For purposes of playing a Crushing Block trap card, I'm wondering if a table would be considered an obstacle, such that the Crushing Block could not be played in a space adjacent to an obstacle (which is what the card text says). In RTL, tables are listed under the heading of "Obstacles and Props". I'd guess if a table was considered a "Prop", as opposed to an "Obstacle", that a Crushing Block could be dropped next to a table. Thoughts? Thank you in advance.

Apparently there was some FAQ (that I dont know of) which states the CB can only NOT be played next to other obstacles that block movement. I dont disagree that was the intent, but it is not in any official FAQ that I see. If it's the case, then clearly a table does not block movement, and so a CB can be played adjacent. Where is that FAQ? As an OL, being able to play CBs next to Pits and other passable obstacles is huge.

-mike

The FAQ in question can be obtained from the FFG Descent Support Page and the relevant answer is in the top right of page 9. It's kind of a weird answer, since it is presented as if it were a clarification rather than a change, but it's clearly significantly different from the actual card text (it allows you to play the card in previously disallowed cases, and forbids new cases that used to be allowed), but other than that it seems quite reasonable, and it eliminates the obstacle/trap/prop ambiguity (at least from this specific card).

Antistone said:

Its not even completely correct (with the full list of impassable obstacles) since at least one outdoor encounter in RtL has trees as impassable (instead of giving Shadowcloak) and thus you could not play CBlk beside them either.

Still, at least its clear in intent, be it a change or not.

It is somewhat fun to Pit trap a hero and then CBlk them when they get out such that they are forced back into the pit!

More fun ensues if you push him back into that lava

Toss heroes into instant-death pits to maximize broken-ness.

Thundercles said:

Done it. Not proud of it, but done it.