I agree that consistency is more important than accuracy.

Regarding LOS to your own space, try this on for size:

LOS to an adjacent space is automatic, because you share at least 1 corner with any adjacent space. In my mind, the logic for LOS to your own space is the same- you always share at least 1 corner with your own space.

Regarding range for abilities, I've always used the inequality for "within N spaces" of: range<N (less than or equal to). The range to your own space is 0, so 0<N (less than or equal to) is always true for positive distance.

Thematically speaking, it's odd to to think that you could reach a space 2 or 3 away, but couldn't reach yourself. If you're shooting an arrow 10 meters, you have enough power to hit your foot. If you're shining a light (radiant light) it's odd you wouldn't be illuminated. I'm generally not one to endorse thematic justification, but I'm drawing from the "counting spaces" paragraph in the rulebook that talks about "having enough range to reach the target space."

By the way, I don't want you to feel as though we're ganging up on you. I appreciate your input as well as your perspective (and I'm sure Atom and any2cards feel the same).

How about them hybrid classes, eh?

By the way, I don't want you to feel as though we're ganging up on you. I appreciate your input as well as your perspective (and I'm sure Atom and any2cards feel the same).

I concur. One of the things that makes these forums so invaluable is the difference of opinions, and the constructive conversation that results.

How about them hybrid classes, eh?

****, is that what this thread was really about?

[...]

LOS to an adjacent space is automatic, because you share at least 1 corner with any adjacent space. In my mind, the logic for LOS to your own space is the same- you always share at least 1 corner with your own space.

The problem with that logic is that it hinges on the idea that adjacent spaces are always in line of sight (which is true), but to extend the logic that you share a corner with your own space means that the space you are standing in is adjacent to yourself, no? If so, that's likely completely unintended and could have some pretty big repercussions (Merick Farrow's Ignite comes to mind). But if the own space is specifically exempt from counting as adjacent (I have this hazy memory of this being specifically addressed somewhere), it also does not automatically come into Line of Sight.

Mid-writing thought; I.. I do suppose you could draw an uninterrupted line from one corner to another, but wouldn't your figure (normally) block that? Edges of blocked spaces do block LoS.

Mind you, I'm not arguing against the idea that characters are in Line of Sight of themselves, I'm just trying to make sense of it, rules-wise, because though thematically and logically sound, it's another one of those things I think just isn't mentioned in the rules.

Regarding range for abilities, I've always used the inequality for "within N spaces" of: range<N (less than or equal to). The range to your own space is 0, so 0<N (less than or equal to) is always true for positive distance.

Thematically speaking, it's odd to to think that you could reach a space 2 or 3 away, but couldn't reach yourself. If you're shooting an arrow 10 meters, you have enough power to hit your foot. If you're shining a light (radiant light) it's odd you wouldn't be illuminated. I'm generally not one to endorse thematic justification, but I'm drawing from the "counting spaces" paragraph in the rulebook that talks about "having enough range to reach the target space."

Absolutely, this is just a conflict between thematicism and ...intuitive semantics, I guess. I agree 100% that it would be odd that you couldn't target yourself as part of some blanket rule, and it makes sense that you'd be in range of yourself, but in my head, within X range just "feels" wrong in that measuring from the self never really includes the self, as if I tell you to stand so that an object is exactly ten meters away from you, the range between you and the object will be ten meters, but you'll not be part of those meters. You're measuring out from yourself.

I just wish this would've been clarified within the rules. It brings me back to one of my original rules questions regarding the "two spaces away" of Reach, which was very much the same issue of counting spaces. X range away intuitively to me is different from within x range , in that if there were 10 meters between you and me, I'd say that you were 10 meters away, but you wouldn't necessarily be within 10 meters of me.

By the way, I don't want you to feel as though we're ganging up on you. I appreciate your input as well as your perspective (and I'm sure Atom and any2cards feel the same).

I was never really arguing that we're not in within range of ourselves, but rather voicing an annoyance with the inconsistency. The only thing we don't agree on is whether it should be consistently clarified or consistently implied. Either way, it should be clarified in the core rules so that it might be inferred, whether clarified or implied.

I'm not half as much of a rules lawyer that I might sound like. I just enjoy knowing exactly how things work and why, by RAW; mostly so I know how to frivilously break the rules when I want to. And arguing over rules is a lot more helpful than people agreeing with eachother, from that perspective.

How about them hybrid classes, eh?

I still want to see the Watchman. So much fun can be had with the Battlemage and the Steelcaster, and although I don't like the thematic side of the Monk and how it just doesn't feel (to me) like it "fits" with that many of the classes or heroes, it's potentially a ton of fun, and I could imagine especially a good Monk-Prophet or Monk-Alchemist to come out of it.

But I'm very anxious to see the Watchman. It might make Brother Gherinn a pretty nice Shadow Walker . Like an offensive non-healing support character.

The problem with that logic is that it hinges on the idea that adjacent spaces are always in line of sight (which is true), but to extend the logic that you share a corner with your own space means that the space you are standing in is adjacent to yourself, no?

I may not have made my point clearly- I'm not suggesting that you are adjacent to yourself, you are not. "Adjacent" means exactly 1 space away (not more, not less) and results in sharing exactly 1 (if diagonal) or 2 corners (if side-by-side). I am suggesting that the basis for granting LOS automatically to adjacent spaces is their shared corners. You're not drawing LOS between two distinct corners, you're drawing LOS from one corner to that same corner , and that can never be blocked (you can't have something between a point and itself). I'm suggesting that the justification for LOS to your own space is the same- you share corners with yourself.

Absolutely, this is just a conflict between thematicism and ...intuitive semantics, I guess. I agree 100% that it would be odd that you couldn't target yourself as part of some blanket rule, and it makes sense that you'd be in range of yourself, but in my head, within X range just "feels" wrong in that measuring from the self never really includes the self, as if I tell you to stand so that an object is exactly ten meters away from you, the range between you and the object will be ten meters, but you'll not be part of those meters. You're measuring out from yourself.

I just wish this would've been clarified within the rules. It brings me back to one of my original rules questions regarding the "two spaces away" of Reach, which was very much the same issue of counting spaces. X range away intuitively to me is different from within x range , in that if there were 10 meters between you and me, I'd say that you were 10 meters away, but you wouldn't necessarily be within 10 meters of me.

I believe the confusion of sematics you're experiencing comes from imagining a continuous distance axis rather than a discreet one. In other words, there is 0,1,2, etc spaces away, but there is no such thing as 0.5 spaces away (unlike the real world, distance here only exists in the set of positive integers and 0). The consequence of this is "within 2 spaces" can't extend from 0.01 right up to 1.99 spaces away, because there is no such thing. It's either got to cut off at 1 space away, or go to 2. In Descent, "within 2 spaces" and "up to 2 spaces away" mean exactly the same thing: "spaces for which the countable range is 0, 1, or 2."

[...] you're drawing LOS from one corner to that same corner [...]

That.. that is actually a really good point. Huh. Again, it never occurred to me to think of it like that, since I'd never think of that as "drawing a line" (since no line needs to be drawn), but that logic works for me.

I believe the confusion of sematics you're experiencing comes from imagining a continuous distance axis rather than a discreet one. In other words, there is 0,1,2, etc spaces away, but there is no such thing as 0.5 spaces away (unlike the real world, distance here only exists in the set of positive integers and 0). The consequence of this is "within 2 spaces" can't extend from 0.01 right up to 1.99 spaces away, because there is no such thing. It's either got to cut off at 1 space away, or go to 2. In Descent, "within 2 spaces" and "up to 2 spaces away" mean exactly the same thing: "spaces for which the countable range is 0, 1, or 2."

Probably. I'm also used to thinking of squares in roleplaying game terms, where the sizes are often more defined, such as two-by-two-yards, where the character(s) involved are assumed to at any point inhabit any area within that, meaning they could be on the far end or the front to whatever they're facing, depending, rather than inhabiting an absolute square of total space. I need to let go of that.

Luckmann, on 09 Aug 2016 - 04:31 AM, said:

I'm particularily keen on combining Monk with the Iron Flail. I cannot stress enough how insane the Iron Flail is as a starting weapon for the Monk. Not only does it give you a Surge to Weaken, but it's got Reach, it's Exotic (and thus works with the Monk's Vow of Freedom), and it turns the 1-2 damage of your unarmed attacks into 2-3 , increasing unarmed damage by 50-100%!

Are you certain that's how it works? By that interpretation would an unarmed attack with only Iron Claws equipped roll Blue + Green to attack? Or would any attack made with Bloody Dagger equipped while bleeding allow you to surge for +4 damage, not just an attack made with the dagger?

Luckmann, on 09 Aug 2016 - 04:31 AM, said:

I'm particularily keen on combining Monk with the Iron Flail. I cannot stress enough how insane the Iron Flail is as a starting weapon for the Monk. Not only does it give you a Surge to Weaken, but it's got Reach, it's Exotic (and thus works with the Monk's Vow of Freedom), and it turns the 1-2 damage of your unarmed attacks into 2-3 , increasing unarmed damage by 50-100%!

Are you certain that's how it works? By that interpretation would an unarmed attack with only Iron Claws equipped roll Blue + Green to attack? Or would any attack made with Bloody Dagger equipped while bleeding allow you to surge for +4 damage, not just an attack made with the dagger?

+1... weapon abilities only apply to attacks made with that weapon.

Correct. Surge abilities (or any other abilities) on a weapon only are useable when an attack is declared USING that weapon. A skirmisher holding the bloody dagger (even while bleeding) doesn't get to use surge +4 unless he is attacking with the dagger (or if he has the dagger equipped and uses dual strike, which explicitly allows the use of surge abilities from the other weapon).

Correct. Surge abilities (or any other abilities) on a weapon only are useable when an attack is declared USING that weapon. A skirmisher holding the bloody dagger (even while bleeding) doesn't get to use surge +4 unless he is attacking with the dagger (or if he has the dagger equipped and uses dual strike, which explicitly allows the use of surge abilities from the other weapon).

But he could not use Dual Strike, as the monk is a Rogue archetype with a healer skill set...

Yes. I was listing an exception to the rule. The monk can never use dual strike.

Luckmann, on 09 Aug 2016 - 04:31 AM, said:

I'm particularily keen on combining Monk with the Iron Flail. I cannot stress enough how insane the Iron Flail is as a starting weapon for the Monk. Not only does it give you a Surge to Weaken, but it's got Reach, it's Exotic (and thus works with the Monk's Vow of Freedom), and it turns the 1-2 damage of your unarmed attacks into 2-3 , increasing unarmed damage by 50-100%!

Are you certain that's how it works? By that interpretation would an unarmed attack with only Iron Claws equipped roll Blue + Green to attack? Or would any attack made with Bloody Dagger equipped while bleeding allow you to surge for +4 damage, not just an attack made with the dagger?

Iron Flail specifically states that if your other hand is empty, your attacks gain +1 Damage. It's not a Condition or Surge. I inferred that this applied to all attacks in plural. Iron Claws is worded differently, adding to the attack pool, so I would infer that it's specifically when attacking with that weapon, specific to that attack pool in singular.

I'm not that sure anymore, though.

If you aren't attacking with a weapon (or if you aren't using a skill like "dual strike") no surge abilities ("+2 damage") other abilities ("Reach") pool modifiers ("add a green if your other hand is empty") are considered. The only text that has relevance outside of an attack with that weapon is text with an explicit other trigger (guardian axe "when you defeat a monster", ironbound rune "after rolling defense dice", etc).

EDIT: Reference from the last time this came up:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189547-skirmisher-dual-strike-bloody-dagger/

Zaltyre, on 12 Aug 2016 - 7:43 PM, said:

If you aren't attacking with a weapon (or if you aren't using a skill like "dual strike") no surge abilities ("+2 damage") other abilities ("Reach") pool modifiers ("add a green if your other hand is empty") are considered. The only text that has relevance outside of an attack with that weapon is text with an explicit other trigger (guardian axe "when you defeat a monster", ironbound rune "after rolling defense dice", etc).

EDIT: Reference from the last time this came up:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189547-skirmisher-dual-strike-bloody-dagger/

So this is a case of poor wording on these cards. RAW I would say Bloody Dagger applies to all attacks made by the character, or only attacks made with the Bloody Dagger, even if using Dual Strike(As the surge is granted by the ability of the Bloody Dagger, not a basic surge profile it should not be evaluated). Other weapons, printed both before and after Shadows of Nerekhall, are far more explicit on when their abilities can occur Serpent Dagger , Heart Seeker .

Zaltyre, on 12 Aug 2016 - 7:43 PM, said:

If you aren't attacking with a weapon (or if you aren't using a skill like "dual strike") no surge abilities ("+2 damage") other abilities ("Reach") pool modifiers ("add a green if your other hand is empty") are considered. The only text that has relevance outside of an attack with that weapon is text with an explicit other trigger (guardian axe "when you defeat a monster", ironbound rune "after rolling defense dice", etc).

EDIT: Reference from the last time this came up:

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/189547-skirmisher-dual-strike-bloody-dagger/

So this is a case of poor wording on these cards. RAW I would say Bloody Dagger applies to all attacks made by the character, or only attacks made with the Bloody Dagger, even if using Dual Strike(As the surge is granted by the ability of the Bloody Dagger, not a basic surge profile it should not be evaluated). Other weapons, printed both before and after Shadows of Nerekhall, are far more explicit on when their abilities can occur Serpent Dagger , Heart Seeker .

Yeah, I'd read the Bloody Dagger as giving you the ability to take 1 Fatigue and become bleeding, after which all your attacks gains 1 Surge for +4 Damage. It even says each of your attack s . I would never have imagined that the ability of the Bloody Dagger to only apply to attacks with the Bloody Dagger itself, based on wording. It's a very odd judgement in the rules question answer that was given, I think, especially since it didn't involve a rewording of the card (as in "the text is wrong, this is how it's supposed to be).

At least I can see how I may have been reading the Iron Flail wrong (especially considering that they likely did not imagine that you'd be doing unarmed attacks - the only other form of attack the bonus could possibly apply to, afaik). But Bloody Dagger? Makes me seriously wtf.

Firstly, yes- "your attacks gain" is suggestive wording. We've already discussed in this thread how consistent phrasing is not a given here (it would be nice if it was). That being said, the rulebook is pretty clear- when making an attack, ignore the text on all the weapons you aren't using (see the link in my last post for the actual citation).

The way I think about bloody dagger (for something like dual strike) is that the "surge:+4" is invisible until the hero is bleeding. In other words, it is a surge ability on the weapon if and only if the hero is bleeding.

Firstly, yes- "your attacks gain" is suggestive wording. We've already discussed in this thread how consistent phrasing is not a given here (it would be nice if it was). That being said, the rulebook is pretty clear- when making an attack, ignore the text on all the weapons you aren't using (see the link in my last post for the actual citation).

The way I think about bloody dagger (for something like dual strike) is that the "surge:+4" is invisible until the hero is bleeding. In other words, it is a surge ability on the weapon if and only if the hero is bleeding.

Honestly, speaking only about Bloody Dagger, a simple space between the two would've helped immensely. As in:

During your turn, you may suffer 1 Fatigue to become Bleeding.

If you are bleeding, each of your attacks gains:

Surge: +4 Damage.

But honestly, it's a trainwreck either way.

Trainwreck may be an exaggeration. I agree the space would help.