Here are my thoughts on the upcoming Lothal Wastes map. Enjoy!

https://wp.me/p9twzs-7M

Very nice article, however i have some remarks concerning cross of immortality

It is questionable can you use arcing shot to attack figure on blocking terrain. Note, that - by the rules - spaces that share blocking terrain edge are not adjacent, so the figure on the blocking terrain also isn't adjacent to the empty space. When you look at mobile rules, it doesn' say anything about changing adjacency rules, but only:

" • If a figure with mobile occupies a space containing blocking terrain, line of sight can be traced to that figure, spaces can be counted to that figure, and adjacent figures can attack that figure."

As a result It can be interpretated, that figure on blocking terrain isn't adjacent to the non-blocking space and figure, however, it can be attacked, spaces can be counted and LoS can be trace because of the mobile rule exception, that clearly allows it.

On the other hand, you could include Adjacency rules that say, "Two figures that are in adjacent spaces are adjacent figures." and conclude, that because the figure on blocking terrain is adjacent to the figure on non-blocking terrain (which is clearly stated in mobile rules), it is also adjacent to the space occupied by this figure, but it's 100% clear.

IMO it's the second option, but you never know

There is also a problem with arcing shot wording, because it needs the adjacent space to be empty, so even when we agree, that space under adjacent figure is adjacent it won't matter, because for arcing shot to kick in the space need to be empty

However when we rule, that the figure is adjacent to the empty non-blocking space it could be also damaged by grenades, flamethrower etc. targeting the empty space, and it was ruled long ago, that it's not the case.

As a result I guess, that the most consistent interpretation is, that you can't attack with arcing shot.

However, because the mobile rules state, that the blocking figure is adjacent to non-blocking figure it can suffer damage from blast etc.

2 hours ago, Szycha said:

However when we rule, that the figure is adjacent to the empty non-blocking space it could be also damaged by grenades, flamethrower etc. targeting the empty space, and it was ruled long ago, that it's not the case.

Where is the ruling?

See http://www.iki.fi/a1bert/TheConsolidatedImperialAssaultRules.pdf for the best current knowledge of blocking terrain. As far as I know it is agreed upon the IA designers and the tech editors, but not put into FAQ (still work in progress). Also see the thread:

Flamethrower chooses a space, and a figure on blocking terrain can be adjacent to the space, so it would affect the figure on blocking terrain (the figure is adjacent while the space isn't). You can't choose a blocking terrain space though, because the space is not adjacent to any other space.

It depends on the ability whether it works. Abilities that check for adjacency of a figure or object can work while abilities that check for adjacency of spaces do not.

Note that since the core set there have been objects in blocking terrain that you need to interact with, thus you need to be adjacent to them, thus "obviously" you can be adjacent to them without the space itself being adjacent. But... We can continue in the mentioned thread if needed.

Also note, that adjacent is equal to 1 distance by definition, and 1 distance almost certainly means adjacent (through the ruling about needing 1 accuracy when attacking companions in the same space due to they being adjacent by the companion rules).

Well tbh I am afraid I won't be able to find it right now cause It was really long time ago (around ISB HQ rullings concerning placing cameras on blocking terrain) and can't quite remember was it here, on bgg forums or Boardwars discord (and lack of rules queries database do not make it easier :().

It is also possible, that I misunderstood sth back then, because I was just getting into skirmish, so obviously I could take someones answer as official rulling nad I definetly won't argue about it because there is no good answer for "it's agreed among devs but never written".

Also I wouldn't be surprised if that was the developers intent, because it is definetely easier then all those exceptions, but taking into consideration importance of this space and impact of the rulling on the meta we need to be SURE.

Example with objects on blocking terrain doesn't reffer to the clue of the problem, because objects ona blocking terrain are using mobile rules and it's clear that figures on non-blocking are adjacent to figures on blocking. The real question is - are the figures on blocking adjacent also to non-blocking empty spaces. But let's leave it like it is, because there is nothing more to say

7 minutes ago, Szycha said:

Well tbh I am afraid I won't be able to find it right now cause It was really long time ago (around ISB HQ rullings concerning placing cameras on blocking terrain)

Ok. I remember that. While the players did place a token on blocking space during the tournament, the ruling was later corrected. The ruling had nothing to do with figures or objects on blocking terrain though.

You will notice that the case was about a space with blocking terrain, and not about a figure or object on blocking terrain. You can't choose a blocking terrain to place a token, because the space is not adjacent to any other space. (You also cannot count spaces into a blocking terrain space, only to figures or objects on blocking terrain.) This was reinforced in the FAQ which explicitly says that a space with blocking terrain is not adjacent to any other space, including surrounding spaces that are also blocking terrain. However, if a camera would be on blocking terrain, the camera can be adjacent, but not the space.

Yeah, I know the ruling and didn't intend to refer directly to it (because as You said it's irrelevant) but just used it as a timemark to show when I came into the actual ruling concerning grenades :). (Camera ruling caused lot's of mobile/blocking havoc including blocking/non blocking adjacency). As I said, let's leave it like it is, because we won't get anywhere

Great article, Brett. Good breakdown of strategic places and all that.

It's true, it is a huge map, but I don't think you mentioned that the Blitz mission will allow everyone to move 8 spaces in before starting... I'm looking forward to a lot of funky stuff happening on that mission. The 8 spaces should help brawlers at least a little and almost makes it like a smaller map. Hope that makes sense. Just wondered how you thought that mechanic would impact things.

Anyway, I always like reading your articles.

21 hours ago, Mandelore of the Rings said:

Great article, Brett. Good breakdown of strategic places and all that.

It's true, it is a huge map, but I don't think you mentioned that the Blitz mission will allow everyone to move 8 spaces in before starting... I'm looking forward to a lot of funky stuff happening on that mission. The 8 spaces should help brawlers at least a little and almost makes it like a smaller map. Hope that makes sense. Just wondered how you thought that mechanic would impact things.

Anyway, I always like reading your articles.

I agree that brawlers will close the gap during that 8 spaces of movement, but in my head "everyone move 8 spaces and use normal pass rules" is just a round 1 where you're not allowed to attack and no VPs are scored. In that sense the match really starts during round 2, kind of like the delay on Uscru since doors are locked. I've even heard of people playing "take initiative" round 1 on Lothal. Crazy!

Arcing shot targets a figure, not a space, therefore you should be able to use it to target a figure on the spire.

Might have missed this on other threads. But can someone explain why the cross spot isn’t targetable? Does the attached rule from the RRG not negate that? Or is it assumed that the blocking terrain in between the two negates this rule?

It makes sense from a thematic point of view that they’re standing on top of a shell type thing, so you can shoot them. I’m sure someone has figured this out, but I don’t see why the mobile rule doesn’t take precedence.

On 10/25/2018 at 12:58 PM, ffmonkey said:

Might have missed this on other threads. But can someone explain why the cross spot isn’t targetable? Does the attached rule from the RRG not negate that? Or is it assumed that the blocking terrain in between the two negates this rule?

It makes sense from a thematic point of view that they’re standing on top of a shell type thing, so you can shoot them. I’m sure someone has figured this out, but I don’t see why the mobile rule doesn’t take precedence.

hmmm....

On 10/25/2018 at 7:58 PM, ffmonkey said:

It makes sense from a thematic point of view that they’re standing on top of a shell type thing, so you can shoot them. I’m sure someone has figured this out, but I don’t see why the mobile rule doesn’t take precedence.

You cannot draw line of sight through the other spaces of blocking terrain the figure does not occupy. (See page 5 of the FAQ 3.0.)

On 10/25/2018 at 5:21 AM, brettpkelly said:

I agree that brawlers will close the gap during that 8 spaces of movement, but in my head "everyone move 8 spaces and use normal pass rules" is just a round 1 where you're not allowed to attack and no VPs are scored. In that sense the match really starts during round 2, kind of like the delay on Uscru since doors are locked. I've even heard of people playing "take initiative" round 1 on Lothal. Crazy!

It's a round 1 where you can't attack but also can't use any abilities or play any command cards. So in that sense it really hurts things like Rebel Care Package.

The only figures that can attack this "immortal" space are other mobile figures. So han-rangers are useless. IG is useless. Vader can't even hit a figure in it. Sabine is killing any terminal sitter. Arcing shot from drokatta can be used 1 time per game. This map was made for spectres:( Not balanced. Was this even play tested?