Most probably this was addressed here at some point but I cant find the post:

Do figures (or spaces) count as adjacent (i.e. for Trystane's "Soul Siphon") even though there is a wall between them? I am not referring to the black outer borders of the map tiles, but a "thinner" wall on the same tile..

Or do any kind of "walls" (and doors) disrupt adjacency?

Thanks for clarifying!

Most probably this was addressed here at some point but I cant find the post:

Do figures (or spaces) count as adjacent (i.e. for Trystane's "Soul Siphon") even though there is a wall between them? I am not referring to the black outer borders of the map tiles, but a "thinner" wall on the same tile..

Or do any kind of "walls" (and doors) disrupt adjacency?

Thanks for clarifying!

Black map edges (and closed doors, but not portcullises or overgrowth) completely block adjacency. This can be found in the base game rulebook (except the bits about overgrowth and protcullises, which can be found in those expansion rulebooks.)

There is a relatively notorious diagram in the "FFG Sez" unofficial FAQ Wiki about halfway down the page.

My group finds the latter part of that diagram (figures 7-9, specifically) absurd, and here is a link to a pdf where I try to explain why, and how we've houseruled differently. The number citations (in parentheses) reference the diagram in the above link on boardgamegeek.

In response to your original question, Rules as Written, spaces A and B in figure 6 of the diagam (in the Unofficial FAQ that I linked) are NOT adjacent to each other.

The question came up due to the "prison" tile of SoN, which has walls that seperate the cells..Those got me a bit confused.

Anyway, thank you for the clarification gentlemen!

Zaltyre, I agree with you, I think its this rule in particular that makes for absurd situations:

"If the line passes along the edge of a blocked space, the target space is not in line of sight. However, if the line only touches the corner of a blocked space (without passing through the space itself ), the target space is in line of sight." (p.12)

Thanks for sharing your houserules on that, I'll see if I get to introduce them in my group!

Zaltyre, I agree with you, I think its this rule in particular that makes for absurd situations:

"If the line passes along the edge of a blocked space, the target space is not in line of sight. However, if the line only touches the corner of a blocked space (without passing through the space itself ), the target space is in line of sight." (p.12)

In general, I don't have a problem with that rule. It is true that there end up being a number of cases that don't "realistically" have LOS

AOO

OXO

OOB

For example, if O represents empty spaces and X is a blocked space, A and B can see each other. This is weird, sure; however, I appreciate that Descent makes LOS simple (it's very easy to trace a diagonal line and see LOS or not.) I value this over realism (can figure A really see figure B??)

However, what bugs us so much about panels 7-9 is that they are inconsistent with panels 4,5, and 6. That's the point I was trying to make in the slides- if you want 7 to have LOS, that's fine- but then 4 should too. If you want 8 to have LOS, that's fine- but 5 should, too. However, going from the assumption that 4 and 5 are correct (that is, A can't see B in 4 and 5,) then 7 and 8 should not either. 9 is much more subjective, except that it highlights that same same space (the same CORNER) you can't see in 6, you can see through in 9.

I can only second that! While I also think that in general Descent does a good job keeping things relatively easy - still will give your house rues a go...the 7-9 examples just hurt the eye a bit too much when seeing them on the board!

I am going to resurrect this topic to add a bit of justification for the difference between 6, 7, 8, and 9, and also add another question.

So, the difference between 6 and 7-9 is that in 6 the concern is whether the two spaces are adjacent or not vs whether there is line of sight. Since in 6 they are NOT adjacent, you can not make a ranged attack to the other space. This kinda makes sense if you think about the black wall as a 'fence' or other thin barrier... if both A and B are leaning against the fence, neither can attack through it, nor can they shoot 'around' it.

In 7-9, we no longer care about adjacency, only line of sight. In which case we can now 'pick' off the corner (shoulder/leg/foot) of any figure standing behind the fence (note that this is different than having the projectile skim across a wall for its entire length, ie along the edge of a blocked space).

This adjacency issue is also kinda important for elevation lines, since on several map tiles, the elevation line just kinda ends at the edge of a space (consider the wall to be an elevation line). However now we kinda get into an issue, since if the wall in 6 is considered an elevation, A and B ARE considered adjacent... so could A move in to B? or is that considered crossing an elevation line?

I have kinda always house ruled that crossing lines and barriers for movement was always measured center of square to center of square, since that seems to make the most sense.. but for RAW I can't find anything that would prevent moving across an elevation line that ends at the crossed 'edge'.

This now-infamous diagram gets special treatment in my guide to range and LOS (I just now realized that the Asmodee update removed user signatures. What gives?) Anyway, here's a link to said guide. Everything I want to say about the diagram is there.

As far as movement goes, that essentially just follows adjacency, as far as black lines are concerned- you can (generally speaking) move from a space to any adjacent space. If this map edge were an elevation line, you could not move across it- you'd have to move diagonally, just like you do now.

" If this map edge were an elevation line, you could not move across it- you'd have to move diagonally, just like you do now. "

I think that makes the most sense, I just cant find a case for it in RAW. I wish they defined movement better than "can move to an adjacent space" when they added elevation lines and created spaces that were adjacent, but blocked movement.