mahkra said:

1. Rotations are fine - by the diagram all rotations are covered because figures have no facing and can turn 180 degrees at any time for free. However the RAW doesn't seem to work for translations strictly because of either the plural/singluar space typo, the half/third issue or you get some seemingly anomalous restrictions on movement.
If we are going to get this fixed, we might as well end up with a RAW that works to reduce later possibilities of confusion.

2. IMO this is the only real problem we have - which axis can what sort of figure move along. The other problems are trivial and only worth fixing for the sake of preventing idiots having problems later, but we might as well fix them all together if we fix anything. IMO we need to get a decent rewrite to the basic rule and make the possibility or not of moving along the short or long axis explicit.

3. If the answer to 2. is that they can move along either axis is yes then this won't be a problem. If the answer to 2. is no then the RAI (rules as intended) didn't cover this monster anyway and so it will need its own special movement rules just as Antistone said.

4. As I said, if you do diagrams you have to cover every case. just assuming symmetry won't be good enough for some idiots. If we are going to fix it at all, lets fix it properly so it is tight and all-inclusive.
Further, the body of the rules is text. Diagrams are helpful as explanations, but still require text rules.
Most importantly, we are far more likely to get a short text clarification accepted into the body of official rules/clarifications/errata/GLOAQ etc (there is a special word for this but I can't recall it right now - it will come as soon as the edit feature dies I'm sure) than we are to get a long series of diagrams. I know some people understand diagrams better than text, but our priority in this has to be to get the answer in an official way.

5. Yes, 2) in the rulebook is nice and clear.
However I do think Antistone's separation into translation rules and rotation rules is a cleaner and neater system.

Now, onwards and upwards...

Both Antistone's and Mahkra's most recent (at the time of writing) suggestions for wordings were much better than mine. (I'd like to say that was deliberately bad on my part but in reality I was just too focused on try to stay similar in style to the existing ruling and not able to step back far enough to make a clearer picture.) However each, at least it appears to me, offers only one of the two possible interpretations (sideways movement is allowed by Mahkra's, not allowed by Antistone's). Now, much as I would prefer to use one style for both 'options' we present to FFG, why not just use these two options (with appropriate commentary) in the interests of mutual peace? ;-)

So,
Step 1, we outline the problem - since FFG don't seem to be able to understand what the problem is (judging by their answers).
Step 2 we offer our rules rewrites.

[potential send to ffg]
Problems remain with the movement of non-square monsters.
FAQ pg6
Q: Read strictly, the rules for moving non-square figures on page 15 contradict the diagram on page 17, possibly due to non-standard use of the word "half". Can you clarify exactly how non-square figures are permitted to move?
A: Follow the example found in the diagram on page 17.
DJitD pg15
Hellhounds and Dragons are oddly shaped occupying two and six spaces, respectively. They must move in one of the following two ways:
1. The figure moves one half of its body into a non-diagonal adjacent space while the other half of its body moves into the space(s) that the first half just vacated
2. The figure moves to a diagonally adjacent space by moving both halves of its body in the same diagonal direction (also called “sidestepping”). Both types of movement are illustrated in the diagram on page 17.

Unfortunately, the three diagrams on pg17 show us three possible ways of moving. However it is not clear that these are the only possible ways of moving (indeed, it is fairly obvious that they are not as both dragon and hellhound can surely(?) simply move straight forward) and so it needs to be clarified what other ways are possible and what are not.
Rotations are fairly clear, but translations are not. Neither diagram on pg 17 shows an orthogonal translation (along either the short or long axis). If we go by the rules on pg15 then 2x1 monsters may translate along their long axis, but not their short axis. However 3x2 monsters may translate along their short axis but not their long axis (which means they may never move along a corridor!)
If we go by the diagrams on pg 17 then no translations are possible except diagonal!
What is needed is clear indication of which translations are possible - and which are not.

Please consider these alternatives for DJitD pg15 ...

Option 1
DJitD pg15
Hellhounds and Dragons are oddly shaped occupying two and six spaces, respectively. They must move in one of the following two ways:
1.The figure moves one edge of its body into spaces that are all non-diagonally adjacent to the spaces originally occupied by the figure. The remainder of its body remains within the spaces originally occupied by the figure.
(Note: this allows all rotations and all translations (both sideways and lengthwise for all figures) except diagonal. Diagonal translations are covered by rule 2, which remains unchanged.)
2. The figure moves to a diagonally adjacent space by moving both halves of its body in the same diagonal direction (also called “sidestepping”). Both types of movement are illustrated in the diagram on page 17.

Option 2
DJitD pg15
Hellhounds and Dragons are oddly shaped occupying two and six spaces, respectively. They must move in one of the following two ways:
1. The entire figure may move one space in any diagonal direction, or along its long axis ("forward" or "backward", but not "sideways").
2. The figure may rotate 90 degrees (one quarter-turn), while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (i.e. occupying one of its previous spaces if the figure is 1x2, or four of its previous spaces if the figure is 2x3).

Option 3
Non-square figure movement clarification.
Non square figures have 2 axis, a long one (2 spaces long for 2x1 and 3 spaces for 3x2) and a short one (1 space for 1x2 and 2 spaces for 2x3)
All movement of non-square figures must strictly conform to either the rules on pg15 or the diagrams on pg17.
This means that 2x1 figures may not move sideways (along their short axis) and 2x3 figures may not move forwards or backwards (along their long axis)

Option 4
(Something similar to option 3 but with a different decision on which axis are allowed translations).

Please include the note comments if you choose an option with notes because the notes make explicitly clear which translations are covered.
[/potential send to ffg]

Being consistent is better than being better. Use the same form for presenting all options, please. At least if they find it confusing they'll only need to puzzle out the meaning of one confusing passage, and won't have a non-mechanical reason to choose one option over another.

I can rewrite either or both proposals to cover all four of your listed options if you want.

Has anyone actually seriously suggested option #4? If we're including it purely for completeness, shouldn't there also be an option where both 1x2 and 2x3 figures can move "sideways" but not "forwards"?

Antistone said:

Surely being consistent can't be better than being better, or it would be... better.

Please go ahead. My skills aren't always in clarity and consistancy (of style at least).
Since they are simply going to pick one option and discard the rest (hopefully) I don't really see any critical need to be consistent as long as each option presents itself clearly and distinctly. Perhaps an extra line under each option explaining in simpler language what the effect of this is would be a good idea?
eg
Under Option 1
This option allows all odd shaped figures to move (translate) in any direction - forward, backward, sideways and diagonally, as well as rotate 90 degree.
Under Option 2
This option allows all odd shaped figures to move (translate) forward, backward or diagonally but not sideways, and to rotate 90 degrees
Under Option 3
This option allows all odd shaped figures to rotate 90 degrees. It allows 2x1 figures to move forward or backward but not sideways and it allows 3x2 figures to move sideways but not forward or backward.
Under Option 4
This option allows...
Your suggestion would be ...all odd shaped figures to move (translate) sideways and diagonally but not forward or backward, and to rotate 90 degrees.


Option 4 is there for exactly what you are saying. I was simply avoiding be complete, so to speak, in case I missed something. I honestly can't conceive that they could rule that both sizes can move sideways and not forwards since that would contradict every manner of rule or clarification they've ever made relating to this, flawed or not. It also needs to be 'open' so that they can choose something really weird - like 2x1 figures can move forwards but not sideways but 3x2 figures can move either. I don't think they'll rule like that, but who knows? Its clear from the leap ruling that 2x1s aren't supposed to move sideways, but maybe 3x2s are supposed to be able to move both and the 'half' could simply mean 'half or front third'? That would at least be consistent with the way some people seemed to be arguing when this was last in a meaningful discussion about what you could or couldn't do exactly.

The last post is the only one that actually seems simple to read. I think we're going to lose the FAQ editor if there's too much preamble.

Corbon & Antistone, I do agree that what you're pushing for is a much more elegant solution, and I can certainly appreciate that. I just think that if we try to get an elegant solution we'll probably just get nothing at all. I think we're most likely to get a clear answer to our question (instead of just "Refer to the diagram") if we "dumb it down" a lot:

The movement rules are clear for 2x2 figures, but seem inconsistent between 1x2 figures and 2x3 figures. Which of the following correctly describes the way these figures can move?

1. A 1x2 or 2x3 figure may move its entire body one space in any direction - forward, backward, sideways, or diagonally - or it may rotate 90 degrees as shown in the diagram on page 17 of the Journey in the Dark rules.

2. A 1x2 or 2x3 figure may move its entire body on space forward, backward, or diagonally - but not sideways - or it may rotate 90 degrees as shown in the diagram on page 17 of the Journey in the Dark rules.

3. A 2x3 figure moves as described in (1) above, but a 1x2 figure moves as described in (2). 2x3 figures may move sideways but 1x2 figures may not.

4. None of the above. (If so, please explain!)

Corbon said:

Heh. Odd, but yes, it can, because the implied context is different for the two comparisons. The style used for writing B can be better than the style used for writing A, and yet the style of the entire body of work can still be improved by rewriting B in A's style.

Corbon said:

Let's think that through. What is the distinct purpose served by each version if we include two? That is, if the "simpler language" adequately explains the rule, why not just make it the rule, and if it doesn't, wouldn't encouraging the reader to rely upon it be a bad thing?

In fact, if you compare my original proposal, your "simple language" clarification, and Mahkra's "dumbed down" version, I think you'll find the only major difference is explaining rotations (comparing "option 2" for simplicity, and trivial changes to mine to make it pure text instead of a numbered list):

Me: The entire figure may move one space in any diagonal direction, or along its long axis ("forward" or "backward", but not "sideways"). The figure may also rotate 90 degrees (one quarter-turn), while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (i.e. occupying one of its previous spaces if the figure is 1x2, or four of its previous spaces if the figure is 2x3).

Corbon: This option allows all odd shaped figures to move (translate) forward, backward or diagonally but not sideways, and to rotate 90 degrees.

Mahkra: A 1x2 or 2x3 figure may move its entire body on space forward, backward, or diagonally - but not sideways - or it may rotate 90 degrees as shown in the diagram on page 17 of the Journey in the Dark rules.

It's almost exactly the same words, except that I spell out how a rotation move works, Mahkra refers explanation to a diagram, and Corbon just assumes we know. I also offer alternate wordings for the orthogonal move and the turn, because I thought those were most likely to be unclear, but you could cut those without altering the meaning. You've both basically reproduced my original proposal.

I'm not surprised that there's a similarity, because I started with what Corbon had already written and made minor modifications. I was trying to change the tone a bit to make it closer to the way the rulebook is written, which would hopefully make it easier for someone moderately familiar with the rulebook to understand. In any case, if the wording is close, then perhaps we're nearing a consensus?

The slightly altered answer suggestions were not really the point of my post, though; the major point of my comments was to simplify the question we're asking and get rid of all the preamble.

mahkra said:

What bothers me about getting rid of the preamble is that FFG has persistently misunderstood this question. They are very good at getting some weird idea in their head and answering something that was never really asked (assisted by some really bad question writing mind you!) I think the preamble is an important part of the whole. They need to understand the question thoroughly without having to figure it out themselves - the idea is to save them the research time but make sure that they effectively have the research at hand or at least understand what the difficulty is.
Without it we also risk 'offhand' answers where the answerer misunderstnds the question and implications and answers in a way that seems righ to them but is actually very contrary to the probable intent.
We also risk somewhat un-useful answers like the last one to this question which just said 'follow the diagrams'. Without the preamble explaining why the diagrams aren't enough we could easily get the same answer.
It could be that we are doubling up here, with the preamble, better written questions and comments with the answers all doing the same job. However, I would rather do that job 3x than not do it or do it only once and have it missed.

you guys are describing only 10 different possible moves, with an additional 2 (sideways) whose legality is part of the question. I think it would be easy to make two drawings:

One showing all four 90-degree rotations

One showing all four diagonals and the two long axis movements.

A third drawing could show short axis movements and have a big x through it. It would not be much larger than the current examples.

Remy actually made a drawing for the Welcome Mat question, presumably using the Tilesystem utility. I can't imagine why this case would be much harder.

Corbon said:

Fair enough; the preamble as background research for the FAQ editor does make some sense. My fear is that more sentences simply means more opportunities for the FAQ editor to misunderstand or to seize upon something that we're not actually concerned about simply because it's something they feel they can answer easily.

What if we had a succinct question with suggested answers, and put the detailed background info in a postscript instead of a preamble?

mahkra said:

Surely that just makes it more likely that the question gets a sloppy answer first and the rest ignored?

It seems very simple and logical to me.

Step 1: explain the problem (why do we need this answered)
Step 2: Supply exact question
Step 3: Supply optional answers to the exact question (and possibly relate them to step 1 explicitly).

If you move step 1 to the end then step 2 and 3 can easily be addressed without any understanding - and consequently screwed up.

I really don't understand what the problem with an explanation is...
I can understand the desire for diagrams instead of text - some people don't learn well from text. I just don't happen to agree that diagrams instead of text are overall as workable, for a variety of reasons.
The explanation could be shortened - it isn't really necessary to quote the rules/FAQ for example, but I think a clarity, and showing the actual problem, is more important than brevity here. Remember, the result coming back should be just the question and one of the answer options, nice and brief.
The 'result' doesn't need all the preamble etc - that's just to ease FFG's taskload but still make sure they are making an informed decision rather than an off-the-cuff or misinformed decision.

Antistone said:

I agree. I think we are close to agreement (maybe not yet on the need for a preamble) we just don't have an actual text suggestion yet. I still haven't seen anything from you that covers more than one rule option and Mahkras last offering (very simple and easy though it was) was lacking an option that covers the RAW as it stands (1x2 can't move sideways, 2x3 can't move forward)

BTW, I didn't just assume we know how to rotate because those simplified explanations were addendums to my full answer, which gives rotational instructions. And I think it might be reasonable to have both complex and simple versions - the complex version gives airtight mechanics and the simple version gives the intent. Sometimes it isn't possible (or is just too hard) to combine the two. Not saying that this is the case here, just that such purity is not always attainable.

So moving forward again...

[potential send to ffg]
Problems remain with the movement of non-square monsters.
DJitD pg15
Hellhounds and Dragons are oddly shaped occupying two and six spaces, respectively. They must move in one of the following two ways:
1. The figure moves one half of its body into a non-diagonal adjacent space while the other half of its body moves into the space(s) that the first half just vacated
2. The figure moves to a diagonally adjacent space by moving both halves of its body in the same diagonal direction (also called “sidestepping”). Both types of movement are illustrated in the diagram on page 17.

The recent FAq instructed us to follow the diagrams on pg 17. Unfortunately, the three diagrams on pg17 show us three possible ways of moving. However it is not clear that these are the only possible ways of moving (indeed, it is fairly obvious that they are not as both dragon and hellhound can surely(?) simply move straight forward) and so it needs to be clarified what other ways are possible and what are not.
Rotations are fairly clear, but translations are not. Neither diagram on pg 17 shows an orthogonal translation (along either the short or long axis). If we go by the rules on pg15 then 2x1 monsters may translate along their long axis, but not their short axis. However 3x2 monsters may translate along their short axis but not their long axis (which means they may never move along a corridor!)
If we go by the diagrams on pg 17 then no translations are possible except diagonal!
What is needed is clear indication of which translations are possible - and which are not. Below is the question an a selection of possible answers for you to choose from.

Q. Which moves are possible for an oddly shaped monster, and which moves are not possible?
A1. A 1x2 or 2x3 figure may move its entire body one space in any direction - forward, backward, sideways, or diagonally - or it may rotate 90 degrees as shown in the diagram on pg17, DJitD
A2. A 1x2 or 2x3 figure may move its entire body one space forward, backward, or diagonally - but not sideways - or it may rotate 90 degrees as shown in the diagram on pg17, DJitD.
A3. A 2x3 figure may move its entire body one space in any direction - forward, backward, sideways, or diagonally. A 1x2 figure may move its entire body one space forward, backward, or diagonally - but not sideways. Both may rotate 90 degrees as shown in the diagram on pg17, DJitD.
A4. A 1x2 figure may move its entire body one space forward, backward, or diagonally - but not sideways. A 2x3 figure may move its entire body one space sideways or diagonally - but not forward or backward. Both may rotate 90 degrees as shown in the diagram on pg17, DJitD.
A5. Some other option (please explain)?
[/potential send to ffg]

Or add at the end...
Note: A4 is the only option available if strictly following the rules and diagrams as written but means that dragons and ice wyrms cannot move along corridors. A1 to A3 are various slightly liberal, but possibly more reasonable, interpretations of the RAW. A5 is left for you to fill out if there is something completely different we missed. [/[potential send to ffg]

OK, as requested. Differences are in bold.

Option 1 (Any)

Non-square figures may move one space in any direction, exactly like a square figure. They may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).

Option 2 (Long)

Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction, or along its long axis ("forward" or "backward", but not "sideways"). They may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).

Option 3 (Long/Any)

Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction, or along its long axis ("forward" or "backward"). 2x3 figures, but not 1x2 figures, may also move along their short axis ("sideways"). Both 1x2 and 2x3 figures may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).

Option 4 (Long/Short)

Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction. 1x2 figures, but not 2x3 figures, may also move along their long axis ("forward" or "backward"); 2x3 figures, but not 1x2 figures, may also move along their short axis ("sideways"). Both 1x2 and 2x3 figures may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).

I think that covers every option that has been seriously discussed in any thread I've ever read. If we try to cover every conceivable option, seriously discussed or not, we'll probably never finish.

Antistone said:

I can live happily with those answer options, as long as you now frame them with an actual question (and preferably a preamble). You are welcome to use copy my preamble and/or question directly, or rewrite your own.

Corbon, the bold in your last suggestion did alleviate some of my concerns. If it's obvious at a glance where the background info ends and the question begins, that should help avoid confusion and hopefully make the preamble more of an aid than a distraction. I thought the note at the end was also a nice touch, though brevity is essential in such a note.

After reading that note at the end of your suggestion, I agree that a significant postscript would probably be ignored. I was just brainstorming ideas and don't mind admitting my suggestion was not a good one.

Antistone, I'm fine with the wording in your latest answer suggestions. There are some minor grammar issues to clean up before it's finalized, but that's really just my own OCD.

mahkra said:

Ok then. How about this?

[potential send to ffg]
Problems remain with the movement of non-square monsters.
DJitD pg15
Hellhounds and Dragons are oddly shaped occupying two and six spaces, respectively. They must move in one of the following two ways:
1. The figure moves one half of its body into a non-diagonal adjacent space while the other half of its body moves into the space(s) that the first half just vacated
2. The figure moves to a diagonally adjacent space by moving both halves of its body in the same diagonal direction (also called “sidestepping”). Both types of movement are illustrated in the diagram on page 17.

The recent FAQ instructed us to follow the diagrams on pg 17. Unfortunately, the three diagrams on pg17 show us three possible ways of moving. However it is not clear that these are the only possible ways of moving (indeed, it is fairly obvious that they are not as both dragon and hellhound can surely(?) simply move straight forward) and so it needs to be clarified what other ways are possible and what are not.
Rotations are fairly clear, but translations are not. Neither diagram on pg 17 shows an orthogonal translation (along either the short or long axis). If we go by the rules on pg15 then 2x1 monsters may translate along their long axis, but not their short axis. However 3x2 monsters may translate along their short axis but not their long axis (which means they may never move along a corridor!)
If we go by the diagrams on pg 17 then no translations are possible except diagonal!
What is needed is clear indication of which translations are possible - and which are not. Below is the question an a selection of possible answers for you to choose from.

Q. Which moves are possible for an oddly shaped monster, and which moves are not possible?

A1. Non-square figures may move one space in any direction, exactly like a square figure. They may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).

A2. Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction, or along its long axis ("forward" or "backward", but not "sideways"). They may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).

A3. Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction, or along its long axis ("forward" or "backward"). 2x3 figures, but not 1x2 figures, may also move along their short axis ("sideways"). Both 1x2 and 2x3 figures may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).

A4. Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction. 1x2 figures, but not 2x3 figures, may also move along their long axis ("forward" or "backward"); 2x3 figures, but not 1x2 figures, may also move along their short axis ("sideways"). Both 1x2 and 2x3 figures may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).

A5. Something else (please specify)

Notes: A4 strictly follows the RAW and diagrams - but dragons and ice wyrms cannot move along corridors. A1 to A3 are other possibilities. A5 is left for you to fill out if there is something completely different we missed. [/[potential send to ffg]