Marshy Valley Location card: "It cost 1 extra movement point to enter any space that is adjacent to water."

FAQ: "While a creature is Soaring, it ignores the terrain in its current space. A Soaring creature may choose to “land” and disable its Soar power until its next turn; if it does this it is affected by terrain just like any other figure."

So this is pretty cut and dry, right? A creature that is soaring would not suffer the movement penalty in this location, correct?

More generally, can a creature that is soaring end its movement on an obstacle that blocks movement? (I know that the Fly ability does not allow this, but the "ignores the terrain in its current space" from FAQ led me to think that this might be possible.)

You can house rule this if you want,

BUT location rules are not terrain rules, so even a monster who soars is still under the effect of the location rules.

In my opinion, you are reading too much into the fluff. Sometimes this is harmless, but as a general guideline, this is a dangerous thing to do in Descent. After all, perhaps the Marshy Valley rules have more to do with debilitating gases which rise above the ground, even into the sky. Perhaps they represent swarms of annoying gnats which distract everyone.

There are several locations with rules like this, so it isn't really trivial– If soaring figures are to ignore some location rules, then they must ignore them all. In my opinion, soaring monsters are already so good, that they don't need this extra help.

-pw

Well, I don't think I was reading into any fluff as everything I quoted was from game components and/or the FAQ. (You will have to trust me on this, but in my gaming group I am certainly the last one of us to use fluff/theme to help interpret rules). I see your point though: location text trumps special ability text, right? OK, I will think about this. Thanks for the response. Clearly it was not as cut and dry as I had first thought.

What about the more general question regarding Soar: can soaring creatures end their turn on obstacles that block movement?

Falculus said:

Soar is a variation of "Fly". "Fly" says: "Figures with the Fly ability may move through enemy figures and obstacles as if they weren't there. However, flying figures cannot end their movement in a space containing another figure or an obstacle that blocks movement . A flying figure may end its turn in a space containing an obstacle that inflicts damage without effect."

The difference between Soar and Fly consists in the +4 range stuff only (and the sweeping coming with it). Apart from that Soar should be treated like Fly.

kalev said:

Totally wrong.

Soar has nothing to do with Fly at all - except that all Monsters with Fly automatically get Soar.

I'm not as sure as Phelanward about the movement cost question. Yes, the penalty is a location rule, but it is specifically tied to terrain. Soar can ignore terrain. Arguably, spaces next to water are a specified terrain type for this location, and the rule is a terrain rule for this location. This is not clear because terrain is undefined.
I'm not saying Soarers do have to pay, I'm saying it isn't as clear cut as Phelanward suggested.
It is a slightly different situation from a flyer, who specifcally ignores obstacles in its own spaces. The location effect is not a direct obstacle effect and indeed, many of the location affected spaces will not be obstacles, so a flyer does not get to ignore this penalty.

Soarers, while Soaring (not landed), may definitely end their movement in a space that blocks movement - they are ignoring the terrain effect and there is nothing in the soar rules that says they may not end there. (Note that while they are "...considered to be flying above the ground..." that 'flying' is neither capitalised nor bold and is thus not a reference to the Flying ability.)

Just my two cents...does the adjacency ruling for soaring and Aura, Shadowcloak, and Grapple have any weight as part of this argument?

Most specifically the second part of the answer that does not seem to be specific to being adjacent to figures.

Here it is:

Q: How does Soar interact with abilities such as Aura, Shadowcloak, and Grapple that refer to adjacency?

A: A creature that is Soaring is adjacent to no other creatures. A creature that swoops becomes adjacent, as normal. If a creature swoops and becomes grappled, it remains at “ground level” until it is no longer grappled. In order to be adjacent, a figure must be at range 1. Range penalties from elevated terrain are ignored for these purposes.

dragon76 said:

Technically no - as you note, the non-adjacency is specific to creatures (another undefined term, we assume it means figures). The location rules use adjacency to spaces, not figures.
But it might be a good indication of the intent.

Corbon said:

Soarers ignore terrain effects, yes. But is water terrain? I know that there have been discussions about what is considered to be terrain and what is not. At least this is unclear. In the RtL rules water is listed among "obstacles and props". When it comes to "terrain" in the FAQ they talk about beneficial or hazardous terrain all the time, which means they refer to terrain as sth. you can move on and end your movement on. The FAQ entry which tells us about Soarers ignoring terrain is also an answer to a question about beneficial terrain, actually:

"Q: Do Soaring creatures benefit from terrain?
A: While a creature is Soaring, it ignores the terrain in its current space. A Soaring creature may choose to “land” and disable its Soar power until its next turn; if it does this it is affected by terrain just like any other figure."

I understand that you regard Soar as sth. completely independent from Fly. But if you do so all you learn about Soar comes from the ability description and the FAQ only (and not from the Fly description). The ability description says (apart from the +4 range and the swooping), that figures with Soar are "considered to be flying above the ground". What does that mean if you cut the reference to Fly? That those figures are more difficult to attack because of the extra range, but that comes in the subordinate clause. Do you read the "considered to be flying" part as mere thematic flavour text?

Furthermore, if you negate the reference to Fly the Soar description does not even say anything about moving through obstacles or other figures, as the "Fly" description does. According to such a strict reading figures with Soar (but no Fly) could not move through enemy figures. Is this how you play?

To sum up: I am not convinced that 1) Soar has nothing to do with Fly, and that 2) water (the only movement-blocking space in outdoor encounters, if I am not mistaken) is terrain.

I had tottaly forgotten the rule about being adjacent. Soaring are not adjacent while soaring? That creates pretty weird situations.

So that means you don't get pierce 2 with arinda and tobin can attack them? There goes my world in flames we never got into a situation like that but good to know since we are playing against kratz the plague and that means that even if he is adjacent to you and you are in a tree he has to swoop down to hit you. Quite interesting since i haven't read the faq for quite some time.

Now about soaring and penalties our group plays it so flying ignores muds and others spaces costs and i don't think we are going to change it now even though it gives uneeded edge to the razorwings which are already a pain in the ass. I believe the creators never realized how much pain in the ass will razorwings be by putting them at 5 range and then having them upgraded leaving the only viable solution the breath weapon with power potions to deal with them since they are quite tanky even in their silver form.

But there are other considerations to be made if the adjacent rules includes spaces as in the raging river location. Do razorwings when soar suffer 1 wound when next to a water space or since they are NOT adjacent don't?

It seems the whole thing is as complicated as the rules for large creatures and terrain.

kalev said:

No one knows what terrain is exactly. It is undefined.
But your argument that because they talk about beneficial or hazardous terrain therefore terrain must be something you end your move on is ...just ... so wrong. There is no connection between those two things, let alone a forced conclusion from one to the other. Beneficial and hazardous terrain most definitely include not-end-of-move results. If you interrupt a monster with a guard attack while it is in a tree, or elevated, it gains the benefits of said terrain. If you move through lava or other hazardous terrains, you suffer the penalties even if you don't end your move there.

Now what we do know about terrain is that in includes hazardous terrain (explicitly including lava and scything blades, so it includes at least some trap tokens/built in map elements and some obstacle tokens/built in map elements. It also includes beneficial terrain - explicitly including trees and elevated terrain.
So we have an undefined thing (terrain) that includes at least three different types of obstacles, and as a general usage would be expected to cover anything related to the ''ground' or surface that is being fought over.
That certainly includes water.

There is no grounds for excluding water just because it is not normally something you could end your move on.

kalev said:

I already explained why it is very clear that the flying reference is soar is only flavour text. See the embolded part above. Every time an ability name is used during any of the ability descriptions it is emboldened and capitalised. Even within the Soar description this is used for Flying in the last sentence. Go read it!
So no capitalised emboldening, no reference to the ability.

Yes, this means that Soar does not inherently allow travel through figures or obstacles without effect.
It never needed to originally, because as part of the Soar definition, every figure with Soar has Flying , which already provides those capabilities. There are no figures with Soar but not Fly , by definition.

It was the FAQ which gave us the rule that Soarers ignore terrain entirely, not the Soar rule.

Drglord said:

Soarers are not adjacent to any other figures . So yes, no Pierce for Andira, Tobin can attack, ranged soarers must swoop to attack heroes in trees and two razorwings are not capable of attacking each other.

Drglord said:

Its pretty simple, except for special location rules which are not clearly obstacle rules or tied to terrain. Only Kalev keeps muddling the issue with wierd claims that don't match what the rules/FAQ say.

Flying does ignore mud. But it does not ignore special location rules that are not explicitly an obstacle effect.

I agree with most everything Corbon has said.

But, Corbon, which of the location effects do you consider to be ""explicitly an obstacle effect" ?

I don't want to sound all rules lawyery, but I don't see the need for an extra step here, nor do I like the idea of personally interpreting the thematic origin of each location effect. I also don't think, balance-wise, it's a good idea to make soarers any more exceptional than they are.

For example–

Enormous Oaks: Trees on this map block movement. --- Ok, but soarers can specifically ignore trees. No problem.

T horns: All figures entering a tree space suffer one wound. --- Well, as long as a tree space is a space with trees, then this should still apply.

I think we have to be pretty rigid here, or risk going down a slippery slope. If we decide that soarers can ignore "Blanket of Snow" or "Bog" because they're thematically tied to the physical ground, well then surely they can ignore "Mysterious Aura", since that's presumably associated with the ground as well.

-pw

Corbon said:

No, it is the other way round: "Note that all monsters with the Flying ability also automatically have the Soar ability." (RtL p. 30)

There are indeed monsters with Soar but no Fly: Demons, Dragons, and Manticores.

phelanward said:

Any effect which is specifically tied to an obstacle space as an effect of that obstacle.

Yes examples:
Ancient Grove/Enormous Oaks - the rule changes the effect of trees. But Trees are still obstacles (or terrain), so anything which ignores obstacles (or terrain) can ignore this 'location rule'.
Frozen Pass/Below Freezing - the rule changes water spaces to ice spaces. So anything which ignores ice spaces can ignore these spaces.

No examples:
Marshy Valley/Bog - the rule applies to spaces adjacent to water spaces. But the 'bog' spaces are not obstacles, and the rule is not a water-obstacle rule so flyers cannot ignore this effect. The 'bog' spaces might be (probably are) terrain, so Soarers might be able to (probably can) ignore this effect.
Snowy Woods/Blanket of Snow - the rule limits total spaces moved, but the limit is not specific to any particular space type, obstacle type or, probably, terrain (even though it is described as a blanket of snow, which is descriptively/thematically a sort of terrain). This is very much a 'general rule' for the location, rather than a rule triggered off obstacles or terrain which can therefore be ignored by figures who can ignore obstacles or terrain.

phelanward said:

I'm not sure what you are talking about, 'an extra step'?

It's pretty simple.
If the rule is tied to specific obstacle spaces or specific terrain spaces, then it can be ignored by figures that ignore those types of effects.
If the rule is 'general' and not tied to obstacle/terrain rules then it can't be ignored.

The only difficulty is that 'terrain' is not defined.
This is where we there is uncertainty about 'bog'. Is 'bog' a form of terrain? Since terrain is undefined we can't tell . Personally I think that bog is terrain. I guess the nearest thing I have to a personal definition of terrain is something like "any space which has a specific effect associated with it and that cannot be removed normally". That rules out treasure and encounter markers, but includes trap tokens, obstacles, other props and even unmarked-but-defined Bog.
It does not include 'blanket of snow' because that effect is not tied to any specific space - instead it is more of a global effect regardless of the terrain. The 'blanket of snow' description is purely thematic, not rules.

But that is just my best guess at 'terrain', since FFG have not defined it.

I'm not interested in the 'thematic tying to the physical ground'. I'm interested in whether the effect is associated with a specific space or spaces or not.

kalev said:

Quite right - I got that muddled around, sorry.
I've even pointed out thematic reasoning for it being this way round to doubters many times (the big monsters with wing's can't stretch them out inside the dungeon so they can't Fly over obstacles).

I guess then that is why they added the rule that Soarers could ignore terrain in the FAQ - because before that Dragons etc were 'flying high' but still restricted by terrain since Soar does not have any inherent anti-terrain rules.

Corbon-

In your post previous to my last, you said

"Flying does ignore mud. But it does not ignore special location rules that are not explicitly an obstacle effect."

The extra step I was referring to was the step of checking to see if the special rule is an "obstacle effect" before deciding whether or not a soarer/flier can ignore it, which is certainly what your comment implies we need to do.

And since "obstacle effect" is a rather vague term, and one which-- you must concede-- you did just kinda make up, I assumed you were grouping it with all effects attached to or derived from obstacles, such as Bog-- which is an effect, and it is one that is explicitly attached to an obstacle. But you have since clarified that you did not mean that, and I think we're in agreement about most of the the important stuff.

Where we are in disagreement is the treatment of soarers and ignoring terrain. The reason I am "accusing" you of being a bit thematic is that you are making your own inferences about this terrain thing, which, it seems, you admit. Of course, this is your prerogative, I just think it's the wrong choice. You see a qualitative difference between effects like Swollen Stream and effects like Blanket of Snow. I only see a quantitative difference-- the first affects certain spaces, while the other affects all the spaces. But if reference to certain spaces is, in fact, intended to be a qualitative difference (e.g. to signify it as "terrain") then it seems likely that we would have at least one example of a special location rule that would say something like "For all spaces in this level, _________ ." Of course, this sounds somewhat silly when you consider the effects we have-- " For all spaces in this level, no figure may move more spaces than its speed during its turn. " This sounds cumbersome, of course, but by your logic, this is how they would actually write it if they wanted to have a "terrain" rule that affected all the spaces. And it's merely a coincidence that the only terrain rules that we're given are those which are limited to certain spaces. In my opinion, they would never actually write this-- instead, they would write it exactly as we have it. So, I don't see how we can draw the distinction between omnipresent "terrain" and simple abstract location rules. Therefore, I think there should be no exceptions for soarers under the grounds that some locations are "terrain" and some aren't. Does that make sense?

-pw

Corbon said:

Quite right - I got that muddled around, sorry.
I've even pointed out thematic reasoning for it being this way round to doubters many times (the big monsters with wing's can't stretch them out inside the dungeon so they can't Fly over obstacles).

I guess then that is why they added the rule that Soarers could ignore terrain in the FAQ - because before that Dragons etc were 'flying high' but still restricted by terrain since Soar does not have any inherent anti-terrain rules.

Recognizing this, your interpretation of Soar in consequence has to forbid soaring but non-flying monsters to move through enemy figures. Instead they may end their movement on water. I am sorry, but I don't see any point in this.

My reading of Soar might be "totally wrong" as you kindly uttered before, but it simplifies things. The passage "Any figure with Soar is considered to be flying above the ground" indicates to me that creatures with Soar do not get Fly, but that the rules for Fly are applied to them as well. If they would have typed "flying" capitalized or bold this might have suggested that those Soaring creatures actually get Fly in addition to Soar, which they don't. Because if they would get it, they could Fly in dungeons as well, which was not indended.

Another thing: If you insist on the "there's no connection between Soar and Fly" dogma the FAQ become extremely important, since only there we learn about such a basic principle of Soar as the ability to move through something undoubtedly is. Neither the "Fly" nor the "Acrobat" description lack this part. Can't this be because FFG believed us to be familiar with Fly already when Soar was invented, so they thought a small hint would be enough to let us apply Fly to Soar, thus making Soar an extended Fly? That seems more elegant to me, easier, more comprehensible from a developer's perspective.

I am convinced-if of anything at all in this matter-that the rules for Soar could have been written much better than they are and that they offer more than one possible way of reading them in their current state. Let alone the dubious usage of "terrain" and stuff. Anyhow, my claim that water is no terrain, at least not the kind of terrain addressed in the above quoted FAQ entry, is rather a gut feeling, so forget about it. That would be another tiresome discussion.

Just for the sake of an easier gameplay I will stick to the (maybe or even possibly wrong) rule, that Soar is sth. like "Fly deluxe", with the same options and restrictions concerning movements through and ending movement on something as Fly comes with.

Just out of curiosity: How do others handle this?

PS: My apologies to the thread opener for abusing the thread for a side discussion.

phelanward said:

Not really. We simply apply the rule for everyone, but recognise what it does. Then a flyer moves over a water+ice space and says "I am moving through an ice obstacle and may treat it as though it isn't there" and carries on. Or moves into a bog space and says "I am not moving through an obstacle (the bog itself is not an obstacle), so I cannot treat it as though it is not there".

This is what a Flyer does for every single space of its movement anyway (even if mostly we can easily gloss over it).

Same for Acrobats and Soarers/Terrain. Soarer: "I am moving through a space, does this space have a terrain effect? If yes, I can ignore it".

phelanward said:

Note that while bog is attached to obstacle spaces by adjacency, it is not a function of the obstacle space itself - by which I mean that a flyer/acrobat can ignore it if moving through the obstacle space that it is attached to (which of course it is not, since it is moving through a space adjacent to the obstacle space causing the effect - therefore it cannot ignore the effect).
Fly : Figures with the Fly ability may move through enemy figures and obstacles as if they weren't there. ...
If you are not moving through it, you can't ignore it.

I think there is a lot of paraphrasing going on here, me probably as guilty as anyone. But I think my paraphrasing is in expression, while yours is in idea. I am simply trying to say, play the rule (each of them) exactly as it says. A flyer does not 'ignore obstacles', it "may treat obstacles it is currently moving through as though they are not there ". That is a tiny bit different, and in the case of bog, and blanket of snow (because it is not attached to any obstacle) very important.

phelanward said:

I don't see any other choice, since terrain is undefined. If we want to apply a rule that refers to terrain, we have to decide what terrain is. Or else ignore the rule.

phelanward said:

Yes I see a qualitative difference.
If I enter a space, I can say "this space has this effect tied to it."

It isn't a matter of numbers. It is a matter of a quality held by a space.
If a quality is not attached to specific spaces then it is simply a 'general' quality - no different from a dungeon level rule that says something like "roll a dice at the start of each OL turn. On a blank the heroes each lose 2 wounds, on a surge any hero with an order token loses it". Nothing to do, mechanically (ie rules rather than thematic fluff) with any terrain, obstacle, spaces, areas etc, just a 'general' special rule.

phelanward said:

Why? What makes it likely? It is only likely if they have something that they intend to work that way on all spaces. If they don't, it isn't likely.
Frankly, I don't think they would want something like that. What is the point of a rule that applies to every space? There is no tactical advantage there by moving in certain ways. So better to make it a 'global' rule instead and apply it to everyone equally.
Yes, they could have a rule designed specifically to benefit Flyers or Soarers. But I don't see much point in that. Flyers and Soarers already have considerable advantages, so I imagine that they are more interested in pegging them back rather than giving them more advantages. Making the rule global instead of attached to all spaces does exactly this.

phelanward said:

Or, they could have said something like. "Blanket of Snow: All spaces in this encounter (or perhaps 'All empty spaces in this encounter") are Snow spaces . (Possibly '...as well as their normal space type. ...') No figure may move through more Snow spaces in its turn than its speed. " Which is much less cumbersome and a lot more like their normal writing.
But the point is moot. They didn't.

phelanward said:

What your argument really boils down to is "we don't know what terrain is so we are going to count 'everything'."
That is really just a different definition of terrain, and I think a much worse one.

kalev said:

Corbon said:

Quite right - I got that muddled around, sorry.
I've even pointed out thematic reasoning for it being this way round to doubters many times (the big monsters with wing's can't stretch them out inside the dungeon so they can't Fly over obstacles).

I guess then that is why they added the rule that Soarers could ignore terrain in the FAQ - because before that Dragons etc were 'flying high' but still restricted by terrain since Soar does not have any inherent anti-terrain rules.

Recognizing this, your interpretation of Soar in consequence has to forbid soaring but non-flying monsters to move through enemy figures. Instead they may end their movement on water. I am sorry, but I don't see any point in this.

Yes. Since they are large and slow (and rare), they often struggle to do this anyway given they can't end in the same space as another figure.
There doesn't have to be a 'point'. That is just what the rules say.

kalev said:

I'm sorry you thought that was unkind. It was wrong. It might simplify things for you, but it is a houserule and actually changes the effects/results under discussion at the time, which means though it may be simpler to apply, it actively complicates the discussion.

kalev said:

kalev said:

You'll have to go a long way before you will convince many people that "FFG were dropping hints instead of just writing the rule" is more likely than "FFG screwed up the rule".
In fact, you can start now at several million C and I'll see you at the end of eternity to collect on my wager that you will still not have convinced anyone.

kalev said:

On that we can agree. The rules could be written much much better.

kalev said:

House rules are fine. But advertising them as actual rules, especially when they change the interaction under discussion.....

Corbon said:

Well, initially I was not aware that this might be a house rule, which I meanwhile admit. That's what the forum is for, right? Discussing rules which can be misunderstood due to their nebulous wording. I never intended to adverstise a house rule as an actual one, knowing that this would be a rather hopeless effort as long as you stick around here, anyway.

Yet even now, taking into account everything you wrote, I am not really sure of what is right and what is wrong. Your ruling is based on the two assumptions that the "flying above the ground" part is flavour text and that water is terrain. You also presented some reasonable arguments why you think so. Still I have doubts in both cases, and I don't see any way to overcome them on the basis of the sources on hand. Accuse me for being stubborn, which I probably am. I for my part accuse FFG for messing things up.

But I do not want to start all over again. As you mentioned, non-flying soarers are very rare, so ruling them either way will probably not break anything. A statement, which-for the record-is not meant to subtly advertise anything.

I guess I have to admit, as things stands currently everything involving terrain is a house rule in reality.

kalev said:

We treat it as Fly++ that only works outdoors.

Actually that´s not a houserule - it´s right there before our eyes, in the GLoAQ... nobody reads it these days, obviously

35. Do creatures with Soar also have Fly abilities?
Yes. While outdoors (not while in a dungeon) creatures with the Soar ability have all the benefits of Fly in addition to Soar. Likewise, creatures with Fly retain all those benefits while outdoors, in addition to gaining the benefits of Soar.

Parathion said:

Good finding! But unfortunately it mentiones only the benefits of Fly, not its restrictions. So what is your guess? Can Soarers/Flyers end their movement on water or not?

kalev said:

Soarer's definitely can (outdoors, when soaring) - they can ignore terrain entirely according to the FAQ.

Assuming any sort of reasonable definition of terrain of course...