Rules questions to Hasbro

[ChaosChild]

I recieved a reply to the following questions.

Does the Glyph of Rannveig negate the ability Stealth Flying?
If so, can a figure with Stealth Flying still disengage without rolling for a leaving engagement attack while walking?

Response (Chris) 12/15/2006 05:41 PM
Hi ChaosChild,

Thank you for contacting Hasbro with your question on Heroscape! Perhaps I can help.

1: Yes, Rannveig negates stealth flying as well.

2: No because their "disengage" abilities was tied directly into their flying ability. If they walk (which they have to) they would still be subject to leaving engagement attacks.

I hope that answers your question(s). If there is anything else I can help you with, please visit www.hasbro.com or respond to this e-mail.

 

[countblah]

Their original ruling was that Taelord had the Disengage power, how is that an imprecise clarification?

I stand by my statement from a couple of days ago. They said "Taelord has Disengage" because "Taelord has Stealth Flying" was meaningless at the time. They may not have even considered the "what if a flyer wants to walk" scenario until after the question was answered. When they did consider it, they decided that fliers with disengage wouldn't get disengage when they walked. They just didn't notify the mailing list when they made that decision.

So aside from their failure to consider and resolve that situation in the first place, I don't see anything to get all about.

Its the fact that they changed their original ruling that gets me all about it. There was nothing wrong with the original ruling, why change it? If this becomes a trend things could get really unorganized really quickly.

Taelord's card has always been a mess. A complete mess. This does not help. or no , Taelord's card has always been a complete disaster. However, it is clear from this ruling that the power they were going for all along was stealth flying. It would probably have been easier to have given him that to begin with, but they did not. He doesn't have the full disengage ability.

 

[netherspirit]

Their original ruling was that Taelord had the Disengage power, how is that an imprecise clarification?

I stand by my statement from a couple of days ago. They said "Taelord has Disengage" because "Taelord has Stealth Flying" was meaningless at the time. They may not have even considered the "what if a flyer wants to walk" scenario until after the question was answered. When they did consider it, they decided that fliers with disengage wouldn't get disengage when they walked. They just didn't notify the mailing list when they made that decision.

So aside from their failure to consider and resolve that situation in the first place, I don't see anything to get all about.

Its the fact that they changed their original ruling that gets me all about it. There was nothing wrong with the original ruling, why change it? If this becomes a trend things could get really unorganized really quickly.

Taelord's card has always been a mess. A complete mess. This does not help. or no , Taelord's card has always been a complete disaster. However, it is clear from this ruling that the power they were going for all along was stealth flying. It would probably have been easier to have given him that to begin with, but they did not. He doesn't have the full disengage ability.

Thats a matter of opinion. I think after the "Taelord has the Disengage power" errata, that cleaned up the card right there. However, you're entitled to your opinion that the card was a complete mess, and I am entitled to the opinion that there was no reason to errata their old errata.

I will stop complaining now and just sit back and hope they don't make any other changes to other older rulings and erratas.

 

[AgentX-127]

that's really dumb. why cant he disengage while walking?

Because they changed their minds.

Which is maybe why some questions should be asked.

I don't think this was one of those questions. He had disengage, why ask now, if he actually has Stealth Flying? It doesn't matter that they came out with this new Stealth Flying power, beacuse they already said he has Disengage, IMO, there was no reason to ask this question.

Oh no...You quoted me while I was editing my typing mistake@!!!
I meant to type shouldn't!
Go back and look, please, it makes more sense now!

Anyhow, I didn't think it wise to ask such a question, but now that someone did I can accept the answer, and I guess it will clean up the card when it does get reprinted with "Stealth Flying."

Anyway, look on the bright side... Someday our "Flying with disengage implied by ommission" version Taelord cards will be collectors items!

And we'll say stuff like
"I remember when we didn't even know for sure if Taelord could disengage if he chose to walk on a road!
Yup, Sonny, those were the rough and tumble pioneer days, rats attacking their own squadmates, moving all the way across the board on turn one, 4 Laglors on one team giving +8 range bonus..."

 

[Homba]

We have an answer to the DW9 question:

Customer (Homba) 12/20/2006 02:39 PM

Hi, I have a question about DW9000's Range Enhancement special ability.

The ability says: "Any Soulborg Guards adjacent to Deathwalker add 2 spaces to their range."

Because it uses the term "Any," this means friendly units (units belonging to your teammate) can benefit from this bonus in a team game, correct?

Thanks,

Homba

---------

Response (Chris L.) 12/21/2006 01:04 PM

Thank you for contacting us.

Actually, this only means those units that you control.

I hope this information is useful.

Good Gaming!

Chris.
Customer Service Supervisor
Wizards of the Coast

Discuss the ruling here.

H

 

[Nwojedi]

just look at stealth flying like in the Empire strikes back. When luke is thrown into the freeze chamber and jumps straight up super fast. This is the way stealth flying works. They are able to launch themselves straight up like a bullet. hence, not being able to disengage free while walking. makes it more realisitic to understand for those who think it's stupid.

 

[Homba]

The DW9000 Range Enhancement Ruling received from Wizards 24 hours ago, has been REVERSED by intervention of Craig & Rob.

Response (Chris L.) 12/22/2006 07:09 AM

Actually, after your last response, I checked further with the designers, and found that Chris D. wasn't entirely correct on this one. The ability of the Deathwalker 9000 affects all Soulborg Guards, your team mates, yours, and your opponents. Sorry for the confusion.

Chris.
Customer Service Supervisor
Wizards of the Coast

Discussion and full transcripts of emails: here.

 

[Revdyer]

Thanks, Homba,. All this current errata errata keeps me bouncing around uncertain what the rules for the game are.

 

[Homba]

Answer on whether multiple Laglors in a team game can "stack" their +2 range auras:

Response (Chris) 12/22/2006 09:02 PM
Hi Homba,

Thank you for contacting Hasbro with your question on Heroscape!

Per Craig: Laglor's range enhancement aura does not stack, but you can still have 2 Laglors on one team.

Good Gaming!
Chris

Note: 2 Laglors on one Team, NOT 2 Laglors in one Army - keeping with the earlier multiple-uniques-on-a-Team ruling.

Discuss here.

H

 

[Homba]

The DW9 question has been reversed again:

Response (Chris L.) 01/02/2007 06:34 AM

Actually, you would be correct. It would in fact create a problem with past rulings given. To that end, it has been a subject of some debate between myself, Chris D. and the good folks over at Hasbro that make this excellent game. In the interest of consistency, this ruling was overturned, and the DW9 does in fact, only affect soulborg guards that the player controlling DW9 also controls. Let me know if this changes any of your questions. Thank you for your patience as we work these kinks out.

Chris.
Customer Service Supervisor
Wizards of the Coast

Discuss here.

 

[damja]

I haven't seen this asked anywhere (and yes, I tried search).

Can a ranged figure fire over gaps in terrain? I don't have a picture to refer to, but on any map where there is a concave section, can an attack go through the gap, or does there have to be terrain under the entire line of the attack?

 

[toddrew]

I haven't seen this asked anywhere (and yes, I tried search).

Can a ranged figure fire over gaps in terrain? I don't have a picture to refer to, but on any map where there is a concave section, can an attack go through the gap, or does there have to be terrain under the entire line of the attack?

I don't have the official response at hand (I'll poke around, but if someone else can find it, please do), but one can attack with range over "gaps in the map", but must count existing hexes when determining range. I assume this is a ruling to keep it simple, even though it seems a little weird to me. I think it's easy enough to count the "missing" hexes.

EDIT: hmmm, I didn't know that the Rules FAQ on this site was down (and has been for a couple months), and I didn't see it addressed on the hasbro site's FAQ. Still, fairly confident that the above is what was ruled.

 

[Cavalier]

I haven't seen this asked anywhere (and yes, I tried search).

Can a ranged figure fire over gaps in terrain? I don't have a picture to refer to, but on any map where there is a concave section, can an attack go through the gap, or does there have to be terrain under the entire line of the attack?

I don't have the official response at hand (I'll poke around, but if someone else can find it, please do), but one can attack with range over "gaps in the map", but must count existing hexes when determining range. I assume this is a ruling to keep it simple, even though it seems a little weird to me. I think it's easy enough to count the "missing" hexes.

EDIT: hmmm, I didn't know that the Rules FAQ on this site was down (and has been for a couple months), and I didn't see it addressed on the hasbro site's FAQ. Still, fairly confident that the above is what was ruled.

Yup, toddrew got it right. You have to count the hexes around the gap.

From the 2nd Edition Rules, Page 13

 

[damja]

Thanks Cavalier. I didn't see what was plainly in front of my face! I just started playing with some new people and one of them said you could't attack around corners at all.

 

[Cavalier]

Thanks Cavalier. I didn't see what was plainly in front of my face! I just started playing with some new people and one of them said you could't attack around corners at all.

Glad I could help.

 

[Homba]

There is one exception: Mimring's Breath - you do count the "empty" hexes just as if they were really there.

This was an official ruling from Hasbro in response to a community email.

H

 

[tsukifu]

Thought I'd try getting this thread back on track. Here are those ladder related questions WotC answered a month back or so:

When falling off a Ladder, do you have to fall straight down to the Landing Space, or can you fall to an adjacent space?

For example, suppose I am at the top of an 8th rung of a ladder, and I want to fall off. According to the rules, it says that I am to "treat each figure on a rung as if it were on a hex shaped tile space." This implies that I should be able to fall off to an adjacent space, just as if I were walking off a cliff to an adjacent space.

But, also from the rulebook, it gives us specific examples on how to move on and off the ladders (examples 17-22). 17 and 18 clearly show that you have to use the Landing Space if you go all the way to the bottom of the ladder.

Which is it?

You would refer to the Master rules for falling in this case. The ladder is in the landing space hex, so when falling from the ladder, you can choose to fall into the landing space or any hex adjacent to the landing space. You are –not– restricted to falling only into the landing space. I hope that clears things up. Have fun and good gaming!

Response (Trevor K.) 03/30/2007 09:40 AM
Hey there! So I've finally tracked down those answers for you. I've rewritten the questions with answers below to make it a bit clearer. Here you go:

Q: Can a figure fall off a ladder to a hex below if the drop is less than the figure’s height?

A: Hmm. Yes and No. Let me explain. A fall is described as moving down to a level equal to or higher than the figure’s height. (Master Set Rules Page 10). Per the Castle rules (page 6) Figures are not allowed to hop, or skip rungs unless they fall off a ladder. So in order to skip rungs, you must FALL off the ladder. To fall, the move down must be equal to or higher than the figures height. You cannot just skip down different rungs. You must count every rung possible when moving up or down unless you are falling, or stepping off of the ladder onto a hex (example 20 on page 6).

So:
Can a figure fall off a ladder? Yes, if it’s falling.
Can a figure fall off a ladder to a hex below if the drop is less than the figure’s height? No, because it’s not a “fall”.

And because this will be your next question:
What about figures that fly? Figures that can fly, leap, jump or have similar movement ignore this restriction.


Q: Since a figure can fall into a hex adjacent to the landing space when falling off the ladder, does that mean the figure can climb onto the ladder from one of those adjacent hexes?

A: Adjacent is different than Same-Level in regards to spaces.

If the space is on the same level as the landing space, you must count the landing space when moving onto the ladder (Example 25 on page 7).

If the space is on a different level than the landing space (see example 19 on page 6) you do not have to step on the landing space, or any spaces below that space you are standing on. You just have to move onto the same level ladder rung, or the one just above the level you are standing on. Again, see example 19 on page 6 for a clearer explanation, as the ladder rungs may not match the space you are standing on exactly.


Q: Does this mean that if an enemy figure is standing at the base of the ladder, my figures can’t climb up the ladder from that level?

A: Yes, it is blocked as if the opponent's figure is physically on the ladder. Your figure would not be able to climb the ladder, or it would have to find a higher adjacent space to move onto the ladder from.

Q: When falling from a ladder, does it cost a single movement point even if the figure falls into a hex adjacent to the landing space instead of the landing space?

A: Yes, falling costs one movement point even if your figure ends up in a hex adjacent to the landing space instead of the landing space.

Q: When a figure falls off a ladder that has nothing behind it (such as the ladders in examples 25 and 26 on page 7 of the Fortress of Archkyrie book) can the figure fall into the hex behind the ladder?

A: No. Since figures cannot move through ladders, as explained in example 25, the figures would not be able to fall through to the other side of the ladder either.

Sorry it took so long to get those answers for you, but I hope this clears everything up. Have fun and good gaming!

Here's the original thread. Rulings on pages 4 and 6:
http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=7129

 

[Wytefang]

I still consider myself a new player, so bear with me please, but are you saying that we're supposed to count the hexes that wrap around an empty space on the outside edge of a map when figuring out range distance (if there are empty spaces in between the two figures)?

So if the layout is like below (with O's representing hexes and X's representing 2 figures both with range):

OOOOOOO
OOOOOOO
..XOOOOOO
....OOOOO
.....OOOO
...OOOOO
....OOOO
XOOOOO
OOOOOO

Then the range would be 6 spaces (counting around the hole)? That seems really, really obtuse to me. Why wouldn't you just count where the hexes would be in the straightest line possible to your foe? Makes more sense by a LONG shot (pun intended, LOL) and wouldn't be more difficult to do unless the gap was absolutely gigantic (which would be unlikely).

I hope that's not the ruling because it's really, really dumb, imho. If so, what's the bizarre rational behind this - maybe I'm missing something here???

 

[netherspirit]

I hope that's not the ruling because it's really, really dumb, imho. If so, what's the bizarre rational behind this - maybe I'm missing something here???

That is indeed the rule, check out page 13 of the 2nd Edition Rulebook.

 

[yagyuninja]

The ladder answers almost answer my question about my recent map, but I feel like there is still something missing.

Instead of trying to explain myself with words, I'll just show some pictures. How do you think you are supposed to move around this map? Can you jump onto the ladders from the hills?

My Map, Solace

Another view:

And another:

 

[ChaosChild]

The ladder answers almost answer my question about my recent map, but I feel like there is still something missing.

Instead of trying to explain myself with words, I'll just show some pictures. How do you think you are supposed to move around this map? Can you jump onto the ladders from the hills?

First question: Fly. Or get summoned.
Second question: I would say no because the hill is not level (or off by only one level) with the ladders. That is if I am counting the levels correctly. Not counting the first level, the hills look 3 levels high and the ladder on the tree is 6 levels high. If they were level or off by one, then I would say yes (ignoring the fact that it is an illegel ladder placement according to the rules).

 

[GaryLASQ]

i think we have a Hasbro answer (to an AE/Ladder questions) that needs to be added to the first post of this thread and/or the thread for email correspondence with Hasbro.

http://www.heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?p=166019#180073

btw, this ruling is not on the Hasbro FAQ

 

[Zorgophlats]

Methinks you have a few Mario customs.

 

[Homba]

Just a bit of filing...

Codeman's question (see link for entire discussion):
http://heroscapers.com/community/showthread.php?t=8617

Response (Support Agent) 06/07/2007 02:55 PM

Hey again Homba. Thanks for your patience during the long wait with this.

You can indeed have a double space figure on an ice tile and a sand/rock/etc. tile. Even though it may not be extremely stable, the ice tile does not add height and would count as the same level as a hex next to it without an ice tile.

I hope that clears things up, and thanks again for being so patient. Have fun and good gaming!

Trevor
Customer Service Representative
Wizards of the Coast

I'm content this is Craig's decision since the last email said, "We are waiting to hear back from Craig."

So it's a double-space figure caveat to the "base lies flat" requirement on page 12, only applicable when the "unevenness" is caused by terrain that itself has no height (or by a glyph). I think it's a good ruling.

Krug-on-the-Bridge unevenness is different, because the interference is caused by terrain (the bridge rail) that does have height. But I still dislike the Krug-ot-Bridge ruling just as much.

H

 

[GaryLASQ]

So it's a double-space figure caveat to the "base lies flat" requirement on page 12, only applicable when the "unevenness" is caused by terrain that itself has no height (or by a glyph). I think it's a good ruling.

Sounds good to me also, especially when you think about Glyphs.

Here's a new one, and I'll start a separate thread for it if it needs in-depth discussion (which I don't feel it does)...

Question: In scenarios, when a start zone space is also a landing space for a ladder, can more than one figure start on the ladder, if more than one will fit?