Okay, so two figures are next to each other, but there's a wall in between (R = Rebel, I = Imperial). Are they adjacent?

I

R

Can the Rebel and Imperial attack each other?

I think they can. If yes, I have a follow-up question.

R R

RI

Can the Imperial attack any one of the Rebels in this situation, but most importantly, can he attack the Rebel on the other side of the wall that is directly above him but only separated by a wall?

Ok so lets map this out:

what i undersand is:

[ ] [ I ]

[ ] [ R ]

The underline being the wall. Is that correct?

If so they are adjacent because they share the corner where the wall terminates. Also from the corner where the wall terminates you can draw lines of sight from each character through the opponent to the back corner.

2. Yes the imperal has line of sight to all of those rebels. I think what will complete your understanding is that you can draw a line of sight through the defending character, as long as you can make two non intersecting lines to two corners of the defender.

If there is a wall between touching spaces, then they are NOT adjacent, but they CAN draw LOS to each other. (See page 26 for this example).

[ ] [ I ]

[ ] [ R]

in the above example, the wall is between the two sides and is not adjacent via bullet point #1.

Adjacent, RRG, Page 4:

A space is adjacent to each other space that shares an edge or corner with the space.

• Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall or blocking terrain are not adjacent.

• A figure is not considered to be adjacent to itself.

• Two figures that are in adjacent spaces are adjacent figures. These figures are one space away from each other. This means that a (ranged) attack targeting an adjacent figure needs at least 1 Accuracy to not miss.

• Spaces on either side of the diagonal intersection of walls and/or blocking terrain are not adjacent to each other (see example #16 in “Appendix I - Line of Sight Examples” on page 26).

As Fizz perfectly explains.

Figures are not adjacent, so melee attack cannot be done, as they are required to be adjacent. Unless of course the attack has the Reach ability, then he can attack, as Reach require LOS, but no Accuracy.

Ranged attacks can trace LOS, so can attack around the corner. Range attacks doesn't need to adjacent.

Thanks guys.

I think flightmaster101 is correct.

If there is a wall between touching spaces, then they are NOT adjacent, but they CAN draw LOS to each other. (See page 26 for this example).

[ ] [ I ]

[ ] [ R]

in the above example, the wall is between the two sides and is not adjacent via bullet point #2.

Adjacent, RRG, Page 4:

A space is adjacent to each other space that shares an edge or corner with the space.

• Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall or blocking terrain are not adjacent.

• A figure is not considered to be adjacent to itself.

• Two figures that are in adjacent spaces are adjacent figures. These figures are one space away from each other. This means that a (ranged) attack targeting an adjacent figure needs at least 1 Accuracy to not miss.

• Spaces on either side of the diagonal intersection of walls and/or blocking terrain are not adjacent to each other (see example #16 in “Appendix I - Line of Sight Examples” on page 26).

In this example, the spaces in question share an edge that is a wall, but they also share a corner that is not part of a wall. As I read this rule, it is telling us that A and B below are adjacent (because of the corner) but C and D are not (because they share only the wall).

[ ] [A][C][ ]

[ ] [D][ ]

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think Fizz's interpretation is needlessly complicating a simple rule.

I think flightmaster101 is correct.

If there is a wall between touching spaces, then they are NOT adjacent, but they CAN draw LOS to each other. (See page 26 for this example).

[ ] [ I ]

[ ] [ R]

in the above example, the wall is between the two sides and is not adjacent via bullet point #2.

Adjacent, RRG, Page 4:

A space is adjacent to each other space that shares an edge or corner with the space.

• Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall or blocking terrain are not adjacent.

• A figure is not considered to be adjacent to itself.

• Two figures that are in adjacent spaces are adjacent figures. These figures are one space away from each other. This means that a (ranged) attack targeting an adjacent figure needs at least 1 Accuracy to not miss.

• Spaces on either side of the diagonal intersection of walls and/or blocking terrain are not adjacent to each other (see example #16 in “Appendix I - Line of Sight Examples” on page 26).

In this example, the spaces in question share an edge that is a wall, but they also share a corner that is not part of a wall. As I read this rule, it is telling us that A and B below are adjacent (because of the corner) but C and D are not (because they share only the wall).

[ ] [A][C][ ]

[ ] [D][ ]

I am willing to be convinced otherwise, but I think Fizz's interpretation is needlessly complicating a simple rule.

Mine is not an interpretation, it *IS* the exact rule, word for word, right out of the rule book. The post below is a cut out of page 26, they show this exact situation in a picture and go on to state that A and B are NOT Adjacent.

Highlighted the important parts in the quote above.

Here it is. They are not adjacent.

Source: Example #16, “Appendix I - Line of Sight Examples”, RRG, Page 26:

"Sharing a corner", as flightmaster101 puts it, does not automatically grant adjacency. if there is a wall separating two spaces, then they are not adjacent.

Sharing a corner *does* grant LOS, however, so in the case of the second example:

[A][ B ]
[C][D]

Powered by Fizzgrid™

Each figure in that example has LOS to each other and can fire/melee at each other, with the notable exception that B and D are not adjacent and cannot melee each other unless they have Reach.

Okay, so two figures are next to each other, but there's a wall in between (R = Rebel, I = Imperial). Are they adjacent?

I

R

As mentioned, they are not adjacent and thus cannot attack each other.

But if one has REACH , then he can attack the other one.

Okay, so two figures are next to each other, but there's a wall in between (R = Rebel, I = Imperial). Are they adjacent?

I

R

As mentioned, they are not adjacent and thus cannot attack each other.

But if one has REACH , then he can attack the other one.

To clarify (because you are correct but also wrong because you simplified);

* they're not adjacent

* they cannot attack with a normal melee attack

* they can attack with a reach melee attack

* they can draw line of sight

* they can attack with a ranged attack

Okay, so two figures are next to each other, but there's a wall in between (R = Rebel, I = Imperial). Are they adjacent?

I

R

As mentioned, they are not adjacent and thus cannot attack each other.

But if one has REACH , then he can attack the other one.

To clarify (because you are correct but also wrong because you simplified);

* they're not adjacent

* they cannot attack with a normal melee attack

* they can attack with a reach melee attack

* they can draw line of sight

* they can attack with a ranged attack

They also need a range of 2 for the ranged attack to hit

Okay, so two figures are next to each other, but there's a wall in between (R = Rebel, I = Imperial). Are they adjacent?

I

R

As mentioned, they are not adjacent and thus cannot attack each other.

But if one has REACH , then he can attack the other one.

To clarify (because you are correct but also wrong because you simplified);

* they're not adjacent

* they cannot attack with a normal melee attack

* they can attack with a reach melee attack

* they can draw line of sight

* they can attack with a ranged attack

They also need a range of 2 for the ranged attack to hit

What? No?

They can count from the wall corner they share.

The wall stops them being adjacent, but doesn't mean you have to count spaces to the left of them before reaching with a ranged attack.

My post was in error. Baer was correct, and the attacked needs a range of 2 for the attack to hit.

Oh, you're correct. Sry.

Oh, you're correct. Sry.

No. I think instead that you were right, not Majushi.

Check Ranged Attack (RRG pag. 21) and Counting Spaces (RRG pag. 9)

Ah, one needs to count from the square occupied by the figure, not the next one. I shouldn't answer rule questions during work...

Ah, one needs to count from the square occupied by the figure, not the next one. I shouldn't answer rule questions during work...

That's why a ranged attack to an adjacent figure require an accuracy of 1.

And that's why with Reach you can attack minatures that are up to 2 spaces away (counted as in Counting Spaces)

It's obvious, in the above example, that the two figure are not adjacent since they are divided by a wall and counting space cannot go throgh walls.

Edit: typos....

Oh, you're correct. Sry.

No. I think instead that you were right, not Majushi.

Check Ranged Attack (RRG pag. 21) and Counting Spaces (RRG pag. 9)

You're correct Sportacus.

Checking Range is "Counting Spaces", and because they're not adjacent you can't count directly to that space.

So in the same way as Reach works, you would have to count the space to the left of your figure (or target), then diagonally (or horizontally) to the target; requiring a range of 2.

My Apologies

Maybe no need to make a new topic for this... Are two figures adjacent if they share an edge with impassible terrain (dashed red line)?

In RRG s.4 - Adjacent it says: "Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall, blocking terrain, or a door are not adjacent."

And RRG s.7 - Blocking terrain: "Blocking terrain is represented by a solid red line surrounding a space of the map."

And RRG s. 13 - Impassible terrain: "Impassable terrain is represented by a dashed red line surrounding a space of the map. A figure cannot enter a space containing impassable terrain... .. . Line of sight can be traced through impassable terrain."

So I dont find anything that would say they aren't, but would that be little weird? Adjacent rule doesn't say anything about dashed red line (=impassible terrain) and surely you can shoot through it. Can melee attacks be made through impassible terrain? What if attacker has reach? Mainly desert tiles (big one with canyon) has this issue. What about abilities then like Way of Sarlacc (jedi) and Rampage (wookie) that would work on adjacent figures?

Blocking Terrain also says:

Blocking terrain is represented by a solid red line surrounding a space of the map. Figures cannot enter, be pushed into, count spaces through, or trace line of sight through blocking terrain.

Sometimes blocking terrain is only on one edge of a space. Figures cannot move through or be pushed through this edge. Large figures cannot move onto, be pushed through, or be placed on a blocking edge unless they have a special ability that allows this, such as Massive or Mobile.

That said, RAW does not state that a single edge of blocking terrain or impassible terrain between two spaces affects adjacency, but one could easily extrapolate that from other rules.

May want to posit that request to the powers that be. (Link in my signature)

Maybe no need to make a new topic for this... Are two figures adjacent if they share an edge with impassible terrain (dashed red line)?

In RRG s.4 - Adjacent it says: "Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall, blocking terrain, or a door are not adjacent."

And RRG s.7 - Blocking terrain: "Blocking terrain is represented by a solid red line surrounding a space of the map."

And RRG s. 13 - Impassible terrain: "Impassable terrain is represented by a dashed red line surrounding a space of the map. A figure cannot enter a space containing impassable terrain... .. . Line of sight can be traced through impassable terrain."

So I dont find anything that would say they aren't, but would that be little weird? Adjacent rule doesn't say anything about dashed red line (=impassible terrain) and surely you can shoot through it. Can melee attacks be made through impassible terrain? What if attacker has reach? Mainly desert tiles (big one with canyon) has this issue. What about abilities then like Way of Sarlacc (jedi) and Rampage (wookie) that would work on adjacent figures?

Impassable Terrain does not "block" adjacency. You can make Melee or Reach attach across dashed red lines. And it counts as adjacent for all effects mentioning adjacency (like Way of the Sarlacc).

Impassable Terrain does not "block" adjacency. You can make Melee or Reach attach across dashed red lines. And it counts as adjacent for all effects mentioning adjacency (like Way of the Sarlacc).

Don't do it, Anakin! I have the high ground!

Apply -1 arm and -2 legs to the defense results.

Impassable Terrain does not "block" adjacency. You can make Melee or Reach attach across dashed red lines. And it counts as adjacent for all effects mentioning adjacency (like Way of the Sarlacc).

Don't do it, Anakin! I have the high ground!

Apply -1 arm and -2 legs to the defense results.

They haven't added a "Burn" condition, yet have they?

Someone call the medical droid, cause that was a sick burn!!

RI

I2

R = rebel

I and 2 = Imperials

Can the Rebel player do a melee attack against 2 with the other imperial figures (both I's) there?