Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Oor-tael

Aura vs. large monsters

Recommended Posts

DavidG55311 said:

SoylentGreen said:

 

BUT - I can now use the remaining movement - should I want - to run a circle around you - all the while remaining adjacent to you - BUT - I do not take another wound for each movement in an adjacent space - ONLY when I FIRST move adjacent to your monster with Aura 1.

 

 

 

Not sure why you think you would only take 1 damage in this case. The Aura ability does not say anything about the FIRST time you move adjacent. If you move into a space adjacent to a figure with aura, you take a damage. It says EACH time, which implies each and every time, not just the first.

A figure with acrobat/flying could actually move through a figure with aura and not take that extra hit of aura since you can not be adjacent to yourself and if you are moving through a figure you are in the exact same space.

I swear I've read a very similar discussion or something in a rule somewhere that confirmed what I said... But then again I've been in a cloud mentally all day. :)  I have no problem being wrong on this - but I still feel I read it some where. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you run circles around an enemy figure with Aura, you will accumulate damage  and die eventually. They should have rewritten the Aura ability to account for cases like what happens if you remain adjacent to an enemy's Aura source on subsequent turns. You should take damage in this case,imo, because the Aura continues to drain your health. But then it would  contradict the latter part of the Aura ability that says that a creature with Aura will not hurt an enemy figure if the Aura source moves adjacent to it. Ah, Descent rules  can be so confusing! :/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

zealot12 said:

 

If you run circles around an enemy figure with Aura, you will accumulate damage  and die eventually. They should have rewritten the Aura ability to account for cases like what happens if you remain adjacent to an enemy's Aura source on subsequent turns. You should take damage in this case,imo, because the Aura continues to drain your health. But then it would  contradict the latter part of the Aura ability that says that a creature with Aura will not hurt an enemy figure if the Aura source moves adjacent to it. Ah, Descent rules  can be so confusing! :/

 

 

Actually, that is in the FAQ.  If a figure remains in an Aura (or damaging terrain like lava) his entire turn, he will take damage when his turn ends.  And that doesn't contradict the bit about an Aura moving into your space at all.  You have to start in the Aura and be there the entire turn.  If the Aura moves into you, you didn't start there (it's not even your turn.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To James, fair enough on the grammar stuff. As I said, my actual grammar rules technical knowledge is pretty hazy at times. I guess I am guilty of trying to fudge my dubious grammar knowledge into proving what I instinctively 'know' is correct - sorry, my bad.

Ispher said:

Aura
Each time an enemy figure moves into a space adjacent to a figure with the Aura ability, it immediately suffers 1 wound that cannot be reduced by armor. The Aura ability inflicts no damage when the figure that possesses the ability moves adjacent to an enemy figure.

It must be 1 wound each time an enemy figure moves [into an Aura-affected space and whatever else, be it another Aura-affected space]. If it were 1 damage per space moved into, it would be written:

For each space adjacent to a figure with the Aura ability an enemy figure moves into, that enemy figure immediately suffers 1 wound that cannot be reduced by armor.

Indeed. Not necessarily 'must' be, perhaps, but it really is appallingly bad writing even by Descent standards if they intended it the other way round.

zealot12 said:

If you run circles around an enemy figure with Aura, you will accumulate damage and die eventually. They should have rewritten the Aura ability to account for cases like what happens if you remain adjacent to an enemy's Aura source on subsequent turns. You should take damage in this case,imo, because the Aura continues to drain your health. But then it would contradict the latter part of the Aura ability that says that a creature with Aura will not hurt an enemy figure if the Aura source moves adjacent to it. Ah, Descent rules can be so confusing! :/

They did, effectively.
FAQ pg10
Q: What happens if you are on a lava space at the beginning of your turn and you don’t move?
A: If you begin your turn on a damaging effect, such as lava or a monster’s aura, and do not move off of it, you are damaged by it at the end of your turn.

SoylentGreen said:

DavidG55311 said:

SoylentGreen said:

 

BUT - I can now use the remaining movement - should I want - to run a circle around you - all the while remaining adjacent to you - BUT - I do not take another wound for each movement in an adjacent space - ONLY when I FIRST move adjacent to your monster with Aura 1.

 

 

 

Not sure why you think you would only take 1 damage in this case. The Aura ability does not say anything about the FIRST time you move adjacent. If you move into a space adjacent to a figure with aura, you take a damage. It says EACH time, which implies each and every time, not just the first.

A figure with acrobat/flying could actually move through a figure with aura and not take that extra hit of aura since you can not be adjacent to yourself and if you are moving through a figure you are in the exact same space.

I swear I've read a very similar discussion or something in a rule somewhere that confirmed what I said... But then again I've been in a cloud mentally all day. :) I have no problem being wrong on this - but I still feel I read it some where. :)



You are wrong Soylent Green, sorry.
DavidG55311 says above it 'implies' each time, but in actualy fact it is stronger than implies. It outright says each time! cool.gif

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Corbon said:


You are wrong Soylent Green, sorry.
DavidG55311 says above it 'implies' each time, but in actualy fact it is stronger than implies. It outright says each time! cool.gif

DANG!!! And actually - as I thought about it more I knew I was gonna be. Just waiting for someone to confirm it. babeo.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

When I first began reading this thread, I was very persuaded by Corbon's argument based on the single trigger condition.

But now I think otherwise, because of the considerations on different levels of aura, and the fact that the quoted written rule on aura predates the leveling of the ability (and is therefore somewhat obsolete).

 

Consider the following scenarios:

1)  An Ogre moves adjacent to a Bottle Imp, such that 2 of the Ogre's base squares are adjacent to the Imp.

2) An Ogre moves such that 1 square is adjacent to a Bottle Imp, and 1 different square is adjacent to a unit with Holy Aura.

3) An Ogre moves adjacent to Shiver, such that 1 of the Ogre's base squares is adjacent to Shiver.

4) An Ogre moves adjacent to Shiver, such that 2 of the Ogre's base squares are adjacent to Shiver

5) An Ogre moves such that 1 square is adjacent to the Imp and Shiver, who share the same space,

6) An Ogre moves such that 1 square is adjacent to the Imp, and 1 different square is adjacent to Shiver.

By a literal reading of the outdated rules, all of these scenarios result in 1 damage, which would totally eliminate the notion of levels of Aura. This is clearly contrary to good design, therefore the RAW cannot be used and need to be reinterpreted. Merely including a phrase about "for each level of Aura" doesn't really do the trick, because if there are different levels and only one trigger, who gets to decide?

My initial inclinations  are for the Ogre to take

1) 1 damage.

2) 2 damage.

3) 4 damage.

4) 4 damage.

5) 5 damage.

6) 5 damage.

However, this is inconsistent. My brain doesn't want the the Ogre to take more than 1 damage for example 1, but does want it to take 2 damage from example 2.  The only way to legitimately conceptualize this is to imagine that we need to worry about different sources of Aura, which, of course, is nowhere in the rules. Also, (in example 5) since Shiver and the Imp are different things, their Aura shouldn't technically stack, because they're different sources of the effect. (This is in contrast to Shiver with Holy Aura). If they are supposed to stack, then Aura must be something that has more to do with the individual spaces than with the aura unit itself. If they don't stack, then it's incredibly ambiguous what is supposed to happen when a unit moves into a space with overlapping Auras. 

 

Here's the most important thing:

I think most people would agree that #6 is 5 damage.  But if that's true, then #2 must be 2 damage. And if that's true, then #1 should be 2 damage as well.

 

Therefore, I think that the most elegant way to have Aura function is to read something like this:

Aura: A unit with Aura (X) projects the X levels of Aura onto each space adjacent to it. Each time an opposing unit moves into a space with Aura, it loses 1 wound for each level of Aura projected into each new space.

 

This will make the scenarios above read as

1) 2 damage.

2) 2 damage.

3) 4 damage.

4) 8 damage.

5) 5 damage.

6) 5 damage.

 

Conceptualizing the aura as being an effect of the space is, for me, the most intuitive and consonant way to think about it.  But if anyone has a different definition that works well in the examples given, I'd love to hear about it.

-pw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phelanward said:

 

By a literal reading of the outdated rules, all of these scenarios result in 1 damage

 

 

Actually, a literal reading of the rules does not tell you anything about how to deal with large monsters. The Aura description does not know large figures exist.

phelanward said:

 

The only way to legitimately conceptualize this is to imagine that we need to worry about different sources of Aura, which, of course, is nowhere in the rules. Also, (in example 5) since Shiver and the Imp are different things, their Aura shouldn't technically stack, because they're different sources of the effect. (This is in contrast to Shiver with Holy Aura). If they are supposed to stack, then Aura must be something that has more to do with the individual spaces than with the aura unit itself. If they don't stack, then it's incredibly ambiguous what is supposed to happen when a unit moves into a space with overlapping Auras.

 

 

Different sources of Aura may not be in the JitD rulebook, but it is in the FAQ.

FAQ p. 12:
Q: If a hero enters a space that is adjacent to multiple enemy figures that each possess the Aura ability, is the damage considered to come from one source or multiple (for purposes of Corbin, Skull Shield, etc.)?
A: Multiple sources.

With Shiver and the Imp, the Aura effects should not stack, but the Ogre doesn't get to ignore one of them. They should be applied separately (consecutively), because they're different sources of damage.

 

EDIT - +1 to all of your "initial" damage numbers.

I think most people would agree that #6 is 5 damage. But if that's true, then #2 must be 2 damage. And if that's true, then #1 should be 2 damage as well.

False. #1 should still be 1 damage, as the source of the Aura does matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Hmm... Mahkra, I'm not sure I see your point here. The FAQ entry you quote does acknowledge that damage from Aura has a source, but I don't quite see how your conclusion follows from that.

I think you're misreading the quote passage. That entry is about sources of damage for the purposes of preventing it. What it's saying is that damage from different Auras is considered to come from different sources– the distinction being that each aura is a different source of damage. By analogy, the source of the damage from some Burn tokens is the Burn tokens; it doesn't matter that a Dragon produced one and a Lava Beetle the others (or that maybe there was only one source of them). Aura damage comes from Aura, and burn damage comes from Burn token, but the entry doesn't really say anything about the sources of the effect, which is really what you're talking about.

Now, if you're suggesting an amendment to the rules to say "A figure cannot suffer wounds more than once a given Aura during the same move", I can get behind that. However, that's nowhere in the rules I know.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phelanward said:

When I first began reading this thread, I was very persuaded by Corbon's argument based on the single trigger condition.

 

But now I think otherwise, because of the considerations on different levels of aura, and the fact that the quoted written rule on aura predates the leveling of the ability (and is therefore somewhat obsolete).

Consider the following scenarios:

1)  An Ogre moves adjacent to a Bottle Imp, such that 2 of the Ogre's base squares are adjacent to the Imp.

2) An Ogre moves such that 1 square is adjacent to a Bottle Imp, and 1 different square is adjacent to a unit with Holy Aura.

3) An Ogre moves adjacent to Shiver, such that 1 of the Ogre's base squares is adjacent to Shiver.

4) An Ogre moves adjacent to Shiver, such that 2 of the Ogre's base squares are adjacent to Shiver

5) An Ogre moves such that 1 square is adjacent to the Imp and Shiver, who share the same space,

6) An Ogre moves such that 1 square is adjacent to the Imp, and 1 different square is adjacent to Shiver.

By a literal reading of the outdated rules, all of these scenarios result in 1 damage, which would totally eliminate the notion of levels of Aura. This is clearly contrary to good design, therefore the RAW cannot be used and need to be reinterpreted. Merely including a phrase about "for each level of Aura" doesn't really do the trick, because if there are different levels and only one trigger, who gets to decide?

 

This is almost incorrect. The original rules can be used perfectly well with Levels of Aura, with an unstated but quite obvious (ie, follows the same principle as every other Ranked ability, which is a simple multiplier) method.
DJitD pg 22
Note that some special abilities have ranks (e.g., Fear 2 or Blast 1). The effects of these ranks are always explained in the ability description. If a hero or monster gains a given special ability from more than one source, any ranks the ability has are added together (this is commonly known as 'stacking').
Now Aura didn't have ranks in the original version so the effect of extra ranks of Aura isn't explained anywhere. In fact, the effect of extra ranks of Aura wasn't even explained in ToI, which does have Ranked Auras and even explicitly says that Ranks of Aura can stack so that Shiver (Aura 4) + Sparks of Pain (Aura 4) is Aura 8 for Shiver! (that is a single source, since Shiver gets both benefits and is the 'source' of the Aura). We can easily see from Pierce, Sorcery, Blast and Command that Ranks are a simple multiplying factor. Therefore Aura 2 on a monster is a single source of Aura damage that does 2 damage each time an enemy figure moves into an adjacent space.

There is no real need for reinterpretation at all.

Different sources of anything are always treated separately, so walking into two different Aura's at one time does not need any interpretation or special rules. The FAQ merely confirms that the two sources do not stack into a single 'source' if they are not coming from the same figure. Different sources of aura on the same figure stack, because it is the figure that has the ability. When you move adjacent to that figure you are affected by that figure's Aura. Different sources from different figures do not stack because they are completely different Aura's. WHen you move adjacent to two figures with Aura the two Aur'as each affect you independently.

phelanward said:

My initial inclinations  are for the Ogre to take

 

1) 1 damage.

2) 2 damage.

3) 4 damage.

4) 4 damage.

5) 5 damage.

6) 5 damage.

However, this is inconsistent. My brain doesn't want the the Ogre to take more than 1 damage for example 1, but does want it to take 2 damage from example 2.  The only way to legitimately conceptualize this is to imagine that we need to worry about different sources of Aura, which, of course, is nowhere in the rules. Also, (in example 5) since Shiver and the Imp are different things, their Aura shouldn't technically stack, because they're different sources of the effect. (This is in contrast to Shiver with Holy Aura). If they are supposed to stack, then Aura must be something that has more to do with the individual spaces than with the aura unit itself. If they don't stack, then it's incredibly ambiguous what is supposed to happen when a unit moves into a space with overlapping Auras. 

 

1) Correct
2) Correct
3) Correct
4) Correct
5) Correct
6) Correct

There is absolutely no inconsistency here. Different Sources of Aura are in the rules, indirectly. Every effect is treated on its own, so a source of Aura from figure A is treated entirely separately froma source of Aura from figure B. Just as any other effect would be treated separately, such as two master Dark Priests both giving -1/-1, or two Naga's both grappling (not that grapple has a doubling effect, but each source is separate so if there was some way of removing (as opposed to being immune) grapple, it would need to be removed from both Nagas) or two Master Beastmen commanding, or one commanding beastman and 1 grappling Naga. Each effect in independent and treated as such, except that in cases where one figure receives an ability from several sources, that ability stacks for that figure and that figure is one source with a stacked ability.

The entire system is entirely consistent and even logical - remembering that it is a game and needs simple rules.
Rule 1. Every effect is treated individually, in general.
Rule 2. Effects that are attributes of figures (or tokens) (eg, Pierce, Sorcery, Aura, Grapple) are one effect for that figure (or token). So if a figure has multiple sources of an effect those sources stack, for that figure.

phelanward said:

Here's the most important thing:

 

I think most people would agree that #6 is 5 damage.  But if that's true, then #2 must be 2 damage. And if that's true, then #1 should be 2 damage as well.

 

Umm, bollocks. gran_risa.gif
Just because #2 is 2 damage does not make #1 2 damage.
#2 is two sources of Aura - the Imp and the Holy Aura-ed hero. Each source does 1 damage according to the Aura rules. (Corbin would take 0 damage).
#1 is 1 source of Aura. It does 1 damage according to the Aura rules (each time...)
 

phelanward said:

Therefore, I think that the most elegant way to have Aura function is to read something like this:

 

Aura: A unit with Aura (X) projects the X levels of Aura onto each space adjacent to it. Each time an opposing unit moves into a space with Aura, it loses 1 wound for each level of Aura projected into each new space.

 

This is a prefectly adequate way to deal with aura, and elegant in it's own right, but simply isn't what the rules say and is a change is both mechanics and effect. A bad change I think, and I think you'll struggle to find people who believe that it would make a good change in it's results, even if the mechanics were clearer and cleaner.

phelanward said:

Conceptualizing the aura as being an effect of the space is, for me, the most intuitive and consonant way to think about it.  But if anyone has a different definition that works well in the examples given, I'd love to hear about it.

 

-pw

 

 

Just because your head wraps around one way better than another, isn't any reason to change a perfectly good rule.
There is a good reason not to change it - large monsters suffering the effects once per movement-space rather than area space is consistant with the way the rest of the rules interact . With AoE attacks, with other damaging terrain etc. Ogres simply don't go 'ow, ow' when they move into an Aura and take double the Aura's effect any more than they go 'ow, ow' and take double the effect of an explosion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 to everything Corbon stated above. 

Also have anyone really considered the implications of what they're saying if Aura affected each space of a figure when it entered it?  That would mean that Nagas, Ogres, Spiders, and Manticores whether master or regular would all be one-shotted instantly if they even stepped next to Shiver.....that seems too far-fetched to be correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pg. 15 Journeys in the Dark (Under Large Monsters)

Large monsters can only be targeted once by a single attack, even if a Blast or Sweep attack covers multiple spaces occupied by the figure. Likewise, large monsters only take one wound from slime per move, no matter how many spaces containing slime they enter.

While slime isn't a part of the rules, I like to extend this to all effects that can trigger from a large monster moving. They are only effected once each time they move. The rule is clean and simple and doesn't conflict with anything as far as I know. Change Slime to Aura, Mud, Lava, Ice, etc. and it will always make sense.

Kartigan barely beat me to my other part of the response. Great job at being a ninja.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

phelanward said:

 

Conceptualizing the aura as being an effect of the space is, for me, the most intuitive and consonant way to think about it.  But if anyone has a different definition that works well in the examples given, I'd love to hear about it.

-pw

 

 

I kinda missed out my reply to this part so I'd like to add it later and see if I can fix your conceptualisation problem.

Aura is not an effect of the space, it is an effect of a figure (or token) that extends into certain spaces.

Lets take, for example, Shiver, and a bottle imp.

_12345
A
B_S_I_
C
D

Shiver stands at space B2. His Aura is a blue glow that covers the spaces A1-3, B1, B3, and C1-3.
The Bottle Imp is at space B4, His Aura is a yellow glow that extends over A3-5, B3, B5 and C3-5.

An Ogre approaches. He moves into spaces CD12. He is standing in two of Shiver's aura spaces but has moved into Shivers blue 'aura' 'field' once and suffers 4 damage, not 8. He says OW. He has not moved into Shiver's Aura field 'twice' and it would be very strange were he to take double damage from Shiver's Aura for his single entry, saying OW, OW!
The Ogre moves into CD23. He is once again moving in the blue shiver force field and says OW, taking 4 wounds. He also moves into the weaker yellow forcefield and says 'ow' for an additional 1 point of damage. Exactly the same would happen to his beastman colleague moving into space A3 - an OW from the blue force field and a 'ow' from the yellow force field for 5 points of damage.

Suppose Shiver plays Sparks of Pain. This does not provide a new, red force field around Shiver. Rather, it strengthens the Blue force field so that it does 8 damage rather than 4 damage. In all other ways the situation is unchanged.

Suppose Shiver has Holy Aura skill. In this case his blue force field merely does 5 points of damage at a time (9 when he plays Sparks of Pain). He does not get an additional small orange force field.

Suppose the Ogre wishes to Charge past/over the bottle imp to attack another hero in space A3. The Ogre starts in DE23. He moves to DE34 for 1 MP (he wisely is avoiding Shiver). He moves to CD45 for the second MP, and a single point of damage as he pushes into the bottle Imp Aura. He moves to BC45 (on top of the imp) for his 3rd MP and another point of damage as he continues to push through the aura. He attacks the hero in A3 (B4 is adjacent) and then retreats back the way he came suffering another point of damage on the way.

Suppose a beastman at D1 wishes to attack the hero at A5. He moves to D2, C3, B4, C4, attacking from B4 (IIRC he can't finish on the IMP?). He suffers 5 wounds at C3, since he is entering both auras. He suffers no wounds at B4, since he is in no aura and he suffers another wound at C4 as he retreats back into the Imp's aura.Obviously the beastman is upgraded in an advanced campaign or the wounds would have killed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James McMurray said:

Corbon said:

 

 

Just read it! preocupado.gif

The 'trigger' is the time. The 'space' is not the trigger, it is a condition on the trigger. It is a case of basic english language sentence structure...

When a figure moves into two spaces at one time (and it is one time) then Aura is triggered once. If it moves into two spaces consecutively, then that would be two times, and triggered twice.

 

 

So if I tell you that each time I get a soda from you I pay 50 cents, then I can now get 400 sodas for 50 cents if I can manage to pick them all up at once? There is no grammatical allowance for splitting that clause into two pieces and then throwing one out the window, regardless of how reasonable the result is. If your claim is that its basic English usage to separate the dependent parts of a clause and then ignore one of them, you'll need more than "because I say so" or "just read it" as proof.

BTW, the answer to this is yes. Except you can't possible get them all at once because 'a soda' is an individual thing (which is slightly different to 'a space' for a multi-space monster moving). A 'pair' or 'pallet' of sodas is not the same thing as 'a soda', and I would rightly refuse to allow you to 'get' multiple soda's at one time under the conditions of the original contract.

$200 please.

 

You aren't comparing apples to apples.
But I was still probably dubious on the grammar distinctions...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is a pair of simultaneous sodas not allowed, and thus costs me $1, but a pair of simultaneous squares is and thus only deals 1 damage?

"Each x at y causes z." Either both x and y matter (and I don't get free sodas but the ogre takes 2 damage), or they don't (and I'm out some free soda but the ogre gets to avoid some pain).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's improve that soda analogy.

Imagine Corbon said he'd sell you a 12-ounce can of soda for $0.50, but then you wanted to buy a 2-liter bottle of soda. You could determine the price-per-ounce and then calculate the equivalent price for the 2-liter bottle, but that's not necessarily right. Maybe the 2-liter should have a volume discount and thus a lower price-per-ounce. Or maybe both sizes should be the same price, $0.50 for either. (This may not be true with a can vs bottle of soda, but it is true with things like McDonald's coffee, I believe $0.99 for any size, or something like that.)

If all you have is a price for a 12-ounce can, there's absolutely no way you can know the price of a 2-liter bottle.

If all we're given is a rule that addresses normal-sized figures, there's no way we can know how it works for large figures. (The way I interpret Aura for large figures is based on rules for AoE attacks and damaging terrain, since the Aura rule doesn't tell us anything.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But it doesn't really make sense to calculate Aura damage based on the creature's size. The rule for Aura describes what happens when a figure(note, it doesn't mention size) moves adjacent to an enemy's Aura source. Had a figure's size been relevant for determining the amount of damage it takes from Aura, an appropriate comment would have been added in parenthesis.Size only matters in this case when the figure(due to its positioning ) is adjacent to overlapping sources of Aura.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If all we're given is a rule that addresses normal-sized figures, there's no way we can know how it works for large figures. (The way I interpret Aura for large figures is based on rules for AoE attacks and damaging terrain, since the Aura rule doesn't tell us anything.)

The rule doesn't mention size at all. Why the continued assertion that it assumes medium creatures?

Had a figure's size been relevant for determining the amount of damage it takes from Aura, an appropriate comment would have been added in parenthesis.

Perhaps by any reasonable-minded rules writer who'd done at least an ounce of play-testing. But assuming that sort of logic from Descent's staff seems a tad bit naive. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...But large monsters only suffer 1 space's worth of effect when they move into multiple spaces under the same effect.   That is in the rules.  That part was playtested.  It seems naïve to assume that explicit mention of one interaction in the rules means that the rules writers are neither reasonable nor good playtesters.

It's especially naïve to assume that the general case for Large Monsters does not apply in this specific case when no exception has been made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James McMurray said:

Why is a pair of simultaneous sodas not allowed, and thus costs me $1, but a pair of simultaneous squares is and thus only deals 1 damage?

"Each x at y causes z." Either both x and y matter (and I don't get free sodas but the ogre takes 2 damage), or they don't (and I'm out some free soda but the ogre gets to avoid some pain).

Because in our contract 'a soda' has no other possible connotations or equivalents, or at least none that I will accept. You might bring an 10,000 gallon cup and claim that is 'a soda' but I'll just laugh in your face. 'A soda' is always 'a soda', and depending on the local context will either mean the standard sized cup fulls that I offer for sale (probably filled with ice to save me money and rip you off) or a standard, sealed 350ml can.

'A space' might mean a 1x1 area or it might mean a bigger area, or it might mean the smallest possible partition of movement. Arguably, for a large monster, in this context entering 'a space' could (and I am sure does) mean 'any' space, not 'each' space. Each is explicitly attached to 'time' in the sentence rather than 'space.
When a large monster moves in general you would say he 'moves a space' even though he could be entering 2 or even 3 new spaces.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thundercles said:

...But large monsters only suffer 1 space's worth of effect when they move into multiple spaces under the same effect.   That is in the rules.  That part was playtested.  It seems naïve to assume that explicit mention of one interaction in the rules means that the rules writers are neither reasonable nor good playtesters.

It's especially naïve to assume that the general case for Large Monsters does not apply in this specific case when no exception has been made.

This has been mentioned before in this thread multiple times, but is conveniently ignored since it is more or less inarguable as to what it means... preocupado.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James McMurray said:

Something tells me you may need to look up "inarguable." partido_risa.gif

Why? I haven't seen anyone bother to argue against it, just ignore it. As you continue to do...

Besides, I did say more or less...  Some people will argue the inarguable from sheer stubbornness. gui%C3%B1o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then let me argue against it before I wander away from this thread. I continuously tell myself to avoid stupid internet arguments where neither side will ever allow themselves to be convinced, but I continuously forget and ignore that as well. :)

'A space' might mean a 1x1 area or it might mean a bigger area, or it might mean the smallest possible partition of movement.

The rulebook disagrees with you. Large monsters occupy multiple spaces.* Each square on the board is considered one space.** Every space that is touching a given space (even at the corners) is adjacent to that given space.**

Unless you can find a place that redefines space in the game to mean "sometimes a 1x1 area, sometimes whatever I want it to mean" that argument has no legs.

...But large monsters only suffer 1 space's worth of effect when they move into multiple spaces under the same effect. That is in the rules. That part was playtested. It seems naïve to assume that explicit mention of one interaction in the rules means that the rules writers are neither reasonable nor good playtesters.

Where is this listed as a general rule? In fact, with terrain, monsters are typically unaffected unless they are completely within it or the overlord decides they should be affected. If we declare that Aura works like terrain then large monsters become effectively immune. I think a better option is to follow the aura rules, since it doesn't neuter several feats, a skill, and a hero. cool.gif

And now, my friends, adieu. Hopefully enough has been said that people who are looking to learn rather than argue can make up their own minds. And (even more) hopefully its been made clear that the next iteration of the FAQ needs an entry for large creatures and Aura. Personally I hope they go with the interpretation that it's once per movement, not once per space. gran_risa.gif

* JitD p. 4
** JitD p. 4 and repeated on p. 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

James McMurray said:

Then let me argue against it before I wander away from this thread. I continuously tell myself to avoid stupid internet arguments where neither side will ever allow themselves to be convinced, but I continuously forget and ignore that as well. :)

'A space' might mean a 1x1 area or it might mean a bigger area, or it might mean the smallest possible partition of movement.

The rulebook disagrees with you. Large monsters occupy multiple spaces.* Each square on the board is considered one space.** Every space that is touching a given space (even at the corners) is adjacent to that given space.**

Unless you can find a place that redefines space in the game to mean "sometimes a 1x1 area, sometimes whatever I want it to mean" that argument has no legs.

Bollocks!
Specificly generic to our discussion...
DJitD pg15 (the large monster rules, for movement no less!)
1. The figure moves one half of its body into a non-diagonal adjacent space while the other half of its body moves into the space(s) that the first half just vacated
2. The figure moves to a diagonally adjacent space by moving both halves of its body in the same diagonal direction (also called “sidestepping”). Both types of movement are illustrated in the diagram on page 17.

In both of these cases 'a space' is used when 'multiple spaces' are actually indicated.
A 4 space monster cannot move into a single non-diagonal space without also moving into another new, non-diagonal space. The phrase 'a space' here actually means 2 spaces for a 2x2 monster and 2 or 3 spaces for a 2x3 monster.
A 4 space monster cannot move into a single diagonal space without also moving into 2 other new spaces. The phrase 'a space' here actually means 3 spaces for a 2x2 monster and 4 spaces for a 2x3 monster.
And these are the most directly applicable references to 'a space' in the entire rules!


James McMurray said:


...But large monsters only suffer 1 space's worth of effect when they move into multiple spaces under the same effect. That is in the rules. That part was playtested. It seems naïve to assume that explicit mention of one interaction in the rules means that the rules writers are neither reasonable nor good playtesters.

Where is this listed as a general rule? In fact, with terrain, monsters are typically unaffected unless they are completely within it or the overlord decides they should be affected. If we declare that Aura works like terrain then large monsters become effectively immune. I think a better option is to follow the aura rules, since it doesn't neuter several feats, a skill, and a hero. cool.gif

And now, my friends, adieu. Hopefully enough has been said that people who are looking to learn rather than argue can make up their own minds.

The rule book text saying this has been quoted several times already! You might perhaps follow your own advice about trying to learn rather than just argue a position?

DJitD pg 15 (surpirse, surprise, the large monster section!)
• Large monsters can only be targeted once by a single attack, even if a Blast or Sweep attack covers multiple spaces occupied by the figure. Likewise, large monsters only take one wound from slime per move, no matter how many spaces containing slime they enter.

Obviously slime never made it into the final rules. Equally obviously it is/was a space effect, probably an obstacle, probably similar in nature to lava.
It seems also fairly obvious that this is a general rule about large monsters and is intended to show that large monsters suffer any (damaging) effect (be it explosion, terrain, aura etc) only the same amount of times as a single space monster would.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...