Stealthy: Each attack that targets this monster must roll 3 additional range beyond the normally required amount or the attack is a miss.
One interpretation of this is that melee attacks normally require 0 range but against stealthy need 3 range.
The other is that melee attacks never check range (according to Step 3 of the attack sequence) so are immune to Stealthy.
The rules are ambiguous as to which interpretation is correct.
Any official answer as to which way to play?
Nothing yet, there is a 3-page (soon 4-page) thread on BGG debating this very issue.
That is why I posted here. That thread is at an impasse.
The rules are ambiguous enough that I can see why people fall on both sides of the argument.
I'd say that it doesn't affect melee. Those attacks don't involve range at all while a ranged attack from an adjacent square still needs to roll at least 1 range to hit.
Snidesworth said:
Those attacks don't involve range at all while a ranged attack from an adjacent square still needs to roll at least 1 range to hit.
Thing is though, unless you roll X on the Blue die (which is auto-miss), there is no way to roll less than 2 range from adjacent, so adjacent rangeds will still meet range req against normal monsters.
I overlord plenty of games and I require my heroes, even the melee to roll the +3 on attacks. Since Melee require 0 range to attack they need at least a 3, which is really easy to get. If you compare stealthy with D1e, melee and ranged both had to add in the clear stealthy die (which had 2/6 sides being a miss). This is why I require even my melee heroes to follow this rule. Until further notice from FFG, this is how I'm playing it.
Coldmoonrising said:
I overlord plenty of games and I require my heroes, even the melee to roll the +3 on attacks. Since Melee require 0 range to attack they need at least a 3, which is really easy to get. If you compare stealthy with D1e, melee and ranged both had to add in the clear stealthy die (which had 2/6 sides being a miss). This is why I require even my melee heroes to follow this rule. Until further notice from FFG, this is how I'm playing it.
I started that thread on BGG and I play the same as Coldmoonrising, quoted above. I feel there's some room for interpretation both ways (and may have made the thread worse at one point playing devils advocate) but I think as I and Coldmoonrising play is how it was intended, even if there is some question as to how the rules are written. I have yet to see any official statement one way or the other from FFG.
Coldmoonrising said:
I overlord plenty of games and I require my heroes, even the melee to roll the +3 on attacks. Since Melee require 0 range to attack they need at least a 3, which is really easy to get. If you compare stealthy with D1e, melee and ranged both had to add in the clear stealthy die (which had 2/6 sides being a miss). This is why I require even my melee heroes to follow this rule. Until further notice from FFG, this is how I'm playing it.
same here. melee attack 0 range, but need to roll 3 range to hit stealth person. easy
Come on, melee isn't range 0 (that would be hitting yourself), it's range 1, meaning +3 and you need 4 range against Stealthy
.
no.
for melee attack, figure standing next to it, on adjacent space is range 0.
it doesn`t need range number rolled on the dice.
for range attack, figure standing next to it, is range 1. it needs range number rolled (1+3 in this case)
in my opinion making melee attack needs 3 rolled, and range attack needs 4 rolled while being with stealth person on adjacent space.
swinging your sword is easier than pointing and shooting with a bow in this case
skolo said:
for melee attack, figure standing next to it, on adjacent space is range 0.
it doesn`t need range number rolled on the dice.
for range attack, figure standing next to it, is range 1. it needs range number rolled (1+3 in this case)
See, this is kind of the point for me. In both those cases, target is in the SAME SPACE, yet it is at a different range? How can the same space have two different range from one space? Does not compute.
so everyone has he's own answer
I had to admit I didn't even thought about it, for me, it's simply clear (and furthermore, english is not my native language, i'm french)
When attacking with a melee weapon, you needs to do at least 3 range to hit (so with blue and red die, you miss 2 times on 6)
With ranged weapon, you need to do +3. So if adjacent, 3, if not, 3+ the number of space between you and the target (so you wil miss almost everytime at long distance, 50% of times at 2-3 squares away)
No more questions. Maybe not as powerfull as I wanted to be.
Dam said:
for melee attack, figure standing next to it, on adjacent space is range 0.
it doesn`t need range number rolled on the dice.
for range attack, figure standing next to it, is range 1. it needs range number rolled (1+3 in this case)
See, this is kind of the point for me. In both those cases, target is in the SAME SPACE, yet it is at a different range? How can the same space have two different range from one space? Does not compute.
Since we are regurgitating the arguments from BGG …
"When counting spaces for attacks and abilities …" (page 13) an adjacent space is 1 square away, and Reach would be 2 squares away. Both of those are automatic since the blue attack die always gets a 2 or better if it hits. If you are adding 3 to the range for Stealthy, it would be 4 for adjacent and 5 for Reach, if melee is affected at all. RAW doesn't say the range is zero for melee, if says "When performing a Ranged attack, the attacking player must roll enough range to reach the target.". N/A does not equal zero.
EDIT: I have submitted this question to FFG, but have not gotten a response. Either I have exceeded my question quota, FFG is still formulating an answer, or they don't want to touch this with a 10' Wooden Pole.
In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason for the "Stealthy" ability to absolutely lose its value and effectiveness against melee attacks. Why would it, on an intuitive or a logical level? Since the range that is "normally required" on a melee attack is zero, and the Stealthy ability requires 3 "additional range" to be rolled, why would that not be 0 + 3 = 3?
Dam said:
skolo said:
for melee attack, figure standing next to it, on adjacent space is range 0.
it doesn`t need range number rolled on the dice.
for range attack, figure standing next to it, is range 1. it needs range number rolled (1+3 in this case)
See, this is kind of the point for me. In both those cases, target is in the SAME SPACE, yet it is at a different range? How can the same space have two different range from one space? Does not compute.
read with understanding
swinging your sword is easier than pointing and shooting with a bow in this case
adjacent is no "=" for both melee and range. RAW rules
Schmiegel said:
In my opinion, there is absolutely no reason for the "Stealthy" ability to absolutely lose its value and effectiveness against melee attacks. Why would it, on an intuitive or a logical level? Since the range that is "normally required" on a melee attack is zero, and the Stealthy ability requires 3 "additional range" to be rolled, why would that not be 0 + 3 = 3?
my thoughts exactly
rugal said:
so everyone has he's own answer
I had to admit I didn't even thought about it, for me, it's simply clear (and furthermore, english is not my native language, i'm french)
When attacking with a melee weapon, you needs to do at least 3 range to hit (so with blue and red die, you miss 2 times on 6)
With ranged weapon, you need to do +3. So if adjacent, 3, if not, 3+ the number of space between you and the target (so you wil miss almost everytime at long distance, 50% of times at 2-3 squares away)
No more questions. Maybe not as powerfull as I wanted to be.
adjacent is range 1 for range attack purpose in my opinion, isnt it?
skolo said:
adjacent is no "=" for both melee and range. RAW rules
Melee and range are not the same; that we agree on. Ignoring the wording of the rules and just talking thematically -- if you are trying to hide in the shadows, move silently, and avoid my sight, that will affect a point-and-shoot ranged skill. Did I see something moving over there? Did I hear a footfall? *Twang* Let's hope I aimed properly and hit something. I should have taken the Zen Archery skill. If I have a sword in my hands, I don't care how stealthy you are being. Steel cuts through darkness and silence just fine. The Shadow Dragon's ability is actively throwing smoke in my eyes, and affects all targets -- adjacent and ranged. Stealthy is more like the revised Air Elemental. If you are next to someone swinging steel (or wood), you are going to wish you were standing somewhere else.
Triu, that is exactly what I was thinking about
skolo said:
rugal said:
so everyone has he's own answer
I had to admit I didn't even thought about it, for me, it's simply clear (and furthermore, english is not my native language, i'm french)
When attacking with a melee weapon, you needs to do at least 3 range to hit (so with blue and red die, you miss 2 times on 6)
With ranged weapon, you need to do +3. So if adjacent, 3, if not, 3+ the number of space between you and the target (so you wil miss almost everytime at long distance, 50% of times at 2-3 squares away)
No more questions. Maybe not as powerfull as I wanted to be.
adjacent is range 1 for range attack purpose in my opinion, isnt it?
I would say no. But the "reach" ability makes me thinks differently. So yes, maybe.
Triu said:
skolo said:
adjacent is no "=" for both melee and range. RAW rules
Melee and range are not the same; that we agree on. Ignoring the wording of the rules and just talking thematically -- if you are trying to hide in the shadows, move silently, and avoid my sight, that will affect a point-and-shoot ranged skill. Did I see something moving over there? Did I hear a footfall? *Twang* Let's hope I aimed properly and hit something. I should have taken the Zen Archery skill. If I have a sword in my hands, I don't care how stealthy you are being. Steel cuts through darkness and silence just fine. The Shadow Dragon's ability is actively throwing smoke in my eyes, and affects all targets -- adjacent and ranged. Stealthy is more like the revised Air Elemental. If you are next to someone swinging steel (or wood), you are going to wish you were standing somewhere else.
You got wrong. The shadow dragon's ability is for adjacent attacks. So I was wondering
Stealth is for ranged attacks only
shadow is for melee attacks only
rugal said:
I don't think so. Shadow affects adjacent heroes. It doesn't matter where the target of the attack is.
"Shadow: A hero adjacent to this monster that declares an attack must spend 1 Surge or the attack is considered a miss."
Errata and FAQ Version 1.0
Monster card, Elemental, Act I and II - The Air ability should read “Until the start of your next turn, this monster can only be affected by attacks from adjacent figures.”
that's some rules details
Reach is not affected, and for ranged heroes, why would he strike from adjacent space ?
Well …
hope for an official response, maybe some more with (cause this "reach" ability looks like to cheat a bit too much)
no point of beating the horse. let us wait for official info
this response is taking some time!
rugal said:
this response is taking some time!
Pfft, I sent in another question about three weeks ago, still nada. Best not hold your breath about a quick reply…