Question Dump: Post Your Questions Here.

[Jim]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Are you proposing that, if I wanted to, I could become engaged with a figure while flying over it?

Only if you give it a ring.

[Aldin]

Here's a relevant FAQ entry:

Can a figure standing on a ledge and not adjacent to any other figure fall off the ledge, fall past another figure and take a leaving engagement attack from that figure?

No. You check for adjacency on each space as you move, when that figure was on the top of the cliff it was not engaged, and when it landed it was not engaged, thus no leaving engagement attacks occurred. Remember, the only things considered spaces are actual hexes a figure can stand on, and ladder rungs. You never check for adjacency as you climb a battlement, as you climb up terrain, or as you fall.

The idea that adjacency can be broken because the base of a figure surpasses the height of another figure while flying or leaping can not be reconciled with that description.

~Aldin, engagement breakingly

ETA, this is good too:

Do flying characters take leaving engagement attacks as soon as they start to move?
Yes unless otherwise stated on the card. If they choose not to fly, they can move like a normal walking character and not take leaving engagement attacks until they actually leave the engagement. As soon as an engaged figure declares that they are flying, they will take any leaving engagement attacks.

Note that the attack happens when they declare flight, not as part of their location during movement.

[greygnarl]

Originally Posted by Aldin

ETA, this is good too:

Note that the attack happens when they declare flight, not as part of their location during movement.

This is what is being looked for.

[Aldin]

Originally Posted by greygnarl

This is what is being looked for.

Yes and no. I think the first one does a better job of addressing the way Just a Bill proposes that flying, leaping or falling function as it relates to height and adjacency.

~Aldin, striving for clarity

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by capsocrates

Are you proposing that, if I wanted to, I could become engaged with a figure while flying over it?

Of course not.

Originally Posted by Aldin

Here's a relevant FAQ entry:

The idea that adjacency can be broken because the base of a figure surpasses the height of another figure while flying or leaping can not be reconciled with that description.

Hmm, okay, then that seems to invalidate my earlier argument. Leaping over the top of Grimnak and landing directly on the other side of him does not take you out of engagement, because you are not required to check while occupying the space over his head you are leaping through. That empty space over his head is not an "actual hex a figure can stand on," so entering/leaving engagement does not apply to that space. I stand corrected.

However, this passage supports my later argument that using a special-movement power to teleport to a different side of an enemy also does not take you out of engagement. In my Drake example, he checks engagement on the ground and then checks it again when he lands on elevation. In both cases he was adjacent to Grimnak, so his engagement status did not change. Similarly, if Mika Connour teleports from a shadow space on one side of Syvarris to a shadow space on another side of Syvarris, she never left engagement. According to the FAQ, we do not check for engagement during whatever "netherworld" she occupied during that move, because it's not an "actual hex a figure can stand on." Same story with the Drudge tunneling and a bunch of other similar examples.

Originally Posted by Aldin

ETA, this is good too:

Note that the attack happens when they declare flight, not as part of their location during movement.

This is also a good entry, but let's be very careful to consider the context here, and not read something it doesn't say. The entry does NOT say that flying forces you to break all engagements. The question being asked is one of timing; it wants to know when ("as soon as?") the leaving engagement attack occurs. It's already assumed that a leaving-engagement scenario is in play.

And note that the answer is careful to use the word "any" again, meaning "any leaving engagement attacks that would apply," because you "actually leave the engagement."

In fact, the clarification that you never take a leaving engagement attack unless you "actually leave an engagement" is pretty much the smoking gun here.

Again, none of the Army Cards we're discussing actually force you to leave engagement; they only clarify what happens if you do (one way or the other, depending on each card's design intent).

So here's the debate in a nutshell:

Language on the cards

• If ____ is engaged when he starts ___, he will take any leaving engagement attacks.

Two possible interpretations

1. "If ____ is engaged when he starts ____, he will automatically break all engagements even if he does not actually break adjacency and take all leaving engagement attacks." (prescriptive)
   
   
2. "If ____ is engaged when he starts ____, he will take any leaving engagement attacks for any engagements he breaks." (clarifying)

The second interpretation is more intuitive, fits the language better, and is consistent with both of the FAQ entries Aldin cited. The first interpretation, on the other hand, is tantamount to errata.

Now, for those who still are not convinced, let me pose this question: If you still feel that interpretation #1 better fits the language on the cards and the FAQ entries, do you agree that this means one of the Drakes in my example above takes a passing swipe but the other Drake doesn't? That is an inescapable consequence of interpretation #1.

Before choosing your answer, consider that there will be other such difficulties as well. If we interpret that the sentence is not clarifying the general rule, but rather is prescriptive of a special limitation on the power, then we also have to accept that all the Army Cards that omit this "prescriptive" sentence work differently. I can illustrate some of those later, but in a nutshell it means that half the teleporting powers will force engagement breakage and half will not. :Shudder:

[kevindola]

anyone have some recommendations for a 3 player map? I'm particularly looking for one where I can get an overhead 3D image for use in an online heroscape game.

[greygnarl]

On my phone, but if you read the entry again Bill, you will see that it is choosing not to fly that allows them to only take leaving engagement attacks if they actually leave an engagement, meaning that if they fly, they will take LEAs even if they don't "leave engagament".

[infectedsloth]

Originally Posted by kevindola

anyone have some recommendations for a 3 player map? I'm particularly looking for one where I can get an overhead 3D image for use in an online heroscape game.

Dignan's multiplayer maps is a good place to look.

Tannegx just made a pretty cool looking 3 player map.

[Sherman Davies]

Okay, this whole flying discussion was sorta amusing at first, but it's getting a bit ridiculous. From Jexik's venerable Top 11 Most Frequently Overlooked Rules thread:

Originally Posted by Jexik

2. Figures with normal flying have to take any and all leaving engagement attacks as soon as they lift off, whether they engage the enemy figures upon landing or not. They are allowed to walk.

Flying has always worked this way. Frankly, I'm surprised this subject is still coming up.

[MegaSilver]

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies

Okay, this whole flying discussion was sorta amusing at first, but it's getting a bit ridiculous. From Jexik's venerable Top 11 Most Frequently Overlooked Rules thread:

Flying has always worked this way. Frankly, I'm surprised this subject is still coming up.

[Just_a_Bill]

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies

Okay, this whole flying discussion was sorta amusing at first, but it's getting a bit ridiculous.

What is ridiculous about an honest discussion on a topic of interest and relevance? Just because you've heard it before doesn't mean everyone else has. Sheesh.

And nobody has yet addressed the implications of this interpretation. How 'bout you, Sherman? You're a sharp guy. What's your answer on the Drake question?

Originally Posted by Sherman Davies

From Jexik's venerable Top 11 Most Frequently Overlooked Rules thread:

What rule or FAQ is this based on? It directly contradicts the FAQ material Aldin cited that says you check for adjacency before and after the move. If what you quoted is supposed to supersede the FAQ, I'd like to know its source.

The current rulebook says

Leaving an engagement: Your figure may move around an opponent’s figure
that it is engaged with, but as soon as your figure moves away (onto a space
that’s not adjacent), the opponent’s figure may take a “leaving engagement
attack” on your figure.

So if a flying figure leaves one side of an enemy and lands on the other side, when did it ever move "onto a space that's not adjacent"?

Look, I'm not trying to be a troublemaker, but every single thing I've read on the cards, in the rules, and in the FAQ supports this interpretation, using a natural and simple reading of the texts. Everything. Where is the evidence to the contrary? What I've heard so far is basically "no you're wrong" and "I've always done it the other way." I'm sorry, but I'm going to need more than that. There's nothing wrong with asking to see the evidence.

[caps]

Originally Posted by Just_a_Bill

What rule or FAQ is this based on? It directly contradicts the FAQ material Aldin cited that says you check for adjacency before and after the move. If what you quoted is supposed to supersede the FAQ, I'd like to know its source.

Maybe you should read the thread that he linked to.