Shadowcloak says (from the ToI rulebook):

Shadowcloak
A figure with the Shadowcloak ability is only affected by
attacks made by adjacent figures. The figure does not suffer
any wounds or effects from attacks originating farther than one
space away.

Does that mean the OL can attack shadowcloaked heros (or other monsters for that matter) from the distance, gaining threat for every two surges, but not harming the target?

A similar tactic would be accessible to the heros with the Staff of Knowledge (the one that makes the OL lose threat).

It's my understanding that it's perfectly legal to attack a valid space, regardless of there being any chance of doing damage. So yes, your beastman can claw the floor, hoping to get surges.

Off the top of my head, I though that you had to have a valid target and that only AoE attacks (blast) would target an empty space. I could be wrong, though.

Feanor, care to weigh in on this?

The tactic wouldn´t be to attack an empty space, but a space with a shadowcloaked figure in. The attack in itself is perfectly legal, as well as it is clear that the target isn´t wounded or doesn´t receive effect tokens if non-adjacent.

Right. I agree with the shadowcloaked target/attacking for surges, but as to having a beastman claw the floor for surges? I don't think that works.

Well the rules state you are attacking a space, and never say anything about the attack having to have a chance of success. While it might seem ridiculous to perform a melee attack many spaces from any valid heroes, is it that much more ridiculous than making a ranged attack many spaces away?

That question is clearly answered in the FAQ - no Beastmen clawing the floor (at least they don´t have any effect).

Q: Can heroes attack an empty square? For example, could a blast effect be centered in an empty square or could a hero fire his Staff of Knowledge off into a corner to burn the overlord’s threat?
A: Yes. However, if after spending surges there are no valid targets in the area of the attack (hero or monster), the entire attack is canceled without effect. This means that if the blast is not large enough, the attack fails, and the Staff of Knowledge must actually hit something to use its ability.

I think a debate with respect to "they say heros not monsters" is not necessary.

From the FAQ:

Q: Can heroes attack an empty square? For example, could a blast effect be centered in an empty square or could a hero fire his Staff of Knowledge off into a corner to burn the overlord’s threat?
A: Yes. However, if after spending surges there are no valid targets in the area of the attack (hero or monster), the entire attack is canceled without effect. This means that if the blast is not large enough, the attack fails, and the Staff of Knowledge must actually hit something to use its ability.

And the definition of Shadowcloak from AoD:

Shadowcloak: A figure with the Shadowcloak ability is only affected by attacks made by adjacent figures. The figure does not suffer any wounds or effects from attacks originating farther than one space away.

To the best of my knowledge of the RAW, if you want to sit there and fire at the space the Shadowcloaked monster is in you can. Since Shadowcloak says you aren't affected by the attack. It doesn't say you can't be attacked . So by the RAW, or at least it seems that way, you could do what you guys are talking about.

I love conversations like this since I always learn something new. It never really clicked in my head that the description for Shadowcloak says wounds not damage . That to me by the RAW means that you actually can attack a Shadowcloaked figure and damage it, but you can't wound it or give it effects tokens or apply knockback. Since it doesn't say you can't damage it, you should always be able to make a valid attack against a Shadowcloaked figured from a distance as the OL and generate threat from the attack.

This is in interesting contrast to the Ghost ability, which actually says:

Ghost: Figures with the Ghost ability cannot be attacked by adjacent figures using a melee attack.
A figure with the Reach ability can attack a figure that has the Ghost ability using a melee attack, as long as both figures are not adjacent and the Ghost figure is within range of the Reach figure.

I've seen a number of people argue that Shadowcloak and Ghost are flipsides of the same ability, but that's not really true. Shadowcloak allows the attack to happen without affect, while Ghost flat out prevents it. So while you can use a Dark Priest to generate threat on a Shadowcloaked figure from a distance, you can't have a Beastman make a melee attack against a figure with Ghost to do the same thing.

Parathion said:

I concur. And by extension, the answer to the OP's question is "yes, you can target the space containing a shadowcloaked figure with ranged attacks, but the target will nto be valid and so no benefit will be gained in the end." Just in case that wasn't also clear

Steve-O said:

I disagree with your last statement. Do you have any support?

I stand corrected. I wasn't actually going to have my beastmen attack the floor anyway. That would be a pretty lame move.

Feraldis said:

Remember I don't start work until 9:30 and sometimes actually have to do stuff at work before checking the forums...but I appreciate the nod.

Based on the description of shadowcloak, if you have the range to the target I would agree you could, for example, grab a fatigue from the gauntlets of power. I therefore agree with Remy. I'm not sure they meant it to work that way, but my "feelings" have no real value in this forum. Beastmen on the floor or heroes hitting empty spaces are clearly a no from the faq as quoted.

This does cause me to want to ask a similar question as it has always been unclear with our group:

Many weapons allow you to spend surges for range. Sometimes, unless you spend surges for range you are not able to reach the figure(space) you are attacking. In this way, it seems you are spending surges to make range, assuming your blue/white die does not show an "X". On the other hand, if you don't make range your attack does not have a valid target. This rarely has any meaning for heroes, but we have often played that if monsters don't roll an "X" but don't have range to their intended target hero (space) that they can still gain threat for the OL. The more I think about this, the more I'm pretty sure it's wrong since the line from the faq pretty clearly states you have to have a valid target or the attack is cancelled without effect. I suppose you can spend surges to make it a valid attack, but if you can't get it there (and in the case of all monsters but dark priests you aren't getting range from surges) even with the surges you don't get to spend any surges..?

Thoughts? Can you still spend surges on a miss due to range only?

From the FAQ:

Q: Under what circumstances can the overlord receive threat for rolling surges on an attack roll?
A: The overlord may spend two surges on each attack roll to gain one threat. He may do this on any attack that hits a hero. This represents a change from previous FAQ rulings on this subject.

So...no hitting the Hero with an attack, no threat from the attack roll. Jives with the whole "valid target" thing mentioned above. If you miss due to range on an attack, then you can't spend the surges to gain threat.

Shadowcloak only lists wounds and effects as specific examples of things that do not happen, but the first sentence of the description says that the figure is not "affected" by the attack. So if we were really going to be pedantic, we have to ask whether "hitting" a hero involves "affecting" that hero (causing it to be prevented by Shadowcloak) or not.

Naturally, "hitting a figure" isn't actually something that you can even do by the precise wording of the attack rules. An attack can hit or miss based on range and whether you roll an "X". There is no provision made for hitting or not hitting a particular figure . Which is probably why every status effect in the game is based on damage or wounds rather than "hitting." But they just had to go and make up a rule based on hitting a figure and stick it in the FAQ, so here we are.

In a similar vein, the "cannot be attacked" wording on the Ghost ability is also not supported by the attack rules, since you can normally only attack a space and not a figure. If you interpret as meaning that you can't make any attack that would affect the Ghost figure if it were allowed, that means you can't make Sweep attacks while next to an enemy with Ghost, even to just try and hit other enemies in range. Not that that would come up very often.

So, yeah, have fun with that.

Parathion said:

Um, what exactly do you disagree about? You yourself are the one who posted the FAQ answer. Do you disagree that a shadowcloaked figure would be considered an invalid target for a ranged attack that targetted it's space? If so, then all I can say is Shadowcloak states it is not affected by attacks from non-adjacent spaces. "Not affected" means the same thing as "invalid target" to me. If you disagree with that statement, then we'll just have to agree to never sit down and play this game together.

Of course a shadowcloaked figure is a valid target, or more specifically, a space with such a figure in (as well as any space within LoS for that matter).

Look at the shadowcloak rule again - it says that the figure doesn´t suffer wounds or effects from non-adjacent attacks. It doesn´t say non-adjacent attacks are illegal.

Since it is highly unlikely that we ever meet I guess I can live with your exclusion of mine from your Descent games

(I am just wondering why your answer sounds a little rude to me - if you don´t like discussion, why bother participating in it?)

Steve-O said:

He probably does disagree since it is simply incorrect.

Not affected means not affected (nothing about targeting, just shrugs off any attacks whether they target it or are indirect).
Invalid target mean invalid target (cannot be a target - arguably could still be affected if not targeted, say by an AoE weapon targeting another space.)

Different terms, different meaning. In some cases the might have the same results. That doesn't make them equivalent though.

Big Remy said:

If I understand that FAQ entry correctly, the OL can only gain one threat per attack, regardless how many surges he has (provided he has at least two, of course), right?

How about the Dark Priest? Does he still give one threat per surge or is he also limited to one threat?

I believe it's stackable; the OL gets 2 threat from 4 surges in normal situations (i.e. no Dark Priests).

Morgaln said:

Just like heroes being able to spend multiple surges for effects, OLs can spend multiples for multiple effects. Easiest example is that if you have a shop axe and roll 3 surges, you get +3 damage, not +1 and two spare surges.

Other than trolls and dark priests, surges are spent at a rate of 2 surges=1 threat. It's rare outside of rtl, but if you get 4 surges that's 2 threat or 6 is 3 and so on. Trolls (or anything else that should eventually get bash) spend 2 surges for BOTH +5 damage and +2 pierce, and Dark Priests dark prayer ability allows them to spend each surge for +1 damage +1 range AND +1 threat to the OL. They get all three and can do it for as many threat/damage/range as you need. A vanilla master priest could therefore technically get as much as +6 damage/range/threat on a single attack with a surge on the white die and one every black. It gets more ridiculous in rtl with silver/gold/diamond. Bash is restricted to black dice only per the faq.

Parathion said:

It wasn't intended to be rude, but text-based communication can often have that effect. I apologize for offending you. I still maintain that if all figures in spaces covered by an attack are "not affected" by that attack, then that attack counts as not having any valid targets when all is said and done. Hence, per the FAQ, the attack is cancelled without effect. This is just my opinion, but I don't see any room for interpretation there.

Steve-O said:

While I understand your stance, I'm not in agreement that "not affected" = "invalid target". Take the recent ruling concerning Sorcery and Ironskin for example.

If those two terms did equal one another, you would never be able to make an attack against a creature with Ironskin using Sorcery, the entire attack would fail. That FAQ ruling clarifies that the immunity (or not affected by) part of Ironskin only pertains to adding damage, not range, from Sorcery. If the immunity (or not affected by) part translated to "invalid target", you would not be able to use the Sorcery range to make an attack against a figure with Ironskin because the Ironskin would make it an invalid target to any attack using Sorcery.

Just some thoughts.