Hello everyone ! Here's the question :

When a large figure (ex : ogre) moves one step into two squares with aura (ex : bottle imp, aura 1), does it take :

1/ the aura damage once ? (1 damage)

2/ the aura damage for each square with aura ? (2 damages)

I know the answer to the question can be found here http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=4&efcid=1&efidt=298474&efpag=0#298482 and here http://www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_foros_discusion.asp?efid=4&efcid=1&efidt=294970&efpag=0#295006 , but I'm playing with a party of real stubborn players, so I'd like real clear answers to this problem. Multiple answers would be perfect, to avoid the "that's just one guy's interpretation of the rules" syndrom.

I'd like to hear Antistone's reasoning for his answers in those other two threads. I can see nothing in the rules, FAQ, or GLOAQ that indicates a figure moving into two aura squares simultaneously will only take damage from one of them.

Oor-tael said:

Aura
Each time an enemy figure moves into a space adjacent to a figure with the Aura ability, it immediately suffers 1 wound that cannot be reduced by armor. The Aura ability inflicts no damage when the figure that possesses the ability moves adjacent to an enemy figure.

Aura damage is by 'time' not 'space'. When a large monster moves into two aura spaces at once (from the same source) it is still only one time it has moved into those spaces, so it takes 1 damage (per Aura point) - your 1/ above. If it then moves again to the next space (whether it is still in one or two of the aura spaces), that is a second time it has moved and it takes another point of damage. Note that each movement spent is a single 'time', not each 'turn'. So, an Ogre with Movement 3 could suffer up to 3 damage when moving through a single source of Aura 1.

Multiple sources of aura would each do damage independently, so a monster moving into two separate aura's with the same single space worth of movement would suffer 2 damage.

You don't need multiple answers, you just need to read the rules closely and apply them.

"Each time an enemy figure moves into a space "

Why does "time" mean its time-bound when "a space" doesn't mean it's triggered once per space? Highlighting part of a sentence and then ignoring the rest seems a bit disingenuous. I'm not saying I like the rule, nor that I'd vote for it if it comes up at our table, but I can't understand the logic in claiming that one word in the trigger clause matters but another doesn't.

How many "times" did it move into "a space?" If it's large it moved into this space one time, and that space one time.

James McMurray said:

Just read it!

The 'trigger' is the time. The 'space' is not the trigger, it is a condition on the trigger. It is a case of basic english language sentence structure...

When a figure moves into two spaces at one time (and it is one time) then Aura is triggered once. If it moves into two spaces consecutively, then that would be two times, and triggered twice.

James, you've got my players' reading of the rule, you're not helping me !

Just kidding... the more we debate, the closer we get to an official answer !

The hero/monster with Aura will inflict one damage(ignoring armor) per each space adjacent to it that an enemy figure moves through.

That's how we've always played, anyway.

I would personally like it if the large monster only got zapped once. I'd even be willing to go as far as saying that's probably the intended mechanic (for as much as a statement like that is worth from anyone other than the game designer.) However, looking at the actual Rule as Written provided above, I have to say I'm inclined to side with James on this one.

Focusing on the word "time" over the word "space" in this sentence is splitting hairs, which I am loathe to do, even if there is some grammatical support for it. Each of these words seems equally important to me. What's more, considering the number of events that trigger off a figure entering a space (ie: lots) and the number of events that trigger off a time (this would be the first I've heard of) it seems to me that in the language of the game, the "entering a space" is a far more reasonable trigger condition to take as fact.

Now, if there were to be a FAQ ruling that proved me wrong, I would be among the most joyous of celebrants in attendance at it's release party (for the newbies, we regularly throw forum parties when a new FAQ gets released. A common party game is to tear apart the new rulings and figure out what other rules this ruling breaks.)

If the Ogre moves adjacent to two enemy figures with Aura, he will recieve 2 damage. Aura should stack, in my opinion.Check the wording again for the Aura ability; it describes what happens when an enemy figure moves adjacent to one figure with Aura, so if there's more than one figure with that ability in adjacent spaces, the damage stacks.

zealot12 said:

I don't think anyone would disagree with that one... 2 enemies -> 2 separate Aura's -> take 2 damage.

But - with regards to one large monster moving into one hero with aura - he only takes the damage once. The monster may in fact be 2 spaces wide and enter 2 spaces affected by the aura - but it is 1 aura surrounding the hero - it is damage that is taken when the monster is moving into adjacency with the hero - once.

We can argue over "time" and "space" and english language skills all we want and not come to any 100% consensus...

But this is one of the times where I think you can look at what is the skill - it's a protective aura - a ring if you will around the hero. When you enter this ring - BAM - 1 point of damage. (unless higher level of Aura obviously...)

I know plenty of people will likely disagree with me - but hey - that's how it goes.

The Aura wording is terrible, but the intent seems pretty clear to me. The large monster should only be damaged once by the aura.

Let's consider some other ideas that may not seem immediately relevant:

JitD p.15
Large monsters can only be targeted once by a single attack, even if a Blast or Sweep attack covers multiple spaces occupied by the figure. Likewise, large monsters only take one wound from slime per move, no matter how many spaces containing slime they enter.

(Slime didn't make it into the published game, but replace "slime" with "lava" and the sentence makes sense.)

FAQ p.10
Q: What happens if you are on a lava space at the beginning of your turn and you don’t move?
A: If you begin your turn on a damaging effect, such as lava or a monster’s aura, and do not move off of it, you are damaged by it at the end of your turn.

To me, it seems pretty clear that whether you think of Aura as a damaging effect (like lava) or as an area-effect attack (like blast/breath), a large monster should only suffer the effect of the Aura once per "time", as Corbon described it.

Ah, the accent was on the size of the affected figure. Then it's pretty clear to me; only one damage per source of Aura, of course. Why should large creatures suffer more? Size doesn't matter.

zealot12 said:

Keep telling yourself that. Sorry to derail the thread but someone had to say it!

I said that on purpose.

Steve-O said:

My technical grammar is pretty hazy, particularly the correct names for things (I have to check between verbs and adjectives more often than not when trying to remember which is which!)

But there are two different 'rules' as I understand them which make it clear to me, at least that the time is the subject here, not 'the' space(s).

First, 'Each' is being used here as a pronoun, which indicates that time is the subject noun, especially as space is preceded by 'a' which is an indefinite article (?), further indicating that spaces are not the primary subject of the sentence.
Second, the primary suject of a sentence should be the first article in the sentence (time).

I think it is far from splitting hairs, more just reading a sentence according to normal grammar rules.

As others have pointed out, taking only one wound per aura rank/source has precedents with large monsters and difficult/dangerous terrain, not to mention if the monster doesn't move and stays in the Aura.
That seals the deal for me. Basic grammar, backed up by two different types of precedent...

Corbon said:

So if I tell you that each time I get a soda from you I pay 50 cents, then I can now get 400 sodas for 50 cents if I can manage to pick them all up at once? There is no grammatical allowance for splitting that clause into two pieces and then throwing one out the window, regardless of how reasonable the result is. If your claim is that its basic English usage to separate the dependent parts of a clause and then ignore one of them, you'll need more than "because I say so" or "just read it" as proof.

First, 'Each' is being used here as a pronoun, which indicates that time is the subject noun, especially as space is preceded by 'a' which is an indefinite article (?), further indicating that spaces are not the primary subject of the sentence.

Yeah, it's a pronoun. Each what, though? Each time an x does y at z. You don't get to ignore y and z just because you want to.

Second, the primary suject of a sentence should be the first article in the sentence (time).

The subject of the sentence is neither the time nor the space, it's the entire clause. If I say "each dog that ate my cat should be shot" you don't get to toss all but one of the dogs as candidates for a bullet just because they all chewed at the same time. What you're calling "common English usage" is just plain wrong.

Can you give an example of "each x that y" which would clearly let you ignore the y part?

Aura

Each time an enemy figure moves into a space adjacent to a figure with the Aura ability, it immediately suffers 1 wound that cannot be reduced by armor. The Aura ability inflicts no damage when the figure that possesses the ability moves adjacent to an enemy figure.

In the first sentence, it's implicit that when a figure moves, it moves into * a * space. Ignoring the aura concept entirely for a moment, the sentence does not even try to account for a scenario where a figure would move into multiple spaces at once. This is clearly a case of a rule being written without considering large monsters (which happens all the time in this game, so it shouldn't be a surprise).

A large monster is not moving into " a space", so if you wanted to be super-technical, maybe you could say the monster is not affected at all by the aura if it moves into two aura spaces rather than one? It moved into a single aura space zero times, but moved into multiple aura spaces one time.

The sentence just doesn't work if the assumption that a figure enters one space per movement is not valid. I don't see how anyone can determine anything definitive simply from the Aura description, since that description is blissfully unaware of the existence of large figures.

I agree with Corbon's conclusion (for reasons mentioned in my previous post) but disagree with the assertion that the Aura text actually tells us anything useful.

Corbon and Mahkra are agreeing on something again......how much more confirmation do you need ? That only happens like twice a decade. It must be just 1 damage per source of aura, not per space.

Kartigan said:

Again, I agree that that's how it should work, but there's no way that the sentences in the Aura description actually say that. At least not without tossing grammar out the window.

1 damage not 2 is my vote

Just to throw some fuel on the aura fire, I really don't think it's a good idea to try to use strict English grammar when deciphering these rules. English is a language, and as such open to interpretation by both the speaker and the listener. Sure, it has rules but how many native English speakers truly know/undertand/use all of those rules? Plus they change over time (all languages are living).

I find it's usually best to try to apply context and figure out the author's intent is. You know, going by the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law?

-shnar

Aura
Each time an enemy figure moves into a space adjacent to a figure with the Aura ability, it immediately suffers 1 wound that cannot be reduced by armor. The Aura ability inflicts no damage when the figure that possesses the ability moves adjacent to an enemy figure.

It must be 1 wound each time an enemy figure moves [into an Aura-affected space and whatever else, be it another Aura-affected space]. If it were 1 damage per space moved into, it would be written:

For each space adjacent to a figure with the Aura ability an enemy figure moves into, that enemy figure immediately suffers 1 wound that cannot be reduced by armor.

Ispher said:

That isn't right however - due to the following example:

If your monster had Aura 1 - and my hero could move say 6 spaces. My first space moves adjacent to you - therefore I take 1 wound that cannot ignore armor.

None of us will argue that.

BUT - I can now use the remaining movement - should I want - to run a circle around you - all the while remaining adjacent to you - BUT - I do not take another wound for each movement in an adjacent space - ONLY when I FIRST move adjacent to your monster with Aura 1.

The only exception to this - is if I were to be dumb (or want to kill myself) move adjacent - move one space away - move back (take hit) - move a space away - move back adjacent (take hit).

This is how I have always understood it - and believe I read this example somewhere at some point as well...

But hey - please show me if I am wrong.

SoylentGreen said:

Not sure why you think you would only take 1 damage in this case. The Aura ability does not say anything about the FIRST time you move adjacent. If you move into a space adjacent to a figure with aura, you take a damage. It says EACH time, which implies each and every time, not just the first.

A figure with acrobat/flying could actually move through a figure with aura and not take that extra hit of aura since you can not be adjacent to yourself and if you are moving through a figure you are in the exact same space.