Greetings,

after reading Rulebook, FAQ and GLOAQ for the 20st time I now need a clarification of lieutenant battle preconditions. (RTL only)

To describe my problem:

Rulebook:

"If the heroes end their movement in the same area as a lieutenant, they may (but do not have to) attack that lieutenant."

FAQ Page 17 (Beware the typo of the lieut a nants):

"Q: Must a lieutanant or the hero party end their movement on the same location to attack eachother?
A: No."

GLOAQ:

Q: The rulebook states that a lieutenant or hero must end their movement in the same location to attack each other?
A: Heroes and Lieutenants must declare a move action if in the same location and wish to attack each other, but do not have to move a trail away from their current location during the move action.

Well, the FAQ blows me away, what was the intention of the question?

Concrete:

A: The heroes can move another trail after battling the lieutenant. With the staff of the wild they can even move, attack lieutenant, move again.

B: The heroes can battle a lieutenant in the city they are starting, and train afterwards in the same week if they survive. They do not need to declare movement action to battle a lieutenant.

C: Screw FAQ and GLOAQ for this one and do as the rulebook states: The heroes can only battle a lieutenant when declaring movement action. They cannot move any further, but are allowed to visit the city (after not beeing TPKed outside Tamalir of course...)

Thanks in advance for clarification,

Edo..

Edo77 said:

The FAQ and GLoAQ quotes seem to be astoundingly badly worded, even for the norm around here. Are those direct cut and pastes?

In any event, option C is how I understand the process working.

Hmm, wait. As far as I understand it, the heroes do not have to end their movement after battling the lieutenant. If they're victorious in the encounter with him, they may continue their movement(of course, only if they haven't already traveled their maximum number of trails- two with Staff of the Wild).

If they battle the lieutenant in a city, they may, in case of victory/lieutenant's retreat, visit the market/tavern/alchemist in that city in the same game week.

Edo77 said:

1. The rules are fairly clear.
2. The GLOAQ is clears the one minor loophole in the rules.
3. The FAQ question is confused, riddled with errors, a grammatical mess and fundamentally flawed (If you take the answer as written heroes and Lts can attack each other any time in any location even if they are at opposite ends of Terrinoth - they do not have to end their movement on the same location to attack, so if the heros end on Rverwatch, for example, they could use this ruling to attack a Lieutenant seiging Frostgate!

IMO the FAQ answer is a mess in every way, so bad that it is entirely ignorable. (But well noticed, I've made a note for the next FAQ.)

I don't quite understand what you were trying to say with your 'Concrete: A, B and C' thing. Was that a question? was it a series of statements, one or more of which might be correct?

IMO the situation is this:
i) Heroes and Lts must declare move actions in order to attack each other. This rule out training in the same week.
ii) Heroes and Lts must end their move action in the same location in order to attack each other. They don't have to actually move (which is the purpose of the GLOAQ answer), but they can only do any attacks at the end of their movement. This rules out attacking and then continuing movement with the Staff of the Wild, but means that they can attack each other (by Move Action without movement) if they start in the same location. It also leads to the use of the 'visit' at a town, since that is what you can do after movement.

WIth that in mind I believe your A and B are illegal and your C is correct.

Corbon said:

The "A, B and C" thing was indeed a question, I remembered Thundercles FAQ update thread, where someone stated that questions should have a selection of answers. Although it was for FFG-Staff only, I still think it should also be used in here.

Perhaps it was a bad wording, english is not my mother tongue... @Steve-O: Yes, it is all copy 'n paste from up to date sources.

Back to topic:
We always played the situation like Corbon stated, but got into argue about how to play it last session... any idea how I should tell my players (who found this screwed up entry in FAQ), that they should ignore this one?

Oh, and "common sense" is not an option here!

Baaaah, Forum is still wacked!

@Edo: Just fyi, "common sense" is like "logic + descend" as someone posted in his sig!

You know very well that you would have used that FAQ against me as well! And denying (sp?) it, doesnt count!

@Natarko:
Yeah right, "I know it is wrong but you would have done the same"
And I'm denying it even if it doesn't count!

What I'm wondering is the lack of response I get to this FAQ-entry, I would have assumed a whole new "heroes" vs. "overlords" -thread-battle here. It either means that most of the people here are playing it like they used to (ignoring FAQ i presume), or that they are getting tired of these discussions

Anyway, I appreciate very much that it will most likely be clarified in the next FAQ, thanks Corbon

By the way, when will the next FAQ be released, is there a new hope in sight?

Edo..

Edo77 said:

March is the usual. I don't know any more than that except we've started a 'process' much like has been done before. Last time Thundercless came down with an enormous list of questions which we then discussed and Big Remy went back and forth with FFG several times.
In the end, everything is entirely up to FFG, even whether they bother with the questions we ask.

All we are doing is preparing the questions (and optional answers) beforehand, so we can discuss them here and refine them with more peoples input. Hopefully by doing this we can reduce the ambiguous answers, leading questions and general errors that plague the FAQ. But FFG still has total control.