Ok, so let me drive home a few points in a friendly tone :-) (Corbon already did this, but I just can´t resist).

1. The rules are erroneously written and only work for 2x1 creatures. Taken as RAW, for 3x2 creatues sidesteps are definitely allowed, while forward movement is not. Which is obviously ridiculous.

2. The rules need interpretation/modification for the 3x2 creatures (again, for the 2x1 creatures they work perfectly).

Feanor et al. interpret/modify them in a way that forward is allowed, sideways is not. Basis: Allowing forward is obvious, but disallowing sideways ?

I for myself (and obviously Big Remy as well) interpret/modify them in a way that forward and sideways are both allowed for the dragon, forward only for the hellhound (and blood ape). Basis: Sideways is allowed by RAW, forward is allowed by extension and logical interpretation.

Both interpretations/mods are houserules - so please don´t tell anybody you are moving dragons according to the rulebook!

3. The blood ape example in the FAQ does nothing to clarify the situation - they are not allowed to Leap sideways and must move according to the rules - fine. In all our interpretations and according to RAW they were never allowed to move sideways in any case.

As Corbon said, it is still fun discussing this. Yet I doubt any further arguments will show up.

Feanor said:

I've noticed a certain tendency on your part to claim that however you think the rules ought to work is clearly supported by the rulebook, even when this is clearly not the case. As has already been pointed out, a literal reading of the movement rules allows dragons to move sideways. That literal reading also contradicts the example diagram (among other distasteful implications), so it's reasonable to assume that it is wrong in some respect, but that conclusion does not remotely resemble the assertion that the rules clearly indicate that dragons can't move sideways.

From the JitD rulebook:

"• Hell Hounds and Dragons are oddly shaped, occupying
two and six spaces, respectively. They must move in
one of the following two ways:
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."

Look at the diagram on p. 17 and read the above. It points out that they are oddly shaped and must move in specific ways. In the picture, it says the dragons front half (meaning really the front third/2 spaces) moves and the back half follows. Sure you can debate that it's not actually a half they are talking about, but I think between the text and the picture it's pretty clear what they are saying the movement restrictions are. I only move hellhounds and dragons the way they say you can. The first part about them being oddly shaped makes it pretty clear there aren't special rules for dragons vs. hellhounds. The problem is the word "half" and they use that word in the picture, albeit erroneously, to show that it works the same for dragons as hellhounds. Half does not mean half the spaces it takes up for a dragon. This is clear with the picture/caption. The picture/caption is part of the rulebook, and also helps us to understand that half does not mean half it's spaces. While facing does not affect where something may attack from, it does affect movement in terms of these "odd" little guys. Following the rulebook is not a houserule. I don't think there's anything wrong with having a houserule, but I still contend that moving dragons or ice wyrms differently than hellhounds, apes, or wendigos is just that. The way that we move dragons, is not a houserule, merely an interpretation of the rules, using everything at my disposal including the diagram.

Really though, it's not that important, and I'll be camping the next 3 days so I won't be back to disagree with anyone who says otherwise...and that's probably just fine.

Antistone said:

Ahh..but there is consistency when you realize the way they are using the word half. I realize it's not that clear, because we didn't get it right for a long time. I think if you realize that FFG are not wordsmiths, that you can compare the words they use in the rules and the diagram and interpret their meaning. But...I'm sure you will tell me how this is still uncertain or whatever. That's fine. Please don't try to weaken my argument by talking about what you feel you've noticed my tendencies may or may not be in previous arguments. Please don't psychoanalyze my written words to try and credit whether or not I understand or interpret the rules. We all can only interpret the rules. I'm trying to support my interpretation. I'm sorry if I think that I am right. I wouldn't assert something if I did not believe it to be the case.

Parathion said:

The 'basis' of this interpretation is that 3x2 and 2x1 monsters use the same rules, which are clearly different to 'regular' figures. Hence, they should move in a similar manner and have similar effects, restrictions and differences from regular movement.

What is the basis for your interpretation?
You'll forgive me for saying, but at the moment it seems that your basis is the original, clearly erroneous, rule?
Which seems to me to be saying "this rule is wrong and we need to reinterpret it, so we will reinterpret it exactly as it says". Huh? Is it wrong or not?

Who's going to be at gencon? I'll be there. I propose a cage match to settle this.

Veinman said:

Gencon. That would be around 5000 miles from here (Singapore)? I'll just pop over for the weekend then.
Oh for a Glyph of Transport...

Veinman said:

Haha, I would love to be there. However, you do realize you just volunteered yourself for hunting down Kevin Wilson and getting an answer?

Corbon said:

Yes, exactly: My basis is the existing rules, which can be completely left as written and fixed just by a small extension/addition which would say that "one half" is to be extended to "one half or one third" or even simpler replaced by "one part". Nothing else is required, it works for both 2x1 and 3x2, allowing forward movement for both and sideways for 3x2.

Your basis is to turn the rules upside down for 3x2 critters by obviously wanting to replace "one half" by "one third", which would allow dragons forward but not sideways - in that case you would have to make two rulesets for 2x1 and for 3x2, since 2x1 do not have a "one third". Or you would change "half" for "part" and add the arbitrary clause "but sideways (with an explanation what that is in difference to clause 2) is not allowed."

To summarize, my ruleset would read like this, changes emphasized, the word "space(s)" adjusted as necessary for 3x2 creatures, since it was already present in the second part of clause 1.

1. The figure moves one part of its body into a non-diagonal
adjacent space(s) while the other part of its body
moves into the space(s) that the first part just vacated
2. The figure moves to a diagonally adjacent space(s) by
moving both parts of its body in the same diagonal
direction (also called “sidestepping”). Both types of
movement are illustrated in the diagram on page 17."

Can you come up with a ruleset as simple as this to achieve the interpretation you would like?

Parathion said:

Already did. Check out reply #12. Basically just replace 'half' with 'short edge' (though I'd add in a clarification just to be sure). Works for both 3x2 and 2x1 figures. 'Front edge' would be easier, but would then be confusing to people who want to move backwards and conflict with the stated principle that figures do not have a facing (or 'front').

Unlike yours, mine keeps 3x2 and 2x1 figures operating by the same rules and having the same effects, while being differentiated (as clearly indicated in the non-broken section of the rules) from 'regular' figures.

DJitD pg 15 (large figures movement)
• 2x1 figures and 3x2 figures are oddly shaped, occupying two and six spaces, respectively. They must move in one of the following two ways...
...
• Other large monsters occupy four spaces. When moving, these figures move like regular figures, and ...
DJitD pg 9 (regular movement)
• Figures may move into any adjacent space (including diagonal spaces) for 1 movement point each, but must remain on the board at all times during their move
(I've replaced 'Hell Hounds' with '2x1 figures' and 'Dragons' with '3x2 figures' since there are now more non-square monsters that obviously follow these specific rules.)

Your change sees 3x2 figures moving like regular figures (into any adjacent space) and not moving like 2x1 figures (with restrictions). To me, that is making a significant change not indicated anywhere - oops, except indicated in the exact same rule you have already declared is erroneous!
You simply can't reasonably justify your rule only based on the same rule you are changing (because it is clearly wrong) when there are other rules that are contrary.

Big Remy said:

Well it's too bad he's not here himself answering this. And I'd gladly try.... but I have no idea what he looks like.

Just chain yourself to the FFG booth until he appears.

@ Corbon: Ok, using "short edge" would be a comparably simple variant, yet you would have to explain what you mean by that, increasing the rule´s length. And it´s kind of strange to actually move an "edge", while in all other rules sections "parts" or "halves" do the movement.

But your variant is 100% exactly as arbitrary as mine, while mine has the charm (at least to me) that it is closer to the original ruleset. And: Yes, I see it as an advantage to keep the existing (partly erroneous) rules and merely extend them to make them work. In your variant the existing rule is turned upside down for 3x2s. You wouldn´t say that the rules in question are complete crap and need to be replaced from scratch, would you (remember, they still work perfectly as written for 2x1)?

And: Why does it seem so necessary for you or even an argument that both 2x1 and 3x2 should move exactly the same way? They can and should fall under the very same ruleset and still operate differently as an outcome. I see no weakness here.

Parathion said:

We can agree to differ. I find absolutely no 'charm' (or sense) in trying to stay close to an 'original' ruleset in a place that has been identified as clearly in error.
I would say the rules in question, as modified by my variant to what IMO was clearly intended, work perfectly and are great. I'm not advicating replacing them from scratch, I'm fixing them by the minimum necessary for them to work and make sense in the original context.

Your last paragraph is where we completely differ, and is what is creating our opposite interpretations.
We have three types of figures, A, B and C. A are 'regular' figures. B and C are irregular figures. If B and C get their own (collective) special rules, then I expect B and C to operate differently to A, and similarly (if not exactly the same) to each other.

Your interp sees C operating identically to A which I see as just being so obviously against the intent of separating B and C out from A (together) that it is not a feasible option.IMO your interp makes C's separation out from A unnecessary, since all of C's movement possiblities would already be encompassed in the rules for A.
My interp sees C operating similarly to B, differently from A. Which seems to me to be the clear intent of separating them out from A yet lumping them together.

Since you don't appear to be able to understand that (not a personal jibe, just a point of difference), we will never be able to agree.

Fair enough, we won´t (and don´t have to) reach agreement here. Though I do understand your reasoning, I cannot accept it as more likely or more reasonable than mine.

I´m just curious why you are so certain, what "clearly was intended" to justify your amendment? As I repeatedly said, both changes are equally justifiable.

And still C does not operate equal to A, not even in my variant, that´s why you still need a separate ruleset for C. Which happens to work within the changed ruleset for B in both cases.

That is one part you are probably not able (or more likely: ready) to understand (likewise, nothing personal).

But thanks for the ongoing discussion! Most people wouldn´t have had the nerves to stay in it this long.

Parathion said:

I agree, I am not able to see how under your interp C movement is different from A in any substantial way. Under your variant C can move into any adjacent space and all the spaces of C make the same translation. That is exactly how A works and is why I think your C equates to A rather than B.
B (and IMO C) are only supposed to make the same translation for certain moves ('forward' and diagonal). For sideways moves they are IMO clearly intended to rotate/pivot. This is the only substantial difference between A and B/C, yet your interp removes its necessity from C (whereas mine makes it clear).

Agree to disagree.

As for the ongoing discussion, I have two words for you. 'Sorcery' and 'Ironskin'.

Corbon said:

No no no no no no no no....NO

Having this discussion going the way of that will only lead to a FAQ entry saying dragons possess Acrobat or can use staircases.

Corbon said:

You are a really EVIL person ;-)

C is different to A with respect to the "turning/sideways" movement, which A isn´t capable of doing but still needs a separate ruleset (and which is basically the same ruleset as for B, justifying to rule both creatures together).

Parathion said:

I simply don't find that a significant difference. Lumping B and C together differently from A needs, IMO, a more substantial reason than such a minor and rare requirement. And it is provide-able with a simple, obvious (and no less arbitrary than yours) interpretation.

FWIW, anyone else notice the hellhound's movement example on page 17 could be achieved in 3 spaces instead of 4 by moving diagonal NE (x2) then rotating and moving N?
I am of the opinion that they are trying to emphasise the rotational movement

Corbon said:

That always bothered me.

So, basically, there's nothing that says any figure can sidestep horizontally. Square figures don't sidestep; they move in that direction since they don't have distinguishable "fronts". Meanwhile, rectangular figures are shown to be able to sidestep diagonally, but no example of advancing in a straight line on the long edge is ever given. "Sidestep" is in fact explicitly a diagonal movement.

I don't know, I've always played with horizontal sidestepping but there appears to be no basis for that rule.

On a slightly related note....I found this in the Large Monster movement section

"Likewise, large monsters
only take one wound from slime per move, no matter
how many spaces containing slime they enter."

S lime ?