In a game session last night during a RtL campaign, our Overlord had played a treachery card that lets him place an ice marker on the board.

The situation was we were in the second area of the Legendary Area (the fools rapids) and he placed a 2x3 ice marker on a a square beside the glyph in the center of that area. The triggering square.

He tried to place the 2x3 marker so that it would go under the glyph that was there, I said it was not legal, but reading the card I could not find any sort of rule to back it up in the FAQ or elsewhere as a glyph is not considered to be an obstacle.

The exact text on the Frozen Path card:
Play this card when a hero moves into any empty space. Place any available Ice marker so that it overlaps that space, is completely on the board, and isn't overlapping any obstacles.

That hero is affected by the Ice marker as if he just moved into that space.

Everything was legal about the trap he placed, except that he had placed it under the Glyph in that area which I am not sure about.

Thoughts and opinions?

Jonny WS said:

If, as you say, a glyph is not considered to be an obstacle, then I think is well played. So, legal for me. (my opinion).

Jonny WS said:

A space with any token in it is not empty. Whether or not that token is an obstacle, whether or not it has any appreciable game effect, tokens occupy spaces. The only exception to this rule, as clarified in the FAQ, is Corrupted Terrain.

Obviously, the figure who's currently moving doesn't count as "occupying" the target space just yet, otherwise it would be impossible to ever play such cards, but other figures would normally stop the space from being "empty" as well.

Also keep in mind that this same rule applies to everything else that requests an "empty space." In particular, spawned monsters must be put in "empty spaces" which means the OL can't spawn something on a glyph (activated or not) or on any kind of terrain (except Corrupted, as above.)

Steve, this answer doesn´t help at all. The trap card doesn´t require to place the complete ice marker solely on empty spaces - only the triggering space has to be empty, the rest of the spaces must be free of obstacles.

According to the card, the placement was legal. Yet there is almost no precedence for two tokens being on top of each other. Thus, I am quite certain, that it would be clarified towards "free of obstacles or other tokens" or the like, if asked.

Parathion said:

Agreed. 100% legal, but probably not intended that way.

But the rules are what is written, not what the writer intended to write...

The only thing that remotely reminds me of this situation is back when I played a AoD quest and had corrupted terrain makers set on the normal dungeon tiles. And trying to play a pit. but this was before the FAQ ruling.

Yeah, there is no other precedence that I can recall apart from my above example, so I guess it is a legal thing. Maybe this is worth an FAQ ruling? Or at least an errata? "free from other obstacles and markers, the spaces need to ALL be empty"

Probably doesn't need to be entirely empty - figures, familiars, and perhaps treasure should all be fine. I think it just needs to be clear of "props", though that term will need a more precise definition if it's going to be the actual rule.

Steve-O said:

Since the faq clearly states that you can spawn, move on unactivated glyphs, potions, money markers, even treasure chests and the likes this whole argument is false.

Drglord said:

Not the whole argument, just the statement that spawned monsters need an empty space (which is entirely peripheral to the actual argument) - they don't, their requirements are no obstacles or figures (original rules) or activated glyphs (FAQ).
The rest of the argument is sound.
Figures are regularly left sitting on tokens, and there is no problem with that. However there are never immovable tokens on immovable tokens. Never.
Even corrupted terrain, an immovable token which counts as an empty space, and can therefore have other immovable tokens played on it, ceases to be corrupted terrain if that happens.

Claiming Invalidation of an entire argument based on a minor error in a peripheral point is ... well, simple incompetence.

I wasn't talking about the original argument just the statement of spawing needing empty spaces which i had never ever heard of.