# "The Lothal Spire", aka more questions about mobile figures on blocking terrain

## Recommended Posts

On the new Lothal map there's a tile that has a "cross" of blocking terrain, with impassable terrain at each corner.  You can partially see it at the right of this image:

I'm also going to be referencing the tile shown here from the old Nal Hutta map:

• On the Nal Hutta map, if two figures were each standing on opposite sides of the blocking terrain intersection such that their corners were touching, they would not be adjacent.
• On the Nal Hutta map, those two figures could not count spaces to one another through that corner and would thus be considered to be three spaces away from one another.
• If a mobile figure is standing on blocking terrain, you can both draw line of sight and count spaces to that figure as long as nothing else is blocking you.
• If you are in a space next to a mobile figure who is standing on blocking terrain, you are considered adjacent to that figure but not adjacent to the space that it is on.

So with all that out of the way, I've got a few questions pertaining to a mobile figure sitting right in the middle of that cross of blocking terrain on the Lothal map.  From here on out I'm just going to call that figure "Sabine" as a shorthand.

1) Is there any way for a non-mobile/massive figure to count spaces to Sabine?  Or does the "corner" where the two blocking terrain edges meet prevent that?  If they can count spaces, what in the rules distinguishes this case from the Nal Hutta one shown above?

2) If Sabine is in the middle space and another mobile figure is on one of the other blocking terrain spaces (i.e. orthogonality adjacent in the non-IA sense of the word) then I suspect those two figures are adjacent to one another.  But if the mobile figure is in one of the impassible terrain spaces (i.e. diagonally adjacent, in the non-IA sense), are the two figures still adjacent to one another?  Again, if so, what distinguishes this from the Nal Hutta example?

3) Can Sabine draw line of sight from her space in the middle of the cross to another figure sitting outside the cross in a regular space (say the other figure is one space to the right and two spaces down from Sabine).  Once again, if so, what distinguishes this from the Nal Hutta example?

I'm just going to go ahead and tag @a1bert now, but anybody who wants to chime in can feel free

##### Share on other sites

1) You can count spaces into a figure on blocking terrain, but you cannot count spaces through other blocking terrain spaces. The two corners where the other diagonal blocking spaces meet blocks line of sight and counting spaces. So, (non-mobile/non-massive) figures cannot draw LoS or Count Spaces to the middle space or to a figure on the middle space.

2) If two figures are on blocking terrain so that one gets to the other's space by moving 1 space, the figures are adjacent. (The spaces are not adjacent, a space with blocking terrain is not adjacent to any other space.) But, if the "acting" figure is in the impassable space, it still cannot draw LoS through the corner where blocking spaces other than the target's space (and the attacker's impassable space) meet (as far as I interpret the rules).

3) A figure on blocking terrain can draw LoS out of its own space. However, in the center space the diagonal intersection of the other blocking spaces seem to block line of sight for the same reason a figure on the impassable space cannot draw LoS to the center space. (I.e. if one is possible, then the other is possible too.)

Can't see the Nal Hutta example though... Which mission, which tile?

##### Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Can't see the Nal Hutta example though... Which mission, which tile?

Sorry, it's the big swampy tile in the lower-centre of this map here with the two spaces of blocking terrain diagonally next to one another:

So to recap, what I'm understanding is that if another figure with mobile/massive is on one of the other spaces next to the centre one on Lothal (either another blocking space OR one of the impassible ones) then those two figures (not spaces) are considered adjacent and can thus target each other for attacks, draw line of sight and count spaces.  This is because a figure standing next to a mobile figure on blocking terrain is always considered adjacent to that figure.

A figure on any other space has no way to draw LoS or count spaces to Sabine, nor can Sabine draw LoS or count spaces to them, because of the intersection of the two blocking terrain spaces that Sabine is not standing on.

Edited by ManateeX

##### Share on other sites

However, I'm slightly teetering on the diagonal intersection thing, because this is actually the first time that its existence occurred to me.

I.e. if you go by "ignore the terrain of the target and source of the ability", then the intersection still exists, but if you go by "able to draw LoS out of a corner of your space", the answer might be that you could draw line of sight out of the middle space (but with very limited direction).

##### Share on other sites

I teetered on that too, but for me it came back to the Nal Hutta example above.  In example 16 on the bottom of page 26 of the RRG it seems to spell it out pretty clearly that you can't get line of sight from one of these corners.  With that said, I'd love to see a ruling go the other way since for skirmish purposes it's really, really annoying to have that safe zone for mobile figures up there

What gets me is that the two rules make for an odd situation where if you're standing on the impassable section and targeting the middle, you are adjacent since that figure is on blocking terrain but you wouldn't be adjacent if that middle space was not blocking terrain.

##### Share on other sites

@a1bert another question around this terrain. If sabine is in the center of that spire, would her figure be considered adjacent to the diagonal space with impassable terrain? The spaces themselves are not adjacent, but the application would be for area of effect damage such as Grenadier, which targets figures adjacent to a space.

##### Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Fightwookies said:

If sabine is in the center of that spire, would her figure be considered adjacent to the diagonal space with impassable terrain?

I would've said yes before (and I have), but with the corners of the other two blocking spaces coming into play I am now hesitating between those corners blocking adjacency and being distance 1 meaning adjacency.

I'll probably need to take this up with Clipper and Todd one of these days.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, a1bert said:

I would've said yes before (and I have), but with the corners of the other two blocking spaces coming into play I am now hesitating between those corners blocking adjacency and being distance 1 meaning adjacency.

I'll probably need to take this up with Clipper and Todd one of these days.

Thanks, I'll probably submit a rules question on this as well, once i have some time to put together some relevant stuff. This terrain seems to bring in a lot of new questions that need clarifying.

##### Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, a1bert said:

I would've said yes before (and I have), but with the corners of the other two blocking spaces coming into play I am now hesitating between those corners blocking adjacency and being distance 1 meaning adjacency.

I'll probably need to take this up with Clipper and Todd one of these days.

Just to be clear you're saying that if I target a space next to a blocking space with grenadier, a mobile figure on the blocking space will get damaged?

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

Just to be clear you're saying that if I target a space next to a blocking space with grenadier, a mobile figure on the blocking space will get damaged?

Normally yes, because a figure, object, and non-blocking space can be adjacent to a figure or object on a blocking space. And I don't think non-reciprocal adjacency is something the game should have.

(Which is why I'm leaning to a figure on the spire being adjacent to the 8 surrounding spaces.)

##### Share on other sites

Here are the relevant rules:

Adjacent: "Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall, blocking terrain, or a door are not adjacent.",  "Two figures that are in adjacent spaces are adjacent figures."

Mobile: "If a figure with mobile occupies a space containing blocking terrain, line of sight can be traced to that figure, spaces can be counted to that figure, and adjacent figures can attack that figure."

Your argument is basically: "since you can count spaces to a mobile figure on a blocking terrain, that figure is adjacent to spaces surrounding the blocking terrain" but while that is sound logic, it's not explicitly stated in the rules that counting spaces overrides the definition of adjacency. Can you give me a more in depth explanation?

##### Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

it's not explicitly stated in the rules that counting spaces overrides the definition of adjacency. Can you give me a more in depth explanation?

Edit: answering different question below. Distance 1 = adjacent can be derived from the accuracy required to attack companions and objects in your space. Companions in the same space are defined to be adjacent, and require 1 accuracy, while 0 accuracy is required to attack objects in your space. I.e. by all available definitions, adjacent is 1 distance, so why would the opposite not hold. (Well, except for maybe Doors, which are again special, but it should not break anything with doors either.)

Extending mobile to all abilities and not just attacks starts with objects occupying blocking terrain in missions from the core box (and after), and figures are expected to interact with them. Thus a figure needs to be able to be adjacent to the objects. If "mobile" rules only applied to attacks, the objects would be useless.

I have talked with the rules extensively with Clipper (tech editor) and Todd and while the way to make them clearer through FAQ/Errata isn't decided, what I have in the Consolidated Imperial Assault Rules is the current consensus (current best knowledge).

Edited by a1bert

##### Share on other sites

"Blocking terrain spaces are not adjacent to entities.

Entities can be adjacent to each other when at least one of them is in a space with blocking terrain. Neither entity is adjacent to the space the other entity occupies. An entity is not adjacent to the space it occupies. (Allowing adjacency between a non-blocking space and an entity on blocking space would make the rules unnecessarily complex to remember and use.)"

So here you say that an entity occupying a blocking terrain space is not adjacent to the space targeted by grenadier, aren't you?

Deriving a definition for adjacent from the companion rules is a stretch, especially when the rule you quoted is stated to be an exception to normal rules ("A companion follows all normal rules for figures with the following exceptions:"). Just because companions in the same space are defined to be adjacent and require 1 accuracy doesn't mean 1 accuracy = adjacent. The fact the rules state separately that companions are both adjacent AND require 1 accuracy means that those things are not equal.

Finally "adjacent is 1 distance" is clearly not always true, as stated in the definition of adjacency "Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall, blocking terrain, or a door are not adjacent﻿."

Edited by brettpkelly

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

So here you say that an entity occupying a blocking terrain space is not adjacent to the space targeted by grenadier, aren't you?

Seems some of the ramblings and thoughts in the thread are probably outdated and simplicity has trumped some thematic issues.

2 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

Finally "adjacent is 1 distance" is clearly not always true, as stated in the definition of adjacency "Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall, blocking terrain, or a door are not adjacent﻿."

The spaces are not 1 distance. They are not adjacent. Clearly there is no contradiction.

Counting Spaces uses figure movement rules and says adjacent => distance 1. Sure, making the opposite distance 1 => adjacent is a stretch, but it is the best stretch we have. As far as I have found (and I have tried many ways to write the rules) it would be easiest way to get sense into the blocking space rules. (I have tried a lot of other ways, and the wordings become overly complex and circular.)

##### Share on other sites

Nowhere in the counting spaces  or adjacency sections of the RRG does it say that adjacent = distance 1. Adjacent being 1 counted space in practice doesn't mean adjacent = distance 1 by definition. The crux of the argument is "does the rules for mobile override the definition of adjacent", specifically "two spaces that share only a blocking edge are not considered adjacent." There's nothing that I can see in the rules that states that a space that is not adjacent to a blocking space, can be adjacent to the figure in that space. I can see that figures or objects can be adjacent to figures or objects in blocking terrain, but it seems to me that the space is not adjacent by definition.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, brettpkelly said:

Nowhere in the counting spaces  or adjacency sections of the RRG does it say that adjacent = distance 1.

Moving happens one space at a time to an adjacent space (terrain ignored if the figure has mobile or massive).
Counting Spaces gives 1 distance when a figure moves to an adjacent space.

##### Share on other sites

Fair enough,

So you're saying since you can count spaces to a figure on blocking terrain, that means the figure must be adjacent to the space you counted from? Starting to make more sense but I still feel like this is abstracting the definition of adjacent

##### Share on other sites
2 hours ago, a1bert said:

what I have in the Consolidated Imperial Assault Rules is the current consensus (current best knowledge).

Will I find what you meant here, under the "Blocking Terrain" paragraph?

Edited by Golan Trevize

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Golan Trevize said:

Will I find what you meant here, under the "Blocking Terrain" paragraph?

Mainly the purple texts throughout, and Appendix III for Blocking Terrain examples.

Edited by a1bert

##### Share on other sites

Glad this is being address but I guess I'm just more confused after reading this lol. So what's the verdict shaping to look like on the "spire"? Can figures like Han, IG or Vader attack a mobile figure in that center space in a normal attack?

##### Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord_Palpatine said:

Glad this is being address but I guess I'm just more confused after reading this lol. So what's the verdict shaping to look like on the "spire"? Can figures like Han, IG or Vader attack a mobile figure in that center space in a normal attack?

We're certain that no, it's not possible to draw line of sight (or count spaces) through the other spaces of blocking terrain that the (target) figure does not occupy. (See FAQ.)

##### Share on other sites
On 11/21/2018 at 9:17 PM, a1bert said:

We're certain that no, it's not possible to draw line of sight (or count spaces) through the other spaces of blocking terrain that the (target) figure does not occupy. (See FAQ.)

You can now, in this one special case:

##### Share on other sites
9 hours ago, a1bert said:

You can now, in this one special case:

What does this line mean?

• Melee attacks can be declared by or targeting that figure, ignoring those spaces of blocking terrain.

##### Share on other sites
1 hour ago, neosmagus said:

What does this line mean?

• Melee attacks can be declared by or targeting that figure, ignoring those spaces of blocking terrain.

It's a clarification that melee attacks can also ignore the terrain of those spaces, thus be adjacent (what Ahsoka represents in the image). (Otherwise the diagonal intersection of the 4 blocking spaces would prevent adjacency like we have discussed.)

Melee with reach would use the other bullets for counting spaces and line of sight.

##### Share on other sites
On 1/11/2019 at 1:30 AM, a1bert said:

It's a clarification that melee attacks can also ignore the terrain of those spaces, thus be adjacent (what Ahsoka represents in the image). (Otherwise the diagonal intersection of the 4 blocking spaces would prevent adjacency like we have discussed.)

Melee with reach would use the other bullets for counting spaces and line of sight.

looking at that ruling on the spire, is it possible for Ahsoka to be placed in the spot where she is in the ruling? We discussed this at length in our group, and don't think that should be possible because of this in the RRG:

Place:...

• A player cannot choose to place a figure in a space where it cannot end its movement, such as in a space containing another figure, blocking terrain, or impassable terrain.