Hello, I'm new to the forums here, and also now to the game of Descent. (I just found the game and two expansions at a garage sale for 60 bucks! I couldn't resist!!)

I am having trouble with how to move an oblong (1x2 or 2x6) creature sideways. From my reading of the rules on page 15, and the examples on page 17, if I want to move an oblong creature directly sideways (From A to C), it will take two movement points as I sidestep forwards A to B), then back up one (B to C). Is this correct?

Thanks,

Bruce

(edited to fix image)

I believe that's the common consensus. The movement rules for non-square figures suffer from convoluted and imprecise wording, and a strict reading contradicts the example diagrams, so there's a fair amount of guesswork involved.

For what it's worth, if there's terrain, you could also do the same with the following, where X is monster and O is open space:

XX
OO

XO
XO

OO
XX

One question that came up in my last game related to this is whether the creature can go directly from A to C as 1 move when it is being moved by knockback. I think that it cannot, since knockback does not mention the monster moving differently than normal.

We've always played that Knockback follows normal movement rules. You could interpret it as "translate the figure 3 spaces", rather than "move in the normal pattern," but in that case you wouldn't have the ability to rotate non-square figures while knocking them back, and that would be highly inconvenient.

I have another way to think about knockback - imagine a rectangle that extends 3 spaces (2 spaces with a 1x2 monster) from each side of the figure. Pick up the figure and then place it anywhere within that rectangle, at any orientation desired.

The figure (X) could be placed anywhere within the open spaces (O) below.

OOOOOO
OOOOOO
OOXXOO
OOOOOO
OOOOOO

JitD Rules:
the attacker may immediately move each affected target figure up to three spaces away from its current location. The figures must be moved to spaces that do not contain other figures or obstacles that block movement. The figure does not actually move through the first two spaces - it is knocked completely over them.

mahkra said:

Actually, I don't think that's right. I mean, move the figure three spaces left and it'll be out of that diagram. Likewise, the creature could not occupy the first two spaces in the top row, nor the first space in the first and second row. Among others.

Cymbaline said:

1. You can't move it 3 spaces because it's a large figure. This reduces knockback to only 2 spaces instead of the usual 3 (per the rule change in the FAQ).
2. You can definitely move it to the left end of the top row. This is two regular "sidestep" movements from the original location.
3. The top end of the left column is the whole point of me mentioning "another way to think about knockback". The only reason to bring it up was that this reading produces different results than the "as normal movement" interpretation. The monster in the center could not reach that location by spending two movement points. However, I see no reason knockback should need to trace a path like normal movement - all it says is "move each affected target figure up to three spaces away from its current location". (Yes, the example diagram in the JitD rules does trace a path, but this could just be an illustrative tool.)

What do you do in the presence of walls?

Antistone said:

Just think of that rectangle as a template and use the same reasoning you would with the breath template.

Meaning a 1x1 flying creature moving to the target spot without leaving the template? That will let a hellhound (or larger monsters) squeeze through areas where they normally wouldn't fit (even if they had Fly themselves).

Antistone said:

Are there cases where walls (not rubble/obstacles, which knockback explicitly ignores) are adjacent with a diagonal path in between? I can't recall any offhand.

Rolling boulders and crushing walls are treated as walls for purposes of movement.

Hmmm... knockback is not exactly movement, though, so I'm not sure if they'd be treated as walls for purpose of knockback. After all, we're explicitly told that the figure does not actually move through the intermediate spaces. (If they do count as walls for knockback, then just use the breath template reasoning but with a 2x1 flying creature if a hellhound is hit with knockback.)

I don't think it matters if the reading I proposed creates situations where the monster could squeeze through an area it wouldn't normally fit, though. By any reading that sort of situation is already allowed. Rubble blocks movement, but a figure can be knocked back "through" the rubble, even if there's no "normal movement" path to the final location.

I've never actually played by the reading I suggested, though. I was simply mentioning it because it had just occurred to me and I wanted to see what other people thought of the idea. (I've always traced a path and played that each space of knockback can be one translation in any direction or one rotation.)

mahkra said:

By that reasoning, what makes you think that Knockback would be blocked by walls or closed doors? There's nothing in the Knockback description that says it can't go through them, so if normal movement restrictions don't matter...

Antistone said:

Knockback
After inflicting at least 1 damage (before applying the effects of armor) to a figure with a Knockback attack, the attacker may immediately move each affected target figure up to three spaces away from its current location. The figures must be moved to spaces that do not contain other figures or obstacles that block movement. The figure does not actually move through the first two spaces - it is knocked completely over them. As such, this "knockback movement" is not blocked by any intervening figures or obstacles (though a figure cannot be moved through a closed door or wall ).

That last parenthetical part makes me think knockback is blocked by walls and closed doors. I'm just not sure if an obstacle that is like a wall for purposes of movement should use the obstacles part of the knockback description or the walls part.

" Boulders block line of sight and are treated as a wall for purposes of blocking line of sight, attacks, and movement . Boulders roll through the dungeon, crushing everything that gets in their way."

" Crushing walls block line of sight and are treated as a wall for purposes of blocking line of sight, attacks, and movement . Unlike other props, crushing walls move through the dungeon, crushing everything that gets in their way."

The movement by Knockback is still movement, it just has the special rule that you go over obstacles and figures for the first two spaces. Boulders and Crushing Walls would block the movement since they are defined as walls for the purposes for movement.

Is "knockback movement" a subset of "movement" with some special allowances? Or are "movement" and "knockback movement" different things? Given the tendency to overload terms with more than one definition in this game, I'm not sure which of these concepts seems 'right'.

mahkra said:

Can you find an example of movement that bypasses walls and closed doors? And any example of something that allows you to move through boulders and crushing walls other than being passed over them by pits?

Movement and "knockback movement" (the fact that it appears in quotes I take as an indicator that this was not meant as a new defining type of movement) are both still movement which is blocked by walls, doors, boulders and crushing walls.

Big Remy said:

The question I'm asking is whether this statement is demonstrably true or false. I know your opinion on the matter, but I'm not sure there's a definitive answer in the actual rules.

mahkra said:

1) Both normal movement and "knockback movement" require you to move to or through adjacent spaces on the board.

2) Both require that your final space be a legal space that contains no figures or obstacles that block movement.

The only difference between the two is that in "knockback" movement, you pass over any figures and obstacles before placing the figure into a legal square.

Compare to Fly. Fly allows you to move over figure and obstacles such as rubble just like the "knockback movement", but Fly does not allow you to bypass boulders or crushing walls.

Compare to Acrobat. Acrobat allows you to move through enemy figures and move through obstacles just like the "knockback movement" without effect. Acrobat does not let you bypass boulders or crushing walls.

An ability and a skill that were specifically designed to allow the figure to move over or through obstacles are both blocked by boulders or crushing walls. In the absence of a statement (that doesn't exist) that "knockback movement" is fundamentally different and allows the person moving the figure to ignore the rule that boulders and crushing walls act as walls for the purposes of movement, what other conclusion could you draw given all the other mechanisms in the game that act in a similar fashion to "knockback movement" other than it is blocked by boulders and crushing walls?

movement

"The player moves his figure, one space at a time" ... "Figures may move into any adjacent space"

knockback

"move each affected target figure up to three spaces away from its current location." ... "The figure does not actually move through the first two spaces."

Fly and acrobat are modifiers of normal movement. You still move into one adjacent space at a time, but with different restrictions on which adjacent spaces are legal. "Knockback movement" is not written the same way. Instead of moving a figure three times, into an adjacent space each time, you move the figure directly to a location up to three spaces away, without traversing any intermediate spaces. This is a fundamental difference from 'normal' movement and makes me wonder if the movement restriction from boulders should apply.

If "knockback movement" were intended to work like fly, then why not simply write "move each affected target figure up to three spaces away. The figure is moved as if it had fly."

I don't think you're wrong, I just don't think we have enough in the rules to say there really is one right answer.

When different phrases in the rules use the same word, one typically assumes it refers to the same concept unless there is evidence to the contrary. If you consistently applied the opposite assumption, you would likely fracture most of the basic concepts in the rules into several component pieces that wouldn't interact with each other and the game would fall apart.

However, the word "move" (and its derivatives) already plausibly has at least 3 definitions in Descent:

• There's "movement" following the eponymous rules on page 9: "The player moves his figure, one space at a time, until he has either used all of the figure’s allowed movement points or is satisfied with its position..."
• The word "move" is also used in the everyday-language sense of "any change in position". This includes the first definition, but also includes special-case movement like rolling boulders, teleporting through a glyph, etc. that clearly don't follow the rules on page 9. The FAQ also confirmed (p.9) that this was the meaning intended by the word "move" on the Earth Pact skill card.
• There's also "movement" in the sense of pertaining to movement points . The rules hand out movement points by saying "you may move X spaces", but movement points can be spent on "movement actions" (JitD p.16) that don't involve movement in the sense of either of the first two definitions (page 9 even says you can do them "instead of moving"). And of course, moving one space may cost a number of movement points other than 1.

So there's pretty substantial confusion of terms even without supposing that "knockback movement" is yet another special thing.

mahkra said:

Well at least I now know where we differ here on a fundamental level.

That is the first time I've heard it claimed that knockback essentially teleports the figure to the final space.

If that is the case, then why have this statement in the rules for Knockback:

As such, this “knockback movement” is not blocked by any intervening figures or obstacles ( though a figure cannot be moved through a closed door or wall ).

If you don't traverse the intermediate spaces, there would be no reason to have that statement in there.

I'm not just making up the fact that you don't traverse the intermediate spaces. That's right in the rules. "The figure does not actually move through the first two spaces." And this is precisely why the clarification on walls and closed doors is necessary. Since the figure is never actually in those intermediate spaces, one might think a wall or closed door would not affect the knockback movement, but the rule specifically addresses that issue. Boulders and crushing walls were added later, though, and the knockback rule was never updated to address them.