The Book of Black Canary

[Ronin]

Alrighty then. I'll pop that into the general section of the FAQs thread, and also start recommending that clarification for other units that use the same phrase, as I get to them in the FAQs.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Ronin

Alrighty then. I'll pop that into the general section of the FAQs thread, and also start recommending that clarification for other units that use the same phrase, as I get to them in the FAQs.

Banshee comes to mind right off the bat.

[Just_a_Bill]

EDIT: Some posts appeared while I was composing this and responding to a plumbing emergency, and I didn't see them until after posting. But as it's getting close to 1am and I have to work in the morning I'm going to leave what I wrote as-is and just add 2 new comments: (1) Soundwarp's "within 1 space" approach is promising, and I actually like that better than the stuff I initially brainstormed in this post. (2) Patching confusing wordings in the R&Cs is a habit I would recommend you avoid. It's easy to start leaning on that and lose design discipline, and it's not exactly an easy thing to reference in the middle of a game when a question comes up. Treating FAQs as game text overflow inevitably makes us lazier as designers, and shifts the responsibility for clarity from the designer to the player. I've always encouraged all designers I've worked with to rise above that temptation and continue to develop their A game. (End of soapbox.)

I guess I'd have to know precisely what your definition of "space adjacency" is. Based on official Heroscape rules, I'd have to say it is not kosher, because adjacency has height constraints. For two figures to be adjacent to each other, their vertical extents have to overlap. But there's no rule to tell us whether two spaces are adjacent to each other, or whether a figure is adjacent to a space.

In the absence of any new rule, I suppose the most logical extrapolation would be to treat an empty space as though it contained a "virtual figure" of Height zero. This of course leads to counter-intuitive results, since it would mean that a Height 4 figure could be a few levels lower than the empty space and be considered adjacent to it, but if it was even one level higher then it would not be adjacent. Too goofy.

A concept of "space adjacency" would somehow need to very clearly define the height-overlap requirements. You could choose to say that height is irrelevant, but I would find that very unsatisfying. Certainly two spaces should not be adjacent to each other if they are 30 levels apart. (Or in this case, if the Canary Cry sonic scream travels only one space laterally, then why can it be heard an infinite number of spaces up or down? The comic image on the army card depicts a sphere- or cone-shaped broadcast that clearly looks like the horizontal and vertical aspects of the scream are equal.)

Anyway, I suppose one possibility would be to treat the empty space as though it contained a virtual figure of the same height as the figure on the space you are comparing to. This would allow a +/-X vertical offset between the figure's space and the potentially adjacent space, which isn't exactly terrible. But it still feels like a hack, might be hard for some players to visualize, and immediately breaks down as soon as we try to figure out whether two empty spaces are adjacent to each other. What height would we use?

So it would seem that defining a general-purpose definition of adjacency when only one or zero figures are involved is no simple task (that's probably why Hasbro didn't do it). Thus, if there's a way to write Canary Cry so it doesn't need such a definition in the first place, that seems advisable (especially since it sounds like this is the only card where you've needed it). Maybe something along these lines could work? (I've changed the 3 to a 4 to keep the math the same, since the original text specifies 3 spaces plus one more "adjacent" one.)

CANARY CRY SPECIAL ATTACK
Range Special. Attack 4.
Choose 4 spaces in a straight line from Black Canary. The parallel lines of 4 spaces that are on each side of the chosen spaces, and half a space closer to Black Canary, are also affected. Each figure on any of those spaces whose base is no more than __ levels higher than Black Canary's height or __ levels lower than her base is affected by Canary Cry Special Attack. Roll 4 attack dice once for all affected figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Black Canary is not affected by her Canary Cry Special Attack. Symbiotes roll 1 less defense die against Canary Cry Special Attack.

The "half a space" bit is a little awkward, but necessary for disambiguation. A cleaner approach, if you are willing to give up the one space on the very end of the initial 3 chosen spaces, could look like this:

CANARY CRY SPECIAL ATTACK
Range Special. Attack 4.
Choose 3 spaces in a straight line from Black Canary. The parallel lines of 4 spaces that are on each side of the chosen spaces are also affected. Each figure on any of those spaces whose base is no more than __ levels higher than Black Canary's height or __ levels lower than her base is affected by Canary Cry Special Attack. Roll 4 attack dice once for all affected figures. Each figure rolls defense dice separately. Black Canary is not affected by her Canary Cry Special Attack. Symbiotes roll 1 less defense die against Canary Cry Special Attack.

If the number of chosen spaces is even and the number of spillovers is odd — or vice versa — then no clarification is needed on which way to "jog" because a jog is not needed.

Anyway, this "levels higher/lower" convention is how classic units avoid infinite-height silliness.

[Ronin]

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

EDIT: Some posts appeared while I was composing this and responding to a plumbing emergency, and I didn't see them until after posting. But as it's getting close to 1am and I have to work in the morning I'm going to leave what I wrote as-is and just add 2 new comments: (1) Soundwarp's "within 1 space" approach is promising, and I actually like that better than the stuff I initially brainstormed in this post.

If we could get a couple of Heroes on board, I would like the idea of redefining Canary Cry and suchlike in terms of "figures within 1 space of X". Especially since I'm seeing that there are more cards that use this kind of language than I originally thought. That should be doable without adding a ton of words, which is nice, and it'd cut down on any confusion with the requirements of actual, figure-to-figure adjacency.

(2) Patching confusing wordings in the R&Cs is a habit I would recommend you avoid. It's easy to start leaning on that and lose design discipline, and it's not exactly an easy thing to reference in the middle of a game when a question comes up. Treating FAQs as game text overflow inevitably makes us lazier as designers, and shifts the responsibility for clarity from the designer to the player. I've always encouraged all designers I've worked with to rise above that temptation and continue to develop their A game. (End of soapbox.)

I'm all for minimizing R&C/FAQs where possible. I have a couple other things I plan on bringing up soon, to that end.

One thing that occurred to me (slightly tangential talking point incoming) is that Hasbro actually did use figure-to-space adjacency just a little bit. Lo and behold, Cyberclaw:

CYBERCLAW
All small or medium opponent's figures that enter or occupy a space adjacent to any Gladiatron may not move. Figures affected by the Cyberclaw cannot be moved by any special power on any Army Card or Glyph.

Though in this example, I'd argue that "a space adjacent to any Gladiatron" really means "a space on which that figure would be adjacent to any Gladiatron". That's pretty clearly the intended trigger for the power, and the definition works for C3G figures with similar effects, like Blob. It also works for certain figures with placement powers, like Aquaman II, who can place opponents' figures "on any empty space [on which that figure would be] adjacent to Aquaman".

In terms of area attacks like Black Canary's, though, that definition doesn't do much, because of the problems with non-existent height constraints (or rather, not having anything to use as a reference for height constraints) that you brought up. So... not helpful in this particular case, but as part of any ongoing space-adjacency discussions, I'm putting forward that figure-to-space adjacency references are acceptable in cases like Cyberclaw, when a figure is moving or being moved adjacent to a reference figure.

[johnny139]

I don't mind redefining the Black Canary style of "adjacent space" to the Gladiatron style. Minor mechanical change with more natural precedence.

[Hahma]

I suppose if you were going to change it, Soundwarp's idea seems to work well for that. And if anyone is left confused after that, then that would be pretty sad.

I never understood the whole 'space adjacency' thing in C3G, since it apparently doesn't function like the actual adjacency rules (which has caused at least one person to not understand how real adjacency works). Seems like it could have just been 'All figures on those 3 spaces, and all figures within 1 space of at least one of those spaces'.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by Ronin

I'd argue that "a space adjacent to any Gladiatron" really means "a space on which that figure would be adjacent to any Gladiatron". That's pretty clearly the intended trigger for the power, and the definition works for C3G figures with similar effects, like Blob. It also works for certain figures with placement powers, like Aquaman II, who can place opponents' figures "on any empty space [on which that figure would be] adjacent to Aquaman".

... as part of any ongoing space-adjacency discussions, I'm putting forward that figure-to-space adjacency references are acceptable in cases like Cyberclaw, when a figure is moving or being moved adjacent to a reference figure.

Yep, I came to the same conclusion. The reference to the figure in those cases, even if it's being relocated, should be inferred, and it's what a player would intuitively do anyway without really needing to think about it.

You're also correct that Canary Cry is a special case that can't benefit from that same inference. And the very existence of cards that specifically impose a vertical constraint makes it pretty clear that, in cases where we aren't bound to the adjacency rules and such a constraint isn't imposed, then an infinite height difference is allowed. (I should note that there are a few figures that allow this, such as Mimring, although that's kinda sloppy design and not something I'd recommend using as a model. Later figures made more of an effort to be realistic.)

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by johnny139

I don't mind redefining the Black Canary style of "adjacent space" to the Gladiatron style. Minor mechanical change with more natural precedence.

That's not what Ronin is proposing. He's pointing out that the Gladiatron style unfortunately doesn't work for Black Canary, because we're talking about figures being "adjacent" to empty spaces, which has a problem with the height issue.

[johnny139]

Okay, yeah, I can see how that'd be an issue. I shouldn't have been skimming!

For what it's worth, I really don't see a problem here. "Adjacent" means "next to." An adjacent space is a space next to that space. If the other uses of adjacency in 'Scape being inconsistent with that reading bothers us, just change it to "next to." Creating needlessly complicated wordings to explain simple concepts and processes is probably a bigger barrier to entry than obscure, in-depth rulings.

[Hahma]

Regardless, people are still going to have to reference the clarification regarding the no height restrictions.

Edit: as well as keep in mind that clear sight is not necessary.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by johnny139

For what it's worth, I really don't see a problem here. "Adjacent" means "next to."

In English, yes. In Heroscape, no. It is a defined game term with specific meanings built into it. Using a game term in a context where it cannot apply makes a game harder to play, not easier, and it adds to the endless stream of rulings that become increasingly harder to remember. It gets harder for players to play correctly, and harder for designers to design correctly.

Not to put too fine a point on it, but just because one person doesn't see a problem doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[IAmBatman]

It sounds like the "within one space" wording is the cleanest and currently has my support.

Black Canary's scream, thematic or not, has never had a height limitation imposed on it, and shouldn't have one now, after as long as she's been out. The problem with space adjacency or "next to" language is that the height interactions between spaces become unclear. Whereas, "within one space" means the same thing whether one figure is on a ladder 30 spaces up from the other figure, or whether the two figures are adjacent.