Figures that are engaged do not need line of sight. This is why your figure may attack another figure in any of the six hexes surrounding it.

Both wings and Ruins break line of sight as they are physical objects. A Ruin breaks engagement because it is terrain. A wing is not terrain. Get back to me for clarification on this when Hasbro releases statues of dragons as terrain.

No circles, only Rule Lawyers.

[ultradoug]

Figures that are engaged do not need line of sight. This is why your figure may attack another figure in any of the six hexes surrounding it.

Both wings and Ruins break line of sight as they are physical objects. A Ruin breaks engagement because it is terrain. A wing is not terrain. Get back to me for clarification on this when Hasbro releases statues of dragons as terrain.

No circles, only Rule Lawyers.

OK... for shooting (not close combat) a wing can get in the "way" of you seeing some other figure. If you can not put your figure in the hex that is adjucent to the other figure you can not attack it. If a wing is "hanging" into the other hex you can put your figure there IF you can do so without moving the other figure.

If you can not do this, move somewhere you can, if you can not your not engaged.

Since we (I think) are talking about attacks with NON-Shooting/Non-Ranged... MELEEE attacks, that REQUIRE you to be in an adjcuent hex.. then this is a moot point the wing will not effect your LOS because LOS does not MATTER for adjucent attacks that require NO LOS.
There you have it.

[morgonis]

the rules and FAQ's all explain cleary the 2 things that can block adjancency, you wil notice no where is a figure brought up as a way to block adjancency, they even took it to the step to explain if your engaged you dont need LoS.....seems to me thats how one would explain random figures dont block like ruins....

if the wings are allowed to block (even though LoS is not required for engagement) that would mean Grimoks tail, various parts of Mimring, and other larger figures could suddenly start blocking Adjancency...

the primary argument here seems to be the fact the large wings are blocking LoS, its obvious Hasbro saw this as a potentional situation that would arise sooner or later..hence when engaged you do not need LoS.

just my 2 cents

[ultradoug]

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/coolmondoug/whateverzzzz.jpg

[Revdyer]

Take it from an older guy...when your spear malfunctions it's important to have a wing and a prayer.

[Oprime]

why would the wing dreak the engagement, your next to the figure, if you cant fit the figure next to that unit because of the wing , tail etc, you can not place that figure on that hex, you are never alowed to move your oppenents units, so you can not "turn" your unit to make your oppenent move away from you by "pushing" them away with your wing/tail.
once you are engaged thats it.

Agreed. If the units are engaged, you may attack. The question of the thread is, are the units engaged?


ahh, technically my question was "can the greek attack Johnny?' :wink:

But I do agree the question has become one of adjaceny....

[ultradoug]

show the units on hexes and show me how the wing blocks anything.

[netherspirit]

Go back to page 2 or 3 or something.

[ultradoug]

http://upload4.postimage.org/274824_d57a7a96cdbdd6480c1682672c9c4a68/nilfgroup003.jpg

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/coolmondoug/74_hitzone.jpg

you can not shoot the wing with ranged attacks, it blocks ranged attacks / acts as cover for units from range.

in picture the unit next to the other unit in the next hex no longer neads to "see" the other unit.

wings are not anything like ruins, stop pulling rulls like that out of thin air.

[reapersaurus]

http://upload4.postimage.org/274824_d57a7a96cdbdd6480c1682672c9c4a68/nilfgroup003.jpg

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/coolmondoug/74_hitzone.jpg

you can not shoot the wing with ranged attacks, it blocks ranged attacks / acts as cover for units from range.

in picture the unit next to the other unit in the next hex no longer neads to "see" the other unit.

wings are not anything like ruins, stop pulling rulls like that out of thin air.

[ultradoug]

did i cross reapers line?
whats going on?! :D

[reapersaurus]

you are an evil, evil man, ultradoug.

[netherspirit]

Stick to the off-topic stuff UD. Its a requirement of rules discussions to be able to properly type the word RULES! :P

No one is pulling rules out of the air, we are asking questions. It seems to me that you are the one pulling rules out of the air. Wings are nothing like ruins. Show me where it says that? :P

[ultradoug]

I never said it, someone earyler on this post did. They were saying that wings block line of sight/block attacks in this manor. But the whole thing is you do not nead LOS to do an adjuct attack.

[netherspirit]

We know that. :roll:

Have you even read the thread?

I (and others) am/are curious as to whether the wing stops them from being engaged/adjacent. I (and others) am/are also curious as to the no LOS required for engaged figures, and why they ruled it as such, when in the rulebook it says you need to be in range and have LOS. Its a contradiction.

So we wait for the response from Hasbro.

[ultradoug]

We know that. You aren't adding anything to the discussion, but stirring it up while we wait for a response.

Have you even read the thread?

I (and others) am/are curious as to whether the wing stops them from being engaged/adjacent. I (and others) am/are also curious as to the no LOS required for engaged figures, and why they ruled it as such, when in the rulebook it says you need to be in range and have LOS. Its a contradiction.

So we wait for the response from Hasbro.
Have you even read the thread?
not the whole thing!
I (and others) am/are curious as to whether the wing stops them from being engaged/adjacent.
I'm going to say the offical responce will be "no"
rulebook it says you need to be in range and have LOS. Its a contradiction.
that i did not know.
You aren't adding anything to the discussion
zzzzzz

[Oprime]

Excerpt from bobos next epic adventure.

.....Johnny stood firm, his shotgun ready, as he watched the greeks approach. Just then the mighty Nilfiem decended into battle, shielding Johnny with his massive white wing. The greeks stopped short, confused by Johnnys sudden disappearence. It was all the pause Nilfiem needed as he slaughtered the greeks with his deadly cold ice breath......

:wink:

[Oprime]

OK you guys are gonna hate me for this but....

I wanted to give an example of how this could be used as a stratagy or tactic, even during drafting.
Its a classic military manuver.
Put the big guys out front and advance the troops behind.

Its not rule lawyering or loopholeing,

This has become an issue of adjacency and I think the answer to the following is yes.


How many defense dice does the middle roman get when attacked by Carr?(there is on on the left behind Carr)

http://upload4.postimage.org/342869/nilfdiscussion001.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/342869/photo_hosting.html)


Can the greek role for Defy Death when killed by Carr?

http://upload4.postimage.org/342874/nilfdiscussion002.jpg (http://upload4.postimage.org/342874/photo_hosting.html)

Sorry to keep dragging this on, but I think it is fascinating, and a viable stratagy option.
Much like any other "group" of figs moving across the battlefield providing each other a benifit, although no direct synergyin this case.

[shakey_snake]

is there no offical word from hasbro yet?

[Rÿchean]

How many defense dice does the middle roman get when attacked by Carr?

4

Can the greek role for Defy Death when killed by Carr?

yes

[toddrew]

is there no offical word from hasbro yet?

Nope.

Also, UD - that "hitzone" graphic of Nilf is either wrong on the Hasbro site or on the cards, cuz the cards have the wings as hitzones. I think that so far all Kyrie do not have their wings as hitzones, and all dragons do.

[ultradoug]

How many defense dice does the middle roman get when attacked by Carr?

4

Can the greek role for Defy Death when killed by Carr?

yes
oh looks like Rychean did not read the whole thread :roll: (just kidding ry)
yeah the wing is a hit zone on the card but not on the page?

Some wings are hit zones, some are not (get over it) The wing being a hit zone would alow me to attack that part of the figure with range. Now, is the wing part of the figure - that is, am I next to the dragon by being next to the wing, but not next to the actual figure.

If you belive I can attack the wing with melee then I can attack any figure with any apendage that is a target zone, say - Brunak or Mimrings tail. I do not need to be in the hex next to them anymore, and logic fails.

The wing will not stop attacks to figures next to it, nor will it alow me to attack the unit it is attached to. Again, if they do rull that you can, then the way heroscape is played will change, and so will the metagame of drafting and possitioning large figures.

I guess the people want an answer that is offical to settle this so I'm letting this rest and will say once more (so that when the offical rulling comes I can point to this)

I belive that the rulling will be that wing does not stop adjucent attacks.

I belive the wing will not alow units adjucent to the wing but not to the dragon will not alow the unit to attack the dragon.

Those are what the offical ruling will be.

[sigmazero13]

As I've said earlier, the thing that convinces me personally that LOS has nothing to do with "engagement" is the fact that with many double-hex figures (and even some single-hex figures in some situations), whether or not they can "see" the other figure would depend on the exact facing of the unit. If LOS is required for engagement, this would imply that a figure standing in a hex "next to" another figure isn't always consistently adjacent; sometimes it would be, sometimes it wouldn't be, even if all the double-hex figure does is "rotate".

Granted, I admit this can be the case for RANGED attacks, but for adjacency, my opinion is that figures never block adjacency, especially because Nilfheim doesn't actually occupy either of the hexes involved.

[daevablacc]

As I've said earlier, the thing that convinces me personally that LOS has nothing to do with "engagement" is the fact that with many double-hex figures (and even some single-hex figures in some situations), whether or not they can "see" the other figure would depend on the exact facing of the unit. If LOS is required for engagement, this would imply that a figure standing in a hex "next to" another figure isn't always consistently adjacent; sometimes it would be, sometimes it wouldn't be, even if all the double-hex figure does is "rotate".
Yeah, the FAQ probably overrides the rulebook.

[sigmazero13]

Well, to express an argument on the side of netherspirit and company, it's worth pointing out that the FAQ only covers that you can "attack while engaged, regardless of LOS", but doesn't cover whether "LOS is required for engagement".

However, my opinion is that if LOS was required for engagement, the FAQ entry would be moot, as if you needed LOS to be engaged in the first place, the premise of "can you attack if you are engaged, but don't have LOS" would never be valid.

[daevablacc]

Well, to express an argument on the side of netherspirit and company, it's worth pointing out that the FAQ only covers that you can "attack while engaged, regardless of LOS", but doesn't cover whether "LOS is required for engagement".

However, my opinion is that if LOS was required for engagement, the FAQ entry would be moot, as if you needed LOS to be engaged in the first place, the premise of "can you attack if you are engaged, but don't have LOS" would never be valid.
Yeah, that's what I meant. Of course, they could change their minds. I personally don't care which way it goes. I just know how I would interpret the information we have so far.

[shakey_snake]

Well, to express an argument on the side of netherspirit and company, We can gather what they've been saying for that last 10 pages. (:deadhorse: ):wink:

Why not just let this thread sit around until we get an offical word from Hasbro? :shrug:

[sigmazero13]

shakey_snake - I know, I was just summarizing for daevablacc :)

Besides, the horse ain't dead yet, as we haven't received the answer :) The topic is still alive, just unresolved.

But just for the sake of circular reasoning:

The circumference of a circle is equal to twice the radius multiplied by PI. This is because the ratio between the circumference and the diameter is slightly over 3:1. :p

[shakey_snake]

shakey_snake - I know, I was just summarizing for daevablacc :):roll: I'm sure he can read....

[sigmazero13]

I'm sure he can too, but that doesnt' mean an occasional summary isn't worth having. There's 11 pages of text here, and it's possible that someone could miss a point or two along the way :)

[daevablacc]

I'm sure he can too, but that doesnt' mean an occasional summary isn't worth having. There's 11 pages of text here, and it's possible that someone could miss a point or two along the way :)
It's all good. My intelligence is not insulted. Oh wait, what intelligence? :P

[Codeman]

Can we change the subject of this thread to " Kicking a Dead Horse "

[Ch1can0]

done. :D

Thought i asked a simple question :wink: :lol:

Chicano.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

done. :D



Sort of.

:wink:

[shakey_snake]

lol.

The summoning a carrier thread is way worse, IMO.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

lol.

The summoning a carrier thread is way worse, IMO.

That's funny, I was just at that thread...

[Malechi]

From Hasbro's FAQ:

Do you need Line of Sight when attacking an engaged opponent?
No, once you are engaged to an opponents figure, you do not need line of sight.

Did anyone even look at the FAQ's?

[shakey_snake]

Netherspirit and co. want to count the wings as "new ruins"

Don't ask me why.

[daevablacc]

From Hasbro's FAQ:

Do you need Line of Sight when attacking an engaged opponent?
No, once you are engaged to an opponents figure, you do not need line of sight.

Did anyone even look at the FAQ's?
That's why I was saying I think the wing does not prevent an attack.

[Malechi]

Sorry, but engaged is engaged. You drop a leather blanket between two guys with swords that want to kill eachother, it isn't going to stop them. If you put a large stone wall between them, well then they have some running to do.

[morgonis]

the FAQ has been qouted and posted a few times along with the 2nd edition rules and pdf, but as shakey said...

Netherspirit and co. want to count the wings as "new ruins"

Don't ask me why.

sums it up perfectly...welcome to 12 pages of beaten dead horse :)

[ultradoug]

From Hasbro's FAQ:

Do you need Line of Sight when attacking an engaged opponent?
No, once you are engaged to an opponents figure, you do not need line of sight.

Did anyone even look at the FAQ's?

I can end this topic with one screen shot:

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/coolmondoug/endoftopic.jpg

the end.


Gee thanks for posting that, we completely missed that!!! OMG END OF DISCUSSION WE ARE ALL STUPID!!! :roll:

We quoted that on the first page. The question is Does the Wing Break the Engagement? Among other things....


http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/coolmondoug/whateverzzzz.jpg

Looks like Malechi and I are on the same side!
The lines will be drawn _______ bring it on!

[Teamski]

Oh please Hasbro, make a call and end the madness! :wtf:

-Ski

[ultradoug]

someone changed tital of post to include epic YAY!

Party time wooo!

[Ch1can0]

Hi ultradoug, yes that was me =)

But admins keep ABUSING their rights and are CENSORING my title changes. i think this is an EPIC scandal. :wink:

Chicano.

[Ch1can0]

i try y new title.

[ultradoug]

darn ghost admins

[AgentX-127]

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/coolmondoug/whateverzzzz.jpg


Funniest UD Joke EVAR!

[Venom]

nice title change. i care to know when hasbro will decide to answer this already :brickwall:

[ultradoug]

"comming soon."

[Venom]

Hasbro doesn't delay...that much :grumble:

[Rÿchean]

My brother pointed out something to me when I was trying to swing an archer around Nilf to get high ground on him.

Same situations as in this post, where his wing is blocking a Hex; imagine that Hex is high ground and empty.

My brother decided that I couldn't move there bcause I can't move through his figure. Even though Nilf wasnt on that hex; his wings were just blockin it. So i tried to go around the wing, and of course he says now you are leaving engagement to get highground.

When I looked at the situation and the rules, I had to concede the point. My archer couldn't move through his wings to get high ground and couldn't go around the wing or it would be breaking enagement.

Any thoughts on Nilf's wing being able to block movement through that specific hex? It seemed very consistent with the rules to not allow the movement. I wasn't too happy about it, though.

[Hex_Enduction_Hour]

Any thoughts on Nilf's wing being able to block movement through that specific hex? It seemed very consistent with the rules to not allow the movement. I wasn't too happy about it, though.

Yeah, I totally agree. Even if Raelin's spear tip is in another hex, that space is not a negotiable moving spot for opposing figures

[Rÿchean]

I guess the twist is...the wings aren't blocking the hex itself, the wings are blocking acces to the hex.

So the archer can fit on the hex just fine, he just can't move through the wings to get there.

[reapersaurus]

I am adamantly opposed to every ruling that is based on the vagaracies of whatever figure the guy happened to sculpt to represent a character.

The designers made the HS rules.
The sculptor happened to create the fig.
He is not a designer.
Therefore, he should not be dictating rules by making figures that have points or wings that obstruct into other spaces, creating situations that the rules weren't created for IMO.

I don't view the figures as being immobile blocks of plastic - I think their sculpt is simply indicative of one cool-looking pose - it doesn;t dictate the kind of reach or obstruction-power they have.

For example, Raelin's spear sticking out in no way grants her any abilities to affect an adjacent square, in my eyes. That just happens to be where the "picture" was taken as she was holding it.

But that's just my personal take on the game.

[ultradoug]

they should have made them posable?

[Oprime]

I am adamantly opposed to every ruling that is based on the vagaracies of whatever figure the guy happened to sculpt to represent a character.

The designers made the HS rules.
The sculptor happened to create the fig.
He is not a designer.
Therefore, he should not be dictating rules by making figures that have points or wings that obstruct into other spaces, creating situations that the rules weren't created for IMO.

I don't view the figures as being immobile blocks of plastic - I think their sculpt is simply indicative of one cool-looking pose - it doesn;t dictate the kind of reach or obstruction-power they have.

For example, Raelin's spear sticking out in no way grants her any abilities to affect an adjacent square, in my eyes. That just happens to be where the "picture" was taken as she was holding it.

But that's just my personal take on the game.

If this were true Mimring would be single based and about the size of Drake....

Of course the sculpt matters, and in many cases balances the character.

Do you honestly think the sculptors have no clue what the figs characteristics will be?

[Revdyer]

I honestly think the sculptors have no clue. I am in absolute agreement with reaper's analysis. We play (albeit as a house rule, since Hasbroke has ruled otherwise) that the physical impact of the representations of the characters is not to be considered. We move people, shift them, squeeze around them, and plunk them down whichever way. It is not the official game rules, we know, but it plays a lot better and happier and with a whole lot less figgy-niggiling.

There (stepping down of off his stupid soap box).

[Revdyer]

Pardon the double post, but I want copyright on the term "figgy-niggiling."
which means "arguing about the position of HeroScape figures on the hex map board."

[Miniature Geek]

I am adamantly opposed to every ruling that is based on the vagaracies of whatever figure the guy happened to sculpt to represent a character.

The designers made the HS rules.
The sculptor happened to create the fig.
He is not a designer.
Therefore, he should not be dictating rules by making figures that have points or wings that obstruct into other spaces, creating situations that the rules weren't created for IMO.

I don't view the figures as being immobile blocks of plastic - I think their sculpt is simply indicative of one cool-looking pose - it doesn;t dictate the kind of reach or obstruction-power they have.

For example, Raelin's spear sticking out in no way grants her any abilities to affect an adjacent square, in my eyes. That just happens to be where the "picture" was taken as she was holding it.

But that's just my personal take on the game.

I agree with your take, it seems dumb that some creatures seem to have free movement while others are considered blocks of stone.

I honestly think the sculptors have no clue. I am in absolute agreement with reaper's analysis. We play (albeit as a house rule, since Hasbroke has ruled otherwise) that the physical impact of the representations of the characters is not to be considered. We move people, shift them, squeeze around them, and plunk them down whichever way. It is not the official game rules, we know, but it plays a lot better and happier and with a whole lot less figgy-niggiling.

There (stepping down of off his stupid soap box).

Your soap box wasn't stupid. Like I said before, the model shouldn't affect its own abilities that's just dumb. If there aren't any rules on facing, one should be able to rotate single figs any way they want, and double spaced figs, they should given at least a 180 view, Mimring gets a 360 view, why shouldn't a robot.

[ultradoug]

http://i50.photobucket.com/albums/f348/coolmondoug/squished.jpg

[Revdyer]

APPLAUSE! ud and APPLESAUCE too!

[ultradoug]

mmmm apple sauce
look I can post and chat :)

[Revdyer]

Of course you can, ud. You were the only one who had any doubts about it in the first place.

[thebigcurve]

Well folks, I am truly disappointed.
I took the time to read this entire thread, and I was sure hoping that by the time I reached its end I would find the pot o' gold at the end o' the rainbow that is Hasbro's official ruling.
I had an understanding of all of the pertinent arguments by the end of page five, and like I said before, I am truly disappointed.

I am not however disappointed in the way this discussion has been carried out. Someone earlier commended everyone for their good behavior, and I couldn't agree more.

I like the idea of thinking of a wing or any other body part as not being a static thing. Wings are not stone walls.
It seem to make sense that you could pass through a space occupied by a wing or a tail, as long as you didn't end your movement there. The wing is constantly moving, up and down, side to side. A figure could dart through, under or around the wing, and move on to another space beyond it.

It seems to me that for similar reasons, you could attack under the wing, because you are adjacent, and therefor engaged.

However, if the official ruling is that Nilf's wings can serve as temporary blockers of adjacency and engagment, that would add something potentially cool to the way the game is played. I don't yet have Nilf, so for now this doesn't figure into how I play the game, but I can imagine some cool strategy arising out of this capability.

Anyway, I am on the edge of my seat, anxiously awaiting official ruling on this matter.

[Venom]

can we plz email hasbro to remind them that there is a whole community and battles awaiting the answer to this question? :brickwall:

[toddrew]

I sent an 'update' in to hasbro. I've no idea if that will expedite the proceedings or not, but I did it :)

[Revdyer]

Thank you for doing that, toddrew.

[Oprime]

I honestly think the sculptors have no clue. I am in absolute agreement with reaper's analysis. We play (albeit as a house rule, since Hasbroke has ruled otherwise) that the physical impact of the representations of the characters is not to be considered. We move people, shift them, squeeze around them, and plunk them down whichever way. It is not the official game rules, we know, but it plays a lot better and happier and with a whole lot less figgy-niggiling.

There (stepping down of off his stupid soap box).

So its definatley NOT:

game designer: " here are the new ideas for next figures give me some renditions"
artist: " here are some designs I came up with"
game designer : " I like these 3 tweak this ones pose and bring the wings down on this one".
artist " heres the edited drawings"
game designer: " here are the artist renditions to base your sculpts on."
sculptor: "ok"
game designer : "this one cant stand next to a tree pull the wings up and make him longer". (mimring)
sculptor "ok"
gamedesigner :"those look good send them to be play tested".
play tester:" yep those work good, very well balanced."


It is most definatly:
game designer " we want a dragon, make one."
sculptor "heres one"
game designer :'' thats good enough it looks cool."

[Revdyer]

I don't know, OPrime, how it really went (or continues to go) down. There probably is some interchange between game designer and sculptor; but perhaps it is not much. I don't have any data on that at all, but would sure be interested to hear from someone who has some solid facts about the process used.

[shakey_snake]

The game designers probably come up with the sketches (by the looks of the job app).

[Revdyer]

Probably, so, s_s; point well taken.

[toddrew]

Results of the 'update' (no need to get excited :) ):

Subject
Nilfheim's wings

Discussion Thread

Response (Chris) 06/13/2006 08:42 AM
Hi Todd,

Thank you for contacting Hasbro again.

Unfortunately, I have not received an official answer to this question yet. As soon as I do, I will respond.

If there is anything else I can help you with, please visit www.hasbro.com or respond to this e-mail.

Customer (Todd Rewoldt) 06/12/2006 01:30 AM
Any resolution or anticipated resolution to this question? If more patience is required, no problem, just checking to see if this had gotten a response yet.

Thanks,
Todd

[shakey_snake]

Unfortunately, I have not received an official answer to this question yet.because we don't have a design team anymore...

[LilNewbie]

Unfortunately, I have not received an official answer to this question yet.because we don't have a design team anymore...

LOL! More likely it's Convention season and they are out of the office a lot. :D

Newb.

[daevablacc]

Results of the 'update' (no need to get excited :) ):

Subject
Nilfheim's wings

Discussion Thread

Response (Chris) 06/13/2006 08:42 AM
Hi Todd,

Thank you for contacting Hasbro again.

Unfortunately, I have not received an official answer to this question yet. As soon as I do, I will respond.

If there is anything else I can help you with, please visit www.hasbro.com or respond to this e-mail.
Hmmm... My interpretation of this email is that attacking through the wings IS allowed b/c he clearly says "I will respond." That obviously implies that he would attack through the wing. I know some people will say that "I have not received" means that he could not receive an attack through the wing, but that is a cut-and-dried case of Rules Lawyering. I'm glad we finally have this issue resolved. If anyone disagrees w/ me they are a poop-head.

[Revdyer]

Ah, the Da HeroScape Code, nice to know the solution to the conundrum.

[daevablacc]

Ah, the Da HeroScape Code, nice to know the solution to the conundrum.
:rofl:

[Revdyer]

<sigh of relief> Man, I'm just glad I'm not a poop-head.

[netherspirit]

<sigh of relief> Man, I'm just glad I'm not a poop-head.

What was that? :twisted:

[Revdyer]

If anyone disagrees w/ me they are a poop-head.

That was that.

[netherspirit]

If anyone disagrees w/ me they are a poop-head.

That was that.

Someone is missing the joke in my last post ;) :twisted:

[toddrew]

C'mere, Rev, let me wipe that off your title for ya :D

[ultradoug]

why is this thread 15 pages! LOL!

[Revdyer]

Someone is missing the joke in my last post ;) :twisted:

Man, I am slow! I didn't know I was entitled. Now I have a case of fecal-encephalitis, I guess.

Oh, and THANKS! toddrew!

[ultradoug]

I can't see to attack anything with your poop-head in my way!

[Revdyer]

Sorry for blocking your view and making it difficult for you to sight on any targets, ud. But, what can I do? I'm just a p-h.

[daevablacc]

Yeah, you heard me right. POOP HEAD! Ooooh, I know that burns.... ewww. :puke: :horsepoo:

[shakey_snake]

Sorry for blocking your view and making it difficult for you to sight on any targets, ud. But, what can I do? I'm just a wheel of cheese.

[ultradoug]

ok! who cut the cheese?

[Revdyer]

Sorry for blocking your view and making it difficult for you to sight on any targets, ud. But, what can I do? I'm just a wheel of cheese.

Oh, your Dutch is very good, indeed!

[gorillanator]

I don't see when someone is going to have to roll for LOS when they are adjacent though.

Can anyone give me a situation please?

[ultradoug]

oh you didnt read the thread ! lol

[AgentX-127]

why is this thread 15 pages! LOL!
Now it is 23 pages!

(Because of the change today in # of post per page.)

[ultradoug]

yeah

[shakey_snake]

Sorry for blocking your view and making it difficult for you to sight on any targets, ud. But, what can I do? I'm just a wheel of cheese.

Oh, your Dutch is very good, indeed!um...
Danka?...

[negation]

I just have one thing to say about this thread........... :verymad:

Actually I dont have anything to say about this thread, thats just a really cool emoticon

[DW13k]

non-adjacency



new word hope u dont mind if i use it.




Heroscape characters are like beer, the more you have the more people start to look at you.

[toddrew]

2 months later, but it appears that Rob and Craig are getting some time to answer the Hasbro queries:

1. Can Nilfheim’s right wing block adjacency between the figure that is on the hex directly behind him, and a figure that is standing on the other side of the wing?
A: No. The wing will not block adjacency.

Short, sweet, and concise - just the way we like our rulings :)

[ultradoug]

ahh good times.

[sigmazero13]

Yay :) The right answer... *ducks while everyone who disagreed throws rocks at him*

[Oprime]

Great! an answer.....ahhhh......I forgot the question.

[Teamski]

2 months later, but it appears that Rob and Craig are getting some time to answer the Hasbro queries:

1. Can Nilfheim’s right wing block adjacency between the figure that is on the hex directly behind him, and a figure that is standing on the other side of the wing?
A: No. The wing will not block adjacency.

Short, sweet, and concise - just the way we like our rulings :)


Ah, not what I expected, but welcome nontheless. Thanks for the clarification!

-Ski

[netherspirit]

Yay :) The right answer... *ducks while everyone who disagreed throws rocks at him*

Perhaps the easiest answer, but IMO not the right answer. :P

Nice to see we got responses to a bunch of questions.

[Marsman]

What if my Knight of Weston is on top of a castle and krug is attacking the door, 10 spaces below him. Can he attack, or can Krug attack him?

[Aranas]

No they can't attack each other. They are adjacent but not engaged. Since Krug's height is 8, the wall would need to be 7 hexes high or lower to consider theses two figures to be engaged.

[reapersaurus]

Yay :) The right answer... *ducks while everyone who disagreed throws rocks at him*

Perhaps the easiest answer, but IMO not the right answer. :PSince you and Teamski were some of the few that thought a wing should block adjacency, this post makes sense.

Most everyone else in this thread thought it was absurd that a wing would stop adjacent figures from being.... welll.... adjacent.

Further - this ruling sure is in the camp of "figure isn't static" - just for those keeping score, it combats the other one. ;)

[Revdyer]

Was it the Bugblatter Beast who couldn't be seen if it covered its own head in Hitchhiker's Guide to the Universe?