So while playing a descent Road to Legend session with my brother, we came across some vague rulings. Particularly the text on Spirit Walker.

When making a Magic attack, you may cause the attack to originate from any space up to 10(5) spaces away that contains a friendly figure (but not a familiar). All aspects of the attack (such as tracing line of sight and calculating range) are done as though you were in that space.

I managed to get lucky and get spirit walker on my starting mage character, needless to say it was a complete pain in my brothers ass. In one of the dungeons however, there were villager tokens (the prison dungeon) and we got into an arguement on whether or not the villagers could be valid targets for Spirit Walker. Since spirit walker said that it can be used on a friendly figure (but not a familiar) this doesn't really specify whether or not it simply means it can only be used on heroes.

I read up the faq and discovered that villagers are treated as figures

Environmental Hazards and Obstacles
Q: Which map items count as obstacles for the Crushing Block trap card?
A: Crushing Block may never be played in a space adjacent to a pit or any token (or built-in map element) that blocks movement. The reason for this is to prevent the Overlord from sealing a hallway completely and preventing the heroes from ever progressing. This is a list of all relevant obstacles, current through the Road to Legend: Boulder, Crushing Wall, Rubble, Water. (Villagers are figures, not map elements.)

This would lead me to believe that since villagers are controlled by the heroes, that would make them friendly figures, making them also valid targets for spirit walker. Otherwise wouldn't it have made more sense if the wording said "On friendly heroes"?

If it does not say anywhere that villagers are friendly, then they are not friendly.
Villagers might perhaps be best described as "neutral" noncombatants.

Since 'friendly' and 'enemy' can change on occasion (a Dark Charmed or Enslaved hero for example, or a Necromancied monster), the reference to friendly figures is more appropriate than 'friendly heroes', and does not indicate any special treatment for villagers.

However I did not find this detail until after hours of searching, there isn't exactly any indicator detailing that villagers are figures outside of this FAQ. Which leads me to ask, what exactly are considered figures in this respect?

That is an uncertain question, one for the next FAQ. But villagers, heroes (in hero form) and monsters are clearly figures.

Also as a second question, if a blood ape tries to do a leap attack, is it allowed to turn after the leap to fit into it's landing zone? Or does the leap have to be a complete straight line meaning that the figure doesn't turn for the entire leap (Given that they use all their remaining movement points, it's obvious they can't turn after completing the leap).

You are correct - its obvious they can't turn at the end of the leap as they have no MP left - and the leap must be in a straight line.

On most occasions (though not on all), villagers are controlled (activated and moved) by the heros - wouldn´t that make them friendly to the heros rather than neutral?

Parathion said:

This is a rather important question, because we can agree they are figures as the FAQ states they are, but are they considered friendly? Would it make such a difference that they become illegal targets for spirit walker (or any similar ability)?

I know for a fact that there are a couple dungeons in road to legend where villagers take a heavy role, and the heroes have to keep them alive, but in the particular prison dungeon, space is limited, and being able to use spirit walker on them would be an advantage to the player. Regardless of that fact, the villagers themselves are still difficult to keep alive, they move at the end of the heroes turn, and are very fragile, even when I ran with my heroes and went full aggressive on this dungeon, I was still unable to save 4 of the 6 villagers in the prison cells, the only time Spirit Walker would even be viable to target these villagers is if the villagers were in extreme danger to begin with.

So I guess a new question would need to be added, what makes a figure friendly?

Zackreaver said:

No new rule needed. Being stated as friendly makes you friendly.

Being controlled by the same player just makes you controlled by the same player. I don't see any rule saying that has anything to do with friendliness, except as a coincidence in most cases. Basically you are claiming that because a figure has ability X, it therefore has ability Y, just because most figures with X have Y.

RTFM! (get the pdf, and learn to use the search function )
DJitD pg9
A hero treats all other heroes as friendly figures, while a monster treats all other monsters as friendly figures.

So the status of the villagers is undefined. "Neutral" does not exist in Descent game terms.

I think it should be included in the prep doc, easily done since we already have a "figure" question.

Parathion said:

No. The status of villagers is neither friendly nor enemy. It is not necessary that they be either.
I didn't claim that 'neutral' was an official game term, just that that was perhaps the best way to describe them.

Of course they could stay "neutral" figures, so no Shadowcloak, no Word of Vaal or similar effects would affect them.

Yet the quoted ruling in the base game was written pre-any-expansion, when there were only monsters and heros as figures. They didn´t even think of villagers as being figures until the last FAQ, so my guess is they didn´t even remotely think about their friendly/enemy status nor did they purposely leave them as "neutral".

Parathion said:

So what?
They aren't friendly to anyone because they aren't defined as friendly (or enemy) to anyone.
There isn't any need for them to be friendly, or enemy. They work perfectly well as neither friendly nor enemy to any other figure. It actually seems quite suitable that they are not caught up in sweep attacks or Word of Vaal etc.
So why the need to try and force them into an additional classification that isn't necessary?

I can see your point.

But all other figures received such a classification, so the question is valid whether they should receive one as well or whether they should stay unspecified, introducing a third classification, and forcing them right into it, by the way.

Corbon said:

Not being declared either Friendly or Enemy ends up conflicting certain rules, the game only refers to figures as either being Friendly or Enemy, they are never specifically marked as just Figures.

In this case, how would acrobat work? The villagers aren't enemy figures, they aren't friendly figures, yet they still block movement, and they are not map elements so that would prevent them from being obstacles? Does this mean they prevent movement from acrobats?

And again, what other figures would certain cards be talking about. If only heroes were effected by them why don't they word them like they do in other feats like

Battle Cry

When you declare a Battle action, you may immediately restore 1 fatigue to yourself and all adjacent heroes .

Even though villagers don't use fatigue, the card specifically classified their targets as heroes, not friendly figures.

And if villagers don't have an alignment, what happens to all of the feat cards we have.

like Disarm

Play when the overlord plays a trap card on you or any friendly figure within 3 spaces of you.

You must roll a power die. If the result is a blank, there is no effect.

If the result is not a blank, the trap card is canceled and discarded, but the overlord must still pay the threat cost of that discarded trap card.

If villagers aren't friendly figures, what the hell are friendly figures then, the game already declares what only works on heroes, but I can't find anything that's a friendly figure, but not a Hero, it's as if Friendly Figure is just an unneeded term this way, since the only valid Friendly Figures are Heroes (heroes) or friendly monsters (overlord).

Protect Thyself

Play this card after the overlord has declared a monster's attack against any hero, but before he has rolled the dice for that attack.

Your hero and all heroes within 3 spaces of you, gains +2 armor until the start of your next turn.

Leave this card face up in front of you until the start of your next turn.

If anything this at least deserves an errata entry at some point, it just seems silly that heroes would go into a dungeon and they have to protect villagers that are "not friendly." Some form of verification could at least deserve a single entry in an errata.

Zackreaver said:

That is absolute rubbish. There is not a single rule that is conflicted by the existence of figures that are neither friendly nor neutral to a certain other figure.
Some rules or cards may not work with such figures, but there is no problem with that - indeed, more often than not it actually makes more sense that way.

Zackreaver said:

Yes, Villagers prevent movement by acrobats (and flyers). This is not a conflict with the rules.
But it does create a seeming inconsistancy, or near to one, and might be worthy of some errata - but the errata would make more sense applying to Acrobat and Fly, than to force Villagers to be friendly or enemy

Zackreaver said:

Frankly, if you have any experience at all with this game, that is a terrible base for an argument. But lets put aside the fact that you are ascribing a precision of wording to FFG that they have almost never reached.
Friendly and enemy classification can change during the game. Hero and monster does not. In the Battle Cry example, for example, an Enslaved hero (who is friendly to himself and all monsters, and enemy to other heroes) decalring a Battle (cry) would benefit all adjacent heroes even though they are not friendly.

Zackreaver said:

Nothing happens to them. Feats that have triggers relating to friendly figures (are there any more, or just disarm?) simply don't get triggered by villagers - why should they?

Zackreaver said:

I already explained this in the opening post (and again above). Friendly and enemy status can change. Hero or monster status does not.
For example, if Protect Thyself said 'friendly figure' instead of hero then it would also apply to necromancied monsters - and if villagers were made friendly, then to villagers as well! That could be +2 armour for 11 figures!

Zackreaver said:

Ahh, so we come to your real justification? "It seems silly". Well, that just means you haven't looked at things from the right angle most of the time.

It seems extremely silly to me that a hero could spiritwalk through someone who is not a 'known' vessel and not necessarily willing - if a hero can spiritwalk through a villager, why not a monster - both are unknown and probably unwilling to be used, if they had a choice?
It seems slightly silly that an acrobatic hero can move through other heroes and monsters, but not villagers - but perhaps monsters and heroes are more predictable movers because they are combat focused, whereas villagers are erratic and unpredictable movers because the are not used to combat?
It seems completely logical to me that villagers in a dungeon should not consider heroes 'friendly' - at least until they are safely home. What is to differentiate the 'heroes' from a bunch of scruffy bandits? Another bunch of bad guys? And for the heroes, well the villagers are just not-enemy tasks in a dungeon. 'Friends' are those you live and work with, not minor inconveniences with no more meaning than a minor resource bonus.

It is absolutely not necessary, and could in fact be detrimental, for villagers to be ascribed a friendly/enemy status just for the sake of it.

But, acrobat/fly might be worth looking at more closely.

Corbon said:

And what's wrong with Silly being a justification, the rules in this game are obviously vague anyway, theres a very very high chance that fantasy flight intended villagers to be considered friendly but might have overlooked them. When your a business and you need to sell a product, the most important thing is to make the product playable, thats why Errata's are released afterwards in the event an oversight may have been noticed.

A short thing to note, if you review the original rulebook, you'll notice that in every instance that it refers to effects that apply to both friendly and enemy, it states (friendly and enemy) in parenthesis. A neutral concept was never used in the original rules before, spirit walker existed before villagers did, theres a fairly good chance the villagers alignment was simply not fully described.

And where are you getting the Lore for spirit walker? The runebound and descent games don't have any lore to be found, so how would you know the requirements for spiritwalking to work, the difference between villagers and monsters is that monsters are controlled by an all powerful evil overlord, spirit walking would probably never work on a being with such a dark influence. It probably works on necro'd minions because they no longer have their masters influence cast over them. My point being is that fantasy flight at least needs to look into this and let us know their side, they made the game so they should be the only ones to make the final say, if they want to openly declare that "villagers count as neither friendly no enemy figures" then so be it, at least it will be clear, I'm just trying to point out that this is a heavily debateable concept. The game also states that they are simply villagers, also a very vague term, they could also be imprisoned priests. It makes quite a difference if your a roleplayer.

Again like I said, all I'm asking is they simply tell us in the errata for road to legend, it's not like I'm asking them to carve me a gold statue, just a few words on a pdf.

Zackreaver said:

Because one man's silly is another man's sensible. Thinking something is silly is not a justification for a rule, because then we would have conflicting rules everywhere.

Zackreaver said:

That would be just twice - blast and breath, both of which are merely reinforcing an existing rule (all figures are affected) to forestall the questions from those who think it is 'silly' that they could attack their own side, and therefore such AoE attacks must only affect enemy figures.

Zackreaver said:

I'm not getting any lore for Spiritwalker - I'm making up what seems sensible to me because there isn't any lore. It is purely a demonstration that one man's silly is another man's sensible. At least my 'sensible' has the virtue of conforming to the existing rules, rather than demanding a change!

If you are playing Descent, you are boardgaming, not roleplaying. If you want to roleplay, go play an RPG - don't demand that a boardgame gets changed to fit your perceptions.

Zackreaver said:

That is 114 so I've miscounted a couple of times somewhere, sorry.

I'd estimate the next official FAQ will be over 30 pages in length, maybe closer to 40 pgs, if it is thorough. That is just gut feel estimate though, so don't quote me!

The point is, the bigger the document gets, the less attractive using it becomes, and the less attractive the final FAQ becomes. Some people already complain about how big the FAQ is - 19 pages of errata/Q&A!
The next one will be substantially bigger.
So anything that already has a clear rules answer (tick), does not greatly affect balance (tick), does not create any significant inconsistencies (not so sure, with acrobat and fly) and is not a 'frequently asked' question (tick - once so far) gets cut, unless it can show it deserves to be there.
Or just about anything - I've been outvoted/conceded before, multiple times.

FWIW we are discussing putting in this version now...
77. Acrobat/Fly and Villagers
Background:
As villagers are neither friendly nor enemy figures, acrobats and flyers are not currently able to move through them. This seems to be an anomaly, though it could be intentional and rationalised as villagers being unpredictable and thus difficult to move through (at least for acrobats and flyers).
Some people also think that villagers should be friendly to heroes because they are controlled (mostly) by the same player. Others think that they are better as neither friendly nor enemy.
This affects a few situations other than movement - Spiritwalking, Disarm, Sweep attacks, Word of Vaal and probably some more.
This could be 'fixed' if that is desired, by either declaring villagers friendly to one side or other, or errata-ing Acrobat and Fly to moving through all figures (they can already move through enemy, and naturally move through friendly), which leaves villagers still neither friendly nor enemy.
Question:
Q. Can Acrobats and Fly-ers move through Villagers?
A1. No. Villagers are neither friendly nor enemy to heroes or monsters. They are difficult to move through because they are unpredictable and behave erratically (even when unable to move - sorry, KISS principle), making it too dangerous to move through their spaces.
A2. Yes. Villagers are friendly to heroes, and thus enemy to monsters, so acrobats and flyers can move through them.
A3. Yes. Acrobat and Fly should read "all figures" instead of "enemy figures".

There might be some tidying or modifying to do, but I rather suspect it will go in fairly close to this form - maybe without the explanation part or part in brackets (both in A1). Note that this gives FFG the option, or not, to give villagers a hero/enemy status without effectively demanding that they should have already.

Corbon said:

I'm not "Demanding" a "Change" I'm requesting the rules be made clearer, your right this is not a game designed for roleplaying (but some of us do so anyway for fun) if anything this game is alot more competative, where essentially the DM is competeing against the players and as such neither side holds back.

The problem I'm stating is certain rules are vague and difficult to agree on, and the problem with vague rules is when the conflict is brought up since there is no clear answer an arguement ensues. It comes to the point where the only way to really fix the arguement is to houserule it until an errata is made.

I would never try to waste FFG's time on trivial details, but it's clear that when they made the villager token in road to legend it felt kind of tacked on without any real structure (They weren't figures until the errata stated them) and now we don't know whether or not they count as friendly. I am fine with WHATEVER rule FFG has for these things, but I'm only stating the rules don't convey them well enough, villagers are a very wierd feature, the game was not designed to handle an unaligned figure. All I'm asking is they clear this up a little.

Unless I'm mistaken, villager is a Road to Legend feature, first it was thought up as a map element since it wasn't a figure, then the errata declared them as figures, now we are uncertain whether or not they are friendly for the use of skill cards. As it's wierd because they are figures with their own specific rule declarations.

If I wanted a change I would start a poll, but all I want is a rule I can use CTRL+F to find in the event there is an arguement during a game. (which with the game being very complicated and vague, this tends to happen often)

It ends up being an issue however when this happens and no clear answer is found, with the game being as competative as it is, and the tide of the game being very to shift in anyones favor.

I'm just used to playing magic the gathering is all, where the comprehensive rules cover just about EVERY question anyone could have about anything, mainly because with their newer cards the use a general base of wording that functions like a programming language, there's even detailed ruling for cards that have unique effects. I don't see why people would complain about the errata being large, I think it's great that FFG is willing to fine tune their games even after they have sold and created a profit, it shows that FFG cares about customer appreciation just as much (if not more) than actual profit. And to be honest some players might own some FFG games and not even know about errata's or lack the internet connections to get them. They end up just playing the game as is, and houserule anything that be conflicting, thats what is done in other board games when this happens.

I think that It's excellent that FFG's is willing to help clear up some questions on their board games which have very confusing, and easy to misunderstand rules.

And as you showed in your last example, yes that's all that would be needed really, any of those three answers would answer any of the remaining questions around villagers, while also fixing the little confusion they make towards acrobat, and as you state it pretty much gives them the option to kill 2 birds with 1 stone, if they are going to answer the question about acrobat, might as well state their alignment. Point is that it's a clear answer, next time someone asks "are villagers friendly?" The errata would say so there, instead of us going "Don't know, it's never declared, does that mean they are neither friendly nor enemy?" Course the only way we would know it's "never declared" is if we already searched everywhere for the answer, and found nothing. It's the search that comes up dry that gets annoying.

But see, when it all boils down, when a rule is too vague and we don't want to look it up or can't find an answer with a respectable time, we just houserule it. We might declare villagers as friendly since they are hero controlled, others may have them neutral since they are never declared, it's all really a matter on who is playing.

Zackreaver said:

You are demanding a change. You are insisting that villagers be declared friendly or not. That would be a change.
The rules are very clear right now. Villagers are neither friendly nor enemy. That is extremely clear.
Your uncertainty comes because you want to add a rule and don't have any indication which way your new rule should swing. There is no vagueness and no uncertainty in the existing situation, except that which you bring because you can't accept the rules as they are written.
If FFG are happy for villagers to not be friendly, which is the current situation, then that is exactly what you are doing - wasting their time simply because you don't like the current rule.

The current rule is clear .
The current rule is not particularly unbalanced or unbalancing.

Corbon said:

The rules do not state that villagers "are neither friendly nor enemy" thats just an interpretation made from the lack of a declaration. If they are supposed to be "not friendly nor enemy" then it should be written, not interpreted. Otherwise we might as well say they are friendly when controlled directly by the heroes just because of the interpretation that anything directly controlled by the heroes is considered friendly.

Also, how about you point out the rule that states "Figures are only considered friendly or enemy when they are declared friendly or enemy" because the only time friendly is declared, is in the villager-less Journey to the Dark rulebook of descent, in road to legend, the word friendly only refers to the effect definitions, which if you also notice the wording on Blast.

The Blast attack deals its full damage to
each figure affected by it (friendly and enemy).

It doesn't use "All figures" like the other ones, and the parenthesis only states "Friendly and Enemy" instead of something like (including Friendly and Enemy Figures) does this mean that blast doesn't effect villagers? I'd say it still does, simply because it would be silly for villagers to be immune to it for a single little miswording, but the logic in your arguement would make villagers immune to blast. And heres a funny little thing in the errata.

Q: Can heroes attack an empty square? For example,
could a blast effect be centered in an empty square or
could a hero fire his Staff of Knowledge off into a corner
to burn the overlord’s threat?
A: Yes. However, if after spending surges there are no
valid targets in the area of the attack (hero or monster), the
entire attack is canceled without effect. This means that
if the blast is not large enough, the attack fails, and the
Staff of Knowledge must actually hit something to use its
ability.

Valid targets (in parenthesis) say only hero or monster, so does this mean that villagers are immune to blast as well? Or is it just a simple miswording. That doesn't seem very clear to me. Alot of rules are vague in the rulebooks, often times we just have to interpret what makes the most sense in some cases, if a monster is doing a blast as a result of their attack exploding, theres no reason a villager would be any more immune to it than a hero would.

I might as well just paste the villager's only description here also

Villager
Block Movement? Yes
Block Line of Sight? Yes
Villagers represent people in heroes must protect
and/or rescue. Villagers have 1 armor and 6 wounds, and are
immune to traps, but can be attacked by monsters. They cannot
attack, perform movement actions other than moving through
glyphs, or carry items. Villagers move up to four spaces a turn,
moving after all of the heroes have moved, and are controlled
by the hero players.

This is all the info we get about the villager token in Road to Legend, they are listed under the "Collected Obstacles and Props" section of the rulebook, which before they were errata declared as figures, were treated pretty much like Map elements.

All right, one more time before I give up trying to bore through the multiple inches of ossified calcium hydroxylapatite.

Zackreaver said:

Nothing exists in the game unless the rules tell us it exists. Monsters would not be 'friendly' to monsters if the rules did not tell us they are. Hellhounds would not have breath if we were not told that they do. Heroes could not use Orders if we were not told they can.
Villagers are neither friendly nor enemy to other figures because we are not told that they are - that is how rules work.

There is no 'interpretation' involved in this.
The rules tell us explicitly who is friendly and enemy. Anyone who does not meet the conditions, does not get to count friends and enemies. It is that simple.
Friend and enemy is not a 'default' situation. It is an explicit classification given to certain figure types.

Zackreaver said:

How about you point to the rule that says "the OL may not destroy the dungeon in a huff if he appears to be losing"? Its his dungeon afterall...
I have pointed out the rule that specifies who gets to count as friendly or enemy.

I mean, hello?
Since Skeletons have Pierce, and spiders are not stated anywhere to not have pierce, does that mean spiders get pierce?
It is exactly the same.

Zackreaver said:

The stuff in parenthesis is not the base rule, it is a clarification to show that not just enemy figures are affected. It does not say that not-friendly/enemy figures are unaffected. It merely includes both friendly and enemy without excluding anyone.
Read the Blast rule (above) again. It says 'each figure' affected by it suffers the full damage. The Breath and Bolt rules both say 'all figures'. Both add a clarification in parenthesis to show that it really is each/all, not just 'enemy'.

This is the same from the basic rules.
Attacks are never against figures, they are always against spaces. All figures in the space(s) affected by the attack are affected by the attack (though some things may reduce the effect to nothing, eg Ironskin vs AoE).

Villagers are not immune to Blast attacks, or Dark Charmed hero attacks, etc etc.

The Staff of Knowledge question does appear to exclude villagers as a valid target (note that it does this regardless of their friend/enemy status). I've added it as a potential errata (it is very small and is an inconsistency), thanks.
Good work!

You might be interested to know that further exploration of villagers, largely because of the question that started this thread has brought up issues with Leap/Villagers (same as Acrobat/Fly), Stunned villagers and AC Webbed villagers.
Thanks to the OP for getting this started, and Parathion (assuming I've remembered the name-connections right) for doing the legwork.

Corbon said:

My brother and I are much more used to Magic the Gathering's comprehensive rules, which tend to be alot more detailed as to answer every question definitively, if a question like this existed in their game, there would be a rule entry specifically to handle it. I'm only stating the rules are vague and could be clearer, my examples were just to state that.

I wouldn't call the rules too vague to make the game unplayable, but they aren't clear enough to avoid intricate conflicts.

Corbon said:

Then this means that villager's can't be unaligned, because they are NEVER stated as being so. They simply don't have their alignment declared.

And again, I don't think fantasy flight intended to have an unaligned figure, this was probably just an accident. That's what I'm trying to point out, see if they just missed something, they can have villagers be neutral if they want but since no other figure is like this I think it deserves at least a look into.

Corbon said:

I know what the parenthesis stand for, thing I'm just trying to show is that the game was never designed to handle figures without alignments, which furthers my belief that maybe the villagers weren't intended to be this way. I just wanted the message to be clearer, and have fantasy flight tell us.

Corbon said:

I only decided to bug you guys on the forum when all of my searching yielded no result, my brother and I get very competative, both of us try to use the rules to win more than anything, if someone tries to cheat and were unable to prove whether it's legal, the game can lose it's fun factor as a result (considering how long these games last, I want to try and avoid this)

I originally tried to use spiritwalker on a villager because I had them walling a corridor with blood apes on the other side (I was unaware at the time they blocked line of sight and movement) we got into an arguement and he stated I couldn't because he said they weren't figures (He didn't question their alignment) the question on blood apes arose after that when he killed 2 of my heroes by leaping illegally. Looking up rules and errata mid game already kill from the pace of the game as it is, but were arrogant like that, we want to make sure no one is cheating is all. Problem is when looking up the rules yields little or no results it just wastes time, searching spirit walker didn't indicate if it was useable on villagers, and I gave up looking before I noticed villagers were treated as figures, ended up having to kill a villager so I could stun one of the blood apes (otherwise I'd have to let 2 villagers die instead of 1).

Also I love the game, love playing it any chance I can get, but as with all fantasy flight games, they can get REALLY complicated and I want to make sure that when my brother plays the game with other groups they don't run into similar issues. If I didn't love this game so much I wouldn't be coming here so often to argue, but I'm wierd like that cause I'm more attracted to challenges like this. There's nothing wrong with more rules in an errata, some people disregard it, others use CTRL+F, if I didn't see neutral villagers (Neutral Figures really) as such a wierd concept being added in an expansion, I wouldn't be so adamant about having it looked into.

Zackreaver said:

Not having their alignment declared IS technically the definition of the word "unaligned." "Unaligned" doesn't need to be a game term in order to be an accurate description of villagers' alignment (please note the term "alignment" is not a game term either. "Friendly" and "Enemy" are defined relationships, but they are not part of a category of relationships that has any specific name.)

You could also say they were undeclared, undefined, neutral, on the fence, etc. All these terms basically mean they are not declared as belonging to any of the groups that the game defines. When an effect applies to "friendly figures" it will therefore NOT apply to villagers because they are not friendly. They will likewise NOT be affected by things that target "enemy figures." They WILL, however, be affected by things that target "figures" (such as most standard attack rolls) because villagers ARE figures, regardless of what their "alignment" may or may not be. "Nothing" is not a thing, it is defined as the lack of all things. Similarly, "unaligned" (if that's the word you choose to use) is defined as not being aligned. If the rules do not declare an alignment for the villagers, then they are, by the English definition of the word, not aligned.

If you can't accept that, then you could just come to an agreement with your brother about how YOU want to define their alignment (as a house rule, natch) and run with that. Corbon's interpretation of the rules is correct, objectively, but you can always make your own rules if you really aren't satisfied by the printed ones. The point of playing a game is to have fun, after all, so go and have fun, whatever that takes. You have the only answer these forums are likely to provide, but no one is putting a gun to your head and making you use it.

Zackreaver said:

Maybe it was an accident. FFG employees don't often comment directly on these forums (unlike the good old days) so if you want to hear THEIR answer, or just generally make certain that they've heard the question, you should send the question to them via the "Rules Questions" link down at the bottom of the page. These forums are populated by fans, and these are the only people whose responses you're going to get here.

Zackreaver said:

Why? Maybe because you think so? A friendly villager could break some situations, specially with wpiritwalker

+10 to Corbon and Steve-O.