Background:
Problems remain with the movement of non-square monsters.
DJitD pg15
Hellhounds and Dragons are oddly shaped occupying two and six spaces, respectively. They must move in one of the following two ways:
1. The figure moves one half of its body into a non-diagonal adjacent space while the other half of its body moves into the space(s) that the first half just vacated
2. The figure moves to a diagonally adjacent space by moving both halves of its body in the same diagonal direction (also called “sidestepping”). Both types of movement are illustrated in the diagram on page 17.

The recent FAQ instructed us to follow the diagrams on pg 17.
Unfortunately, the three diagrams on pg17 show us three possible ways of moving. However it is not clear that these are the only possible ways of moving (indeed, it is fairly obvious that they are not as both dragon and hellhound can surely(?) simply move straight forward) and so it needs to be clarified what other ways are possible and what are not.
Rotations are fairly clear, but translations are not. Neither diagram on pg 17 shows an orthogonal translation (along either the short or long axis). If we go by the rules on pg15 then 2x1 monsters may translate along their long axis, but not their short axis. However 3x2 monsters may translate along their short axis but not their long axis (which means they may never move along a corridor!)
If we go by the diagrams on pg 17 then no translations are possible except diagonal!
What is needed is clear indication of which translations are possible - and which are not. Below is the question an a selection of possible
answers for you to choose from.

Question:
Q. Which moves are possible for an oddly shaped monster, and which moves are not possible?

Answers:
A1. Non-square figures may move one space in any direction, exactly like a square figure. They may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).
A2. Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction, or along its long axis ("forward" or "backward", but not "sideways"). They may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).
A3. Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction, or along its long axis ("forward" or "backward"). 2x3 figures, but not 1x2 figures, may also move along their short axis ("sideways"). Both 1x2 and 2x3 figures may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).
A4. Non-square figures may move one space in any diagonal direction. 1x2 figures, but not 2x3 figures, may also move along their long axis ("forward" or "backward"); 2x3 figures, but not 1x2 figures, may also move along their short axis ("sideways"). Both 1x2 and 2x3 figures may also rotate 90 degrees while continuing to occupy as many of the same spaces as possible (1 space for a 1x2 figure, 4 spaces for a 2x3 figure).
A5. Something else (please specify)

Notes: A4 strictly follows the RAW and diagrams - but dragons and ice wyrms cannot move along corridors. A1 to A3 are other possibilities.
A5 is left for you to fill out if there is something completely different we missed.

A1 is imposible: It would contradict another answer in the FAQ in which is stated that the blood ape may not leap sideways becasuse 1x2 monsters don't move that way.

Q: When making a Leap attack, can a blood ape leap
"sideways" so that it affects twice as much area?

A: No. Refer to the large figure movement rules on page
15 and the diagram on page 17 of the "Journeys in the
Dark" rules. Monsters using Leap must still follow all
normal rules for movement except as specifically noted.

Also, there is nothing in the rules that treats 1x2 monsters and 2x3 monsters diferently. Acording to the text in page 15 (and completly forgeting about the diagram) each non square monster has 10 posible ways of moving, which are those described in A2: Front, Back, Left turning arround its head, Left turning arrond its back, Right turning arround its head, Right turning arround its back and the 4 diagonals. In theory a hellhound could also use a MP to simply look back (its head moves back and its back moves to the space previously ocupied by its head) but that would be a waste. The same goes for the dragon.

Since this problem seems to arise due to the wording in page 15 let me add another answer (A5) which is actually the same as A2:

A5 (or reworded A2): For 2x3 square monsters consider that a "half" is a 2x2-shaped group of 4 squares and follow the instructions in page 15. The diagram in page 17 will no longer contradict the rules.

If I understand correctly, A4 can also be reworded like this:

A4 (reworded) : For 2x3-square monsters consider that a "half" is a 1x3-shaped group of 3 squares when following the instructions in page 15. A 2x3-square monster may also "turn" (90 degrees) in the same way as 1x2-square monsters do.

This may need to change "front half" and "back half" into "left half" and "right half".

Galvancito1 said:

Actually, it is implied (not stated) that they don't move that way, and we are told to reference the contradictory rules under discussion.

But you are correct that we should point out somewhere in the write-up that that previous FAQ answer needs to be modified if they A1, to indicate either that "oops, they actually can leap sideways" or "they still can't leap sideways because of some other reason."

Galvancito1 said:

OK, first of all, if you need to redefine common English words to mean something completely different from their usual meaning - and especially if you need such a redefinition to apply only to a specific special case - that does not make the rules correct, it makes them horribly wrong.

Secondly, your redefinition doesn't fix the rules, it makes them incoherent. They state "The figure moves one half of its body into a non-diagonal adjacent space while the other half of its body moves into the space(s) that the first half just vacated" . A dragon doesn't have an "other" 2x2 group of squares after subtracting the first group. Talking about "the other half" doesn't make any sense unless half actually means 50% of the whole.

The goal of a clarification is to make the rule clear, not to vindicate the authors by somehow proving that the rules were really right all along. Even ignoring that they obviously weren't right all along in this case, the first priority in phrasing the answer should be showing exactly what moves are actually allowed, not showing how the original rules should have been read (unless that happens to be the most effective way to fulfill the first goal).

And I think the concepts of translation (though maybe not by that name) and rotation are simpler and more familiar to most than the idea of slicing figures into pieces and moving each part according to separate rules, so we should explain the legal moves in those terms, not in the insane way they tried to do it in the original rules.

Galvancito1 said:

If the goal were to replace Corbon's current A4 with something that is more confusing and requires cross-referencing other rules in order to have any hope of understanding it, sure. Except that you also need to define "in the same way as 1x2-square monsters do", since the whole problem is that the current rules don't generalize correctly. Technically, under the current rules, 1x2-square monsters rotate by moving "one half of its body" orthogonally and etc., etc., which instructions, when followed literally by a 2x3 monster, do not result in a rotation .

All right, all right. I never intended to say that the instructions were absolutly correct, I just said what I understood from them.

Just to clarify, when I redefined the word "half" there I wasn't trying to imply that a dragon is the addition of two halves of dragon. What the definition I used implies is that the front half and the back half share 2 spaces. Try to imagine a dragon as two giants who are sharing 2 spaces. The giant in the front moves to the side, so the giant in the back moves to the front. The shared spaces are now diferent ones, but they still share 2 spaces.

But you are right, it doesn't work either because it doesn't make it any simpler. I was just trying to fix the problem with the least amount of changes posible, so that the designers don't ignore the question just because it is hard to fix. The same goes for A4, I was just rewording it so that it would be easier to understand (it seems I failed).

By the way, I'm sorry about replying to all this now. I have just read this is from one or two months ago. I hope I haven't given you much trouble.

Galvancito1 said:

No, please don't stop!

Your is precisely the sort of contributions that I, for one, was really hoping to see, and have been greatly disappointed by not seeing much of. SO please don't get discouraged and stop!

It just so happens that you picked some of the most well-thrashed out problems already. I think I agree with most of want Antistone said, even if the manner was somewhat abrasive (that's just his way, please ignore it and continue), but you are clearly understanding the goal of this subforum and attempting to contribute to it. Thank you, and whatever the result, please continue!

And that goes to the other threads' you've answered too. Just because not everyone agrees with your attempts, doesn;t make them less valueable. I'm sure there are things that have been missed and mistakes made in many threads, so if you keep contributing you'll make a difference somewhere.
Even just providing another perspective is valuable in that it helps to make sure the bases have been covered.

Thanks, and keep it up.

I don't see anything to change from the starting post here, Galvancito1's comments notwthstanding.

Any last objections before it gets include in the final FAQ proposal document?

In spite of the resto of my coment not being worth satnding, I think that the fact that A1 contradicts de leaping of the blood apes should be present somewhere. Otherwise, you risk getting an answer in the FAQ that contradicts another answer in the same document.

I added a short sentence in the notes at the end...
(although A1 directly contradicts existing rules and/or FAQ answers by allowing ‘sideways movement)