Good day to you,

after reading in old forum threads some questions arose.

When Monster groups have to be placed initially before the scene starts and it is required that certain groups need to be placed on certain zones/tiles, is it enough for large monster group to be partial on the tile e.g. 1 space or does it need to be on the tile completely? Same goes for later reinforcements on certain map tiles, do the need to fit completely?

Frequently a quest requires one or more figure to leave the map via the entrance or the exit. What exactly counts as the entrance /exit? The whole map tile or just the space containing the icon? Does it take an action to leave the map or is it enough to reach the tile / space?

Some quests require monsters to be on a certain map tile to perform certain actions. When exactly is a monster especially a large monster considered to be on a certain map tile?

I hope you can enlighten me.

Greetings Funkfried.

Placing a figure on a tile requires you to put that figure on the tile as completely as possible, or barring that as close as possible.

You must be on one of the EDGE spaces of an entrance or exit, then spend a MP to leave- this is in the rulebook- but it may be in the shadow rune quest guide.

If a figure is even partially on a map tile (occupies any space on it) it can be considered to be on that map tile for actions.

Thanks for your answer Zaltyre.

The quest guide states that:"Monster figures may be placed anywhere on the tile or tiles indicated in the setup instructions, provided those spaces are empty. If there is not enough room on the map tile for all the monsters in the group to be placed, excess monster may be placed in the closest available spaces." Going by the Quest Guide I'm allowed to place a monster during the setup of the encounter in a way that it prevents other monster from the same group from being placed on the same tile completely. Therefore I could gain additional spaces with large monsters. Is this legitimate?

Spending one movement point to leave the map is new for me, we always played it in way that the figure has to spend an action to leave the map. Good to know, must have missed that passage in the Rulebook.

"If there is not enough room" to me seems to imply that if there is enough room for all monsters of a group (there are 2 3x2 blocks = this tile has enough room for 2 shadow dragons), they've all got to go there- placing the monsters in a way that forces them off the tile seems to be disingenuous, and not keeping to the intention of that phrase. That being said, I do know (because I've asked) that in quests like "The Dawnblade" when you have the option to reinforce a monster in various locations, you may freely choose which location- even if there is room at one, and not room at the other. However, I feel that's a little different because you're just reacting to the way the board is at the start of your turn, which is not entirely in your control- encounter setup is completely in the OL's control.

FYI, The bit about spending a MP while on an end space of an entrance/exit tile is on page 9, "moving off the map."

One could argue that being disingenuous perfectly describes the overlord. Don't get me wrong I value fairness and honesty far more than winning and would never do anything to harm the integrity of the game, but as long as it isn't against the rules and the text is as ambiguous as many of the explanations in the rule book it definitely is a possible interpretation. Being forced to place my monsters in certain spaces contradicts the rule books phrase: "monster figures may be placed anywhere on the tile (...) provided those spaces are empty".

Found the part in the rule book, thanks for reference.

Excepting an official comment, where you want to draw that line is up to you and your group. When it comes to map setup, I've made the decision to put all monsters completely on the tile in question if at all possible- firstly because that's really my opinion about what the rules are saying- and secondly, writing some of my own quests has only reinforced (on pun intended) that viewpoint for me. When designing the maps with the quest's objectives in mind, I find myself counting spaces to determine the minimum number of turns it will take figure A to get to space B. If it's too few, I'll add a spacer to make it just a little further away- placing monsters off of their starting tiles messes up all of that planning- and can therefore tip balance in quests where the two sides have different objectives that are supposed to be completed in similar amounts of time.

Edit: Also, I completely disagree. The OL must follow the rules like any other player. Within those rules, he is free and encouraged to use all tools at his disposal to win- but once you start bending rules to gain and advantage, you're ceasing to strategize, and beginning to cheat.

I have to agree with Zaltyre. He appears to have a wonderful grasp on this game and it's rules.

Sometimes I think he must be a computer: the way he is always responding on the boards, how else could he

be playing the game, knowing the rules, and always on the boards.

I find Zaltyre a great resource and am thankful for his help. ( I might be a bit biased)

I am not a computer- I just got hooked on this game and now spend way too much time thinking about it. Glad to be of help.

I never wanted to give the impression that I would ignore rules or bend them to my advantage. I have been playing the way that fits your interpretation, nether less I don't see where my interpretation would except the rules. May be I'm just missing something.

I never wanted to give the impression that I would ignore rules or bend them to my advantage. I have been playing the way that fits your interpretation, nether less I don't see where my interpretation would except the rules. May be I'm just missing something.

And I was also not accusing you of cheating- your interpretation is not far-fetched. Really, the only difference between the way I see it and the way you see it comes down to whether monsters are added one at a time, or all at once- and that's getting awfully, painfully specific. (That is, are you determining whether 2 shadow dragons fit on a 4x4 tile, then choosing to place them, or adding a shadow dragon to a 4x4 tile, and then re-assessing whether another shadow dragon fits?) I just lean in the direction that says- "you can put both monsters on the tile, so you should put both monsters on the tile." What you're saying (and I completely agree, the text is there) is you get to pick where each shadow dragon goes. If you choose to put the first one in the middle of the 4x4 tile instead of on the edge, isn't that your prerogative?

I am not a computer- I just got hooked on this game and now spend way too much time thinking about it. Glad to be of help.

That is what a computer programmed to believe it's sentient would answer!!

Do you dream of Electric Sheep? Have you ever had storm troopers bemoan the fact that you are not who they were looking for?

Just joking of course...

Your example perfectly describes my problem with the wording. I agree that placing them one at a time makes the setup far more complicated than necessary and I won't do it but the wording is there. Sadly I can't use the rule question tool to ask FFG for clarification as I get a Cross-Site-Request-Forgery error. Would you be so kind and ask for me or is there another way?

Your example perfectly describes my problem with the wording. I agree that placing them one at a time makes the setup far more complicated than necessary and I won't do it but the wording is there. Sadly I can't use the rule question tool to ask FFG for clarification as I get a Cross-Site-Request-Forgery error. Would you be so kind and ask for me or is there another way?

The "Rules Questions" tool works fine for me. It could be an issue with your browser. I'll submit the question, and let you know what I hear (though since the new website rollout, I think responses have been coming a bit more slowly than recently.)

Well, it turns out I've been cheating all that time

Thanks for reply. So it is as we suspected.

Good to know. I *think* this may be a reversal from earlier rulings, as I thought there was once a ruling that says as long as they had any part on it it counted for placement. I like this ruling better, as it's less abusable. (And I could be just mis-remembering about there being a prior ruling).