Hi all,

It's about time that I understand how this works and I need your help. Sorry for taking this a bit long.

I read this on RRG:

Quote

ADJACENT

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, blocking terrain, or a door are not adjacent.

Sounds clear to me that a space sharing no edge and one corner are adjacent. Because of this common corner, the following is valid (same section of RRG):

Quote

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.

And this also means that melee attack is possible.

In the following picture you can see two spaces sharing one invalid edge (a wall) and a valid corner (lower corner at the end of the wall). For what read so far they are adjacent:

<missing picture>

Because these spaces shares a corner they are adjacent. However description of this image on RRG says the opposite. Melee would require reach and ranged requires accuracy 2. This is totally consistent with counting space rule, but it seems to me inconsistent with adjacent definition.

Any idea?

Thanks.

When they say "share a corner," I think they mean "a corner that is not touching a shared edge." Two spaces that do share an edge only share an edge, they do not share an edge and the two corners that are the endpoints of that edge (by this definition).

The two figures in the above image are not adjacent because of the bullet point you quoted in the same post.

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

Additionally, with the above picture, you need 2 accuracy or if you're melee you need Reach to attack the other figure.

Edit: Oh, you said that at the bottom of your post.

4 hours ago, Tvboy said:

The two figures in the above image are not adjacent because of the bullet point you quoted in the same post.

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

"Only an edge", I argue that the do share a corner...

5 hours ago, Stompburger said:

When they say "share a corner," I think they mean "a corner that is not touching a shared edge." Two spaces that do share an edge only share an edge, they do not share an edge and the two corners that are the endpoints of that edge (by this definition).

I totally agree with this vision, but I see the RRG wording is far less clear. Don't you think?

Either you share an edge and are orthogonal or you share a corner and are diagonal. You cannot be both orthogonal and diagonal at the same time. Yet you are arguing that the two figures in the image are connected by corners, meaning they are connected diagonally? I don't think the designers wanted to make the rulebook unnecessarily long by explaining the logical contradiction of being orthogonally and diagonally connected at the same time.

The above figures are orthogonally connected, thus their connection is fundamentally defined by the line between them, which is a wall, not by their two corners.

34 minutes ago, Tvboy said:

Either you share an edge and are orthogonal or you share a corner and are diagonal. You cannot be both orthogonal and diagonal at the same time.

I understand what you say here, I agree. However I still think the wording of section "adjacent" is misleading and that's dangerous. People that are not sure about adjacency looks for the "adjacent" section rather than looking for images. When they get to the adjacent definition they read that 2 spaces are adjacent if they share one "edge or corner" and they will play this situation the wrong way, also any attack from behind a wall will be counted one accuracy less than it should actually be.

To be clear this orthogonality and diagonality of spaces is never mentioned by the RRG.

The word "ortho*" appears only in movement of large figures. The word "diagon*" appears twice (talking about adjacency) and that's the case then the diagonal intersection is between a combination of wall/blocking terrain/figures.

I think @Tvboy you gave the best explaination of what was in designers' mind, but there is nothing in the rulebook that can easily lead to it, unless one day you happen to see the image in appendix and you understand you played it wrong for ages.

The adjacency rules start with the assumption that all 8 surrounding spaces are adjacent by default, and then gives restrictions to that.

1. Two spaces are not adjacent if they share an edge that is a wall, door, blocking terrain (edge), or one of the spaces is blocking terrain.
2. Two spaces are also not adjacent if they do not share an edge, and any combination of wall, door, blocking terrain meet in their shared corner.

I was originally also fooled by the "only" in "shares only an edge". The "only" is superfluous, and leaving it out makes the rule make much more sense to me.

There are some holes in the definitions still, but trying to rewrite the rules is harder than it seems - I have tried.

2 hours ago, a1bert said:

I was originally also fooled by the "only" in "shares only an edge". The "only" is superfluous, and leaving it out makes the rule make much more sense to me.

True! Thanks @a1bert