The Book of 8th Infantry Pathfinder

[Heroscaper Guy]

Originally Posted by CrazyTankster

I agree with cmgames, the power only says they have to be able to move adjacent, not that they then have to actually do so. I would think a small wording change should take place if the intent of the power was to make gaining the move spaces conditional on ending their movement adjacent to the hero. Otherwise we're not doing what the card actually says.

"Do what the card says to do, not what it doesn't say to do" is a commonly quoted phrase, but when you try to do that here we're told not to actually do what the card says?...

I understand the precedent is there, but the Kozuke power doesn't say they have to move adjacent, only that they have to be able to. Precedent is fine, but when the original card was worded as only that the kozuke have to be ABLE to move adajacent, not that they MUST, and a ruling outside of the card was required to say that you're not actually supposed to do what the card says, then I think changing the precedent would be worthwhile.

Yes, but the original game designers chose that wording as it caused funky loops if the Kozuke died (lava, leaving engagement, engagement strike, etc.) and they were required to end their turn adjacent. So are you going to believe you are right, or the rules team for classic Heroscape . C3V doesn't like to change things that are already established in the rules (for example the whole discussion about powers using white dice.)

[cmgames]

I'm OK with the ruling. That's what the clarifications and rulings part of The Books is all about.

~Z

[Dad_Scaper]

Yup. It was a deliberate decision by the Editing team to follow the precedent of the Kozuke in this case. And, CMG, you can see how some obvious alternatives lead to confusion quickly: if you "must" end your move adjacent to the target figure, but you are destroyed by Engagement Strike on the way, what happens? So, this is (to put it kindly) inelegant wording. But there is a reason for it.

[CrazyTankster]

So "must end their move adjacent to x unless destroyed" was too complicated? I'll defer to the wisdom of the masses, but I still think the original wording could have been done better.

-Tank, Gracefully(?) stepping out.

[dok]

Originally Posted by CrazyTankster

So "must end their move adjacent to x unless destroyed" was too complicated?

Too complicated, no. But the Kozuke power is a perfectly appropriate guide to go by here, and when such a guide exists, C3V uses it.

Originally Posted by CrazyTankster

I'll defer to the wisdom of the masses, but I still think the original wording could have been done better.

I don't think anyone really disagrees with that.

[Dad_Scaper]

It's not good language. Maybe the worst there is on any card. But I do not think there are any easy answers here, either.

[NecroBlade]

There's one important piece of synergy missing: Airborne Elite.

[Dad_Scaper]

CMG, you got that one?

[cmgames]

Originally Posted by NecroBlade

There's one important piece of synergy missing: Airborne Elite.

What about them? That they can end their Marching Orders movement adjacent to these figures? I can include them for that, but that's kinda stretching the concept of Synergy Benefit Received, I think.

~Z

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by cmgames

What about them? That they can end their Marching Orders movement adjacent to these figures? I can include them for that, but that's kinda stretching the concept of Synergy Benefit Received, I think.

~Z

Nope, it's not stretching the concept of Synergy Benefits Received at all.

[Serenity]

I believe Synergy Benefits Offered should include Sir Orrick's A BROTHER'S CALL

[Dad_Scaper]

Thanks, Serenity! See if you can let cmgames know. He did the OP. Or I could do it: I summon you, @cmgames !

If that doesn't work, I'll take care of it.