In the FAQ it says that a large (4 square) monster can choose to be affected by terrain if one square occupies it. But what about moving through blocking terrain? For example, there is a two square wide corridor with 1 square rubble blocking half of it. . . can a 4 square base monster move beyond the rubble?

Under original rules: definitely not.

Under FAQ rules: um...probably not. Maybe? The FAQ version of large monster movement has been completely changed about 3 times, and it's been confusing and ambiguous every time.

oshfarms said:

The FAQ says you can ignore (the alternate choice) terrain effects when you enter terrain.
If the terrain effect is that you can't enterm then you aren't able to get to the 'ignoring it' stage.

Rubble and Water (terrain that block entry) can't be ignored by large monsters.

Thank you both for your input.

Corbon said:

I don't really follow this reasoning. It seems you're saying that the monster can't ignore the terrain until after it's actually occupying the space, rather than during the "entry" transition between spaces. But many terrain effects are actually "entry" effects rather than "occupation" effects, so that same logic could mean that a large monster has to pay the extra MP for a mud space - because it's not yet occupying the mud space when that extra MP is paid, it cannot ignore that effect.

mahkra said:

I know there are at least a few people around here who do read the rules that way.

Personally I'm inclined to agree with the logic that a large monster can only ignore the effects of terrain he could theoretically enter anyway. Obstacles like rubble and water that prevent entry altogether cannot be ignored. Finnicky rules debates aside, that's definitely how I play it.

mahkra said:

1. You may not enter this space. Therefore you may not occupy this space - enter and occupy are synonyms, as well as occupy indicating 'already' being there.

2. When you occupy the space you may ignore it's effects.

There is no way to get to 2 without breaking 1.

What you really don't follow is how the other terrain types, with entry 'costs' work. In order to ignore the entry effects, you have to be allowed to do the entry transition (again, occupy is a synonym of enter). If you can to the the entry transition, then you can ignore the 'entry costs' if you are allowed.

Corbon said:

I do follow your logic for rubble. But if you interpret the rule that way, I think it "breaks" other terrain types. I don't see how the rule can reasonably work one way for rubble and another way for mud. If you do so, you're making the treatment of entry costs contingent on something that hasn't happened yet, which really seems like broken logic to me. If you can ignore the entry cost *before you've entered the space*, why couldn't you ignore the entry restriction *before you've entered the space*?

Re: #2 - But you're not occupying the space yet when the effect happens, in the case of mud. So does that mean you have to pay 1 extra MP, but then when you're finally in the space, you retroactively get that MP back? What if you're out of MP? Do you have to spend 1 fatigue to enter, then get that back as 1 MP when you're finally in the mud space?

I think it's much "cleaner" to ignore entry costs, and by the same logic ignore entry restrictions, and I don't see it as game-breaking to allow large monsters to traverse rubble or water. I just don't see how you can ignore entry costs but enforce entry restrictions. (Well, obviously you can; I'm not going to tell you you're playing the wrong way, because you can interpret the rules however you want. But that interpretation doesn't make sense to me.)

mahkra said:

I italicized the wrong word in my last post; the resulting sarcastic tone was unintended. The sentence above should read "obviously you can ..."

Hmmm.... I just glanced back at the last thread where we discussed this issue and noticed the following:

Corbon said:
Most 'entry' costs are actually costs required to 'get there' - you pay for them when you get there, not 'before you may enter'.

I guess this concept does explain the different treatment of mud and rubble, but I'm not really sure what basis there is in the rules for this interpretation. Also, I think that if you imagine "entry costs" are actually costs to be paid when you get there, then you could move your hero onto a mud space with your last MP and then say "Oh, I don't have any MP left. I guess I can't pay that 'entry cost'. But I'm already on this mud space. Oh well."

The rules are still ambiguous. Take movement - spending one movement point allows a figure to move adjacent 1 square. Many squares state in the rules "It costs 2 movement points to enter a mud space." etc... The best argument I can see is that "entering" the space means the figure's center crosses the plane of the adjacent space's edge, so that the space encompasses the figure's center point. "Enter" meaning to cross into one physical location from another physical location, rather than to occupy (occupying can be stationary without any moving action and only involving 1 location). To occupy would invite argument that the movement cost has to be paid to stay in the same space each turn.

The FAQ seems pretty straight-forward

Q: If movement point costs are ignored by figures suffereing Knockback (or smaller movement styles like Swinging on a Rope, Jumping, and Climbing out of a Pit), do they still pay Fatigue penalties (such as Sea of Blood's deep water?)
A: Yes.

Costs can only be ignored by forced entry to spaces and special rules which allow it. In SOB, a character without fatigue left still pays in wounds for water. FFG doesn't intend for the game to have "Free Lunches" very often.

The rules state that a 4sq monster must occupy 4 spaces, meaning that it still needs to enter 4 spaces. The rules specifically state large monster rules for Mud, Lava, Ice and pits. (Keep in mind to check multiple rulebooks, not just SOB or a single expansion. All rulebooks are downloadable online, including a merged rulebook pre-SOB.) If there is an argument during the game, I don't think you can deviate from the specific written rules without a house ruling / consensus agreement, so the more rulebooks you can print out: the better.

mtnshredder718 said:

But the general ruling in the FAQ means the specific rules for mud, etc. are outdated.

mahkra said:

The FAQ still has to be interpreted and house-ruled by the players on what the implications are.

It mentions "hazardous terrain (lava, scything blades)" and "beneficial terrain (trees, elevated terrain)" which ALL have occupying effects post-entry. However, in no instance does it attempt to use the wording "enter," or mention spaces that only deal with additional cost to enter. It only uses the wording "it partially occupies / completely occupies / occupying."

The Ice rules in the SOB rule book still specifically state large monsters are only affected if the full monster is in. This same inclusion was taken out of the same rulebook for mud spaces. It's likely that for SOB they decided large monsters should have to pay additional movement costs for some of these for balance; or it's also likely that the rulebook was pieced together by multiple people who didn't have perfect cohesion. They didn't need to include the same wordings for lava / pits anymore since these fall under post-entry effects. Either way, the rules state one thing and could imply many other things.

mahkra said:

What on earth would give you that interpretation?

It is the difference between bars and a doorman.
If you couldn't pay the cost when you got there then the doorman send you straight back where you came from. "We'll have none of your sort in this space thank you very much!" Large monsters, obviously, are large , and just get a "err, welcome... sir" when they don't pay the cost.
But bars are still bars, even when you are large.

Corbon, here's that update I promised you in the other thread. A bit late, since it's actually 12:11am here as I hit "Publish", but nonetheless...

I thought the original rules seemed pretty clear, at least in the vanilla expansions, though there's never been a defined general "Movement Sequence" like the Attack Sequence in the JitD rules. We were just given specific instruction for each new type of space. We were usually even given specific instruction regarding large monsters. (Parts relevant to large monsters in bold below.)

Rubble: "blocks both figure movement and line of sight."

Pit: "if a hero or monster moves so that the figure is only occupying pit spaces , the figure falls into the pit."

Mud: "a small figure must spend 2 movement points ... to move onto a mud space" ... " Large figures are affected by mud, but only if they make a move that results in the entire figure occupying mud spaces ."

Dart Fields: "each time a hero or monster moves so that any part of the figure is occupying a dart field space , it risks being hit by a dart."

Fog: "Figures have line of sight into adjacent fog spaces. A figure in a fog space has line of sight to all adjacent spaces, but not to any other spaces."

Tree: "It costs two movement points to enter a tree space. A figure in a tree space is considered to have the Shadowcloak ability. Large monsters only need to occupy one tree space to benefit from this ability ."

Though we're never given a Movement Sequence, I imagine moving to an adjacent space actually involves the following steps:

1. Determine whether the intended adjacent space can be legally occupied. (e.g. not Rubble)
2. Determine the cost (generally MP cost) to move to the intended space.
3. If sufficient MP to pay the cost, move figure to adjacent space, paying MP cost.
4. Suffer any immediate effects of occupation. (e.g. damage from lava)
5. Suffer any prolonged effects as long as that space is occupied. (e.g. restricted LoS in Pit or Fog, Shadowcloak in Tree)

Then came the FAQ ruling:

When large monsters move, they can sometimes find themselves moving across hazardous terrain (lava, scything blades) twice as often as other figures. Further, it can often be confusing whether or not beneficial terrain (trees, elevated terrain) should affect a creature only partly standing on it. Use the following guidelines to arbitrate these instances.
The overlord may choose to have a monster affected by any terrain it partially occupies. A monster MUST be affected by any terrain it completely occupies. If the monster is completely occupying multiple terrains, the figure has to be affected by one of the terrains (Overlord's choice).

This FAQ ruling superficially seems rather simple, and it does negate one rules loophole for the OL:

• If a large monster is half in mud and half in lava, it now must be affected by one of the two, instead of being able to use each to be safe from the other.

However, it also raises numerous questions, some of which have been discussed in other places and remain ambiguous:

• When does the OL choose? How long does that choice last? When, if ever, can he change his decision?
• Must the overlord choose to have a monster affected by any single terrain, or could he choose to consider a monster in a tree and on a throne?
• What is considered "terrain"? That term is used in a few places in the FAQ but is never defined. And it's not really used in the rule books. (It's mentioned in component descriptions for RtL/ToI/SoB - map tiles have "dungeon terrain" or "outdoor terrain" - but it's only used in the actual rules once, in the "Rope" part of the SoB rules, and it is never defined. I'd guess that Lava and Mud are probably terrain, at least thematically, but is Fog? Dart Fields? Pits? Rubble?)
• As written, the OL only has a choice about the terrains currently occupied, which means the OL cannot choose to ignore the added cost to move its front half onto a mud space or a tree. I imagine the rule is intended to function the way the rules were written in the WoD and ToI rules, though, and the OL should be able to choose to ignore terrain that the figure does not already occupy but will occupy after movement.

Assuming we can get past those issues, I'm still not sure what the FAQ means by "may choose to have a monster affected by any terrain". This could plausibly mean a few different things.

A. The OL may choose to ignore occupation effects, such as Fog / Lava / Tree, but must still pay applicable entry costs per the normal rules. (# 4, 5 are conditional in the Sequence above.)
B. The OL may choose to ignore entry costs and occupation effects, but still may not move onto any space that could not be legally occupied by a small figure. (# 2, 4, 5 are conditional.)
C. The OL may choose to ignore ALL effects of a certain terrain, as long as the movement does not result in the entire base being in that terrain type. (# 1, 2, 4, 5 are conditional.)
D. (Something else I haven't considered?)

I believe "B" is Corbon's interpretation. "C" would allow large monsters to occupy rubble and water. But the right answer might also be "A"; I'm not sure why to believe any one of these options is more valid than any other.

mahkra said:

Nice post, good job.

Actually, I'm not strongly committed to any of the options above except #1. Aside from the clean simplicity and unbreakable logic of "if you can't enter you can't occupy (for any sense of occupy, see below, so you can't ignore 'may not enter' conditions)"...
FAQ pg13
Outdoor Encounter: Ancient Grove
Trees are impassable only to single space figures.
This ruling was provided because there are a lot of trees in this location and if the encounter was a large monster one (such as the Ogre brothers) then it was rendered nigh unplayable for the large monsters.
If impassable single space terrain (trees in this location, by special rule) are not impassable to large monsters then this ruling basically isn't needed.
To me, its already obvious and clear that large monsters can't enter impassable terrain. This however is additional proof.

To me, this conclusively rules out C.

Occupy can also mean 'enter + hold' or 'go into and stay in'. When a nation occupies the territory of another, the entering is a part of the occupation. You can't occupy without entry. Entry is both a prerequisite and a part of occupation.
Thus a monster may occupy (enter and hold terrain) terrain and ignore entry costs .
It is not restricted from the prequisite and can (avoid) pay(ing) the costs as the 'part' of occupation.
However if he is restricted from entering that terrain then he couldn't occupy (enter and hold) because he is restricted from fulfilling the prerequisite.

This leads me to think B is the obvious usage, though mtnshredder718 pointed out a technical loophole that might allow A.

Either way, large monsters still cannot enter impassable terrain.

Agreed. A and B both seem reasonable for house ruling.

On a physical reasoning scale, large monsters can lift one corner of their legs to avoid trudging through mud / lava / etc, but can't squish their bodies over into half the space to avoid walls / doors / rubble / deadly bloodsquids that jump out at you (hence the reason you can't jump over dungeon water) etc.. More simply, they can avoid stepping on stuff, but can't avoid running into stuff. This supports B if the group is still in disagreement of A.

mtnshredder718 said:

As far as rules go, I support B completely.

If you want to talk logic or theme however, I actually wouldn't have much issue with a large creatue squishing itself up to move though a narrower space. I don't generally believe that a monster fully occupies the entire space its base covers. Part of that area is also room to shift around, so that a creature can duck and weave and swing weapons without being too cramped. This is the same reason I don't have a problem, thematically, with a single space monster or hero cutting diagonally between a wall and a rubble marker. The rubble doesn't fully occupy the space, just enough of it to prevent (relatively easy) movement through that space and the hero/monster can squeeze up to fit though the gap between it and the wall.

Logic and theme, however, sadly take a back seat in Descent. There's just too many crazy scenarios to house rule based on theme, so I prefer to step back and say "it's a board game, it doesn't need to make sense." Play by the rules, don't worry about logic. Using this method, my group and I have found exceedingly few balance issues with the game.

Corbon said:

My only issue with this is that the Ancient Grove bit is from an older FAQ update. It could have been necessary at the time but no longer necessary with revised rules for large monsters in general. In fact, it's possible that this example of how problematic impassible terrain can be for large monsters (which are less maneuverable and have fewer movement points) ultimately led to a revised general rule, basically making all blocking 'terrain' only block small monsters.

mahkra said:

I simply don't believe this is credible given the path of the large monster movement rules from the original rules through various FAQ versions through to the current one.

Corbon said:

I'm not familiar with the entire rules progression as I've been playing the game for less than a year, so all I really have to go by is the current FAQ. (I'd also read the previous FAQ, but I don't think I actually bothered to save a copy of the old FAQ when the new one was released.) I do think the Ancient Grove bit is somewhat compelling, but there are other unnecessary entries in the FAQ (like "who rolls for undying"), so I wouldn't be overly surprised to find out the Ancient Grove rule is actually not at all necessary.

I will concede that if I had to bet my life on one answer, I'd probably say that large monsters cannot pass through rubble - that seems to be the more likely answer, simply based on the fact that that's how the original rule worked. If they intended to change that rule, they didn't do a very good job explaining it. There's enough ambiguity in the rule, though, that I think it could easily work the other way, and I certainly wouldn't be shocked to find out it actually does. (As for all the other questions raised, including "What things are considered terrain ?", I really have no clue at all. It may be that Rubble and Water are not even considered terrain and our entire discussion is moot.)

On a more general note, it should never be necessary to know the history of a game's rules in order to have any idea what the current version actually means. The Descent rulebook should be ashamed of itself.