Trump said:

Same could be said for you with it not being wierd. Its part of the rules the designers laid out.

Trump, you can see that it is possible to be adjacent to a target who is in a tree, and to use a Magic attack with Blast to hit that target without hitting yourself, correct?

If the Tree is sybolic of a group (or grove) of trees, then taking cover from a Blast attack fired by a figure 2 or more spaces away is not inconceivable thematically.

Big Remy said:

Yup.... rules trump logic AND wierd in Descent

The funny part is that the rules seem to be attempting to follow the KISS principle (no, not the "manufacture a rock band with face paint for fun and profit" one).

Every new simplification just serves to obfuscate the rules further.

Thundercles said:

Ha! I'd be here all day if I tried to list games that thought they were following the KISS principle and instead just created a big mess.

XmenDynasty said:

Hmmmm. As I sit here typing... no, I'm not sure I see that off the top of my head. How can that happen?

Big Remy said:

I see. So if there's a rule about it, then it's not weird? I guess that's where we differ. If there was a rule that said the female characters can't be hurt if you're playing the game on an even-numbered day, I'd say that's weird and you'd shrug and say "It's in the rules". OK

No, its just that I'm used to little things like this in Descent and don't consider them wierd anymore.

Like for example, the fact that a six square Dragon gaining Shadowcloak because just one of its squares is occupying a tree space. Is it wierd? Yes. Should it even remotely happen? No. Does it happen due to the rules? Yes it does.

Trump said:

Monster's in a tree in B2. Hero stands in A1, targets A3 with an attack that has Blast 1. The monster is adjacent to the attacker, so Shadowcloak doesn't protect him, and he's adjacent to the target square, so he's within the blast radius, but the attacker and the target square aren't adjacent to each other, so the attacker doesn't hit himself.