Hero B got Dark Charmed and was run into a corner. Hero B was surrounded and then knocked out. Hero A was thrown by an Ettin on top of B's space. If Hero A is on the same space as knocked out Hero B, can Hero A revive Hero B? It appears the evidence leans toward no, mainly because the rules on page 7 and 10 state that a hero may be revived if the token is an adjacent space . Also, search tokens clearly state a figure in the same space or an adjacent space may search . If the same space rule is included in search tokens, then it would probably be likely that it would also be included for reviving heroes if that was the design intent, yes? It seems a little harsh to the players and oh so delicious to the OL when players can't revive their partners despite being right on top of them. What are your thoughts?

Following the rules as written, I would say you got it right.

I have ruled simpler things to be true in our group such as heroes being on top of familiars where they say you can be on them, but nowhere does it say you can get the benefit. I think brightblaze is the one I am dealing with now where is says if it is adjacent to a monster. I just have the monster move on it and the ability is lost.

I think you correct that you cannot revive an ally from on top of their space. If you wanted to house rule otherwise, I don't think it would break anything.

Of course, Hero A could also kill something, use fatigue to step adjacent and then revive Hero B. Or Hero B could stand himself up.

I honestly do not see why you couldn't revive him from the same space, when reviving they stand up in the closest unoccupied space so it should be a legal play. As further evidence to support the claim, you can always search a search token that you are standing on evend though the text says adjacent to.

As further evidence to support the claim, you can always search a search token that you are standing on evend though the text says adjacent to.

I disagree.

The text (p. 10) does not limit itself to "adjacent to" :

" If a hero is adjacent to or in a space that contains a search token , he may perform a search action to search that space."

Revive (p. 10 too), however, only speaks of an adjacent space :

" When a hero performs a revive a hero action, he may revive a knocked out hero (see “Knocked Out” on page 15) whose hero token is in an adjacent space."

So, as the wordings of both rules are different, it is quite clear that a hero cannot revive a KO hero which space he is in.

I honestly do not see why you couldn't revive him from the same space, when reviving they stand up in the closest unoccupied space so it should be a legal play. As further evidence to support the claim, you can always search a search token that you are standing on evend though the text says adjacent to.

It's not a question of where Hero B goes because his space is already occupied, it's a question of how the abilities are worded. As Robin points out, the wording for the Search action explicitly allows you to be in the same space, so it's not the same thing.

Wordings aren't always the best, and part of running the game is deciphering the intentions behind the rules and what makes sense. The rules state that a hero can stand up even if there is another figure standing on him hero marker, so I believe a second hero on his hero marker can use an action to revive him. This is what I believe was intended when the game was designed, despite the wording of adjacency.

Wordings aren't always the best, and part of running the game is deciphering the intentions behind the rules and what makes sense. The rules state that a hero can stand up even if there is another figure standing on him hero marker, so I believe a second hero on his hero marker can use an action to revive him. This is what I believe was intended when the game was designed, despite the wording of adjacency.

The explanation about a figure on the token is not logically related to revive (the figure can be a monster).

The rules as written are clear in this case and trying to bypass what is written by speculating about the designers' intentions is neither necessary nor usefull.

Wordings aren't always the best, and part of running the game is deciphering the intentions behind the rules and what makes sense. The rules state that a hero can stand up even if there is another figure standing on him hero marker, so I believe a second hero on his hero marker can use an action to revive him. This is what I believe was intended when the game was designed, despite the wording of adjacency.

Guesswork is not the better way to interpret rules.

The explanation about a figure on the token is not logically related to revive (the figure can be a monster).

The rules as written are clear in this case and trying to bypass what is written by speculating about the designers' intentions is neither necessary nor usefull.

And while I can understand that train of thought, it leads to interpretations such as the one I saw in a separate thread stating a monster standing directly on Brightblaze's square may ignore his ability. What's written is not always what makes sense and that is the reason errata and house rules exist. It's up to the individual table though, but I know how my games will be interpreting it.

Better ask FFG and have their answer than decree what the "real" way of playing is - that is, when one has time to wait for the answer.

The rules all can have some effects that "don't make sense" for some people, because they are abstractions.

Now, with the search and the revive rules, being on the same page and having different wordings, there is not a lot of place left for doubt.

Of course, YMMV and everyone plays as he wants.

But, at my home, people play along the rules as much as possible and get over the limits of abstractions without any real problem.

This could be to give the OL some kind of leg up. Such as KOing one hero, throwing another hero on the KOed hero and immobilizing him. This forces KO hero to stand up on his own, wasting both actions and then becoming another easy target. While the other hero is now also forced to not move and potentially not do anything. Unless he has prayer of healing.

I mean, this is stretching it. OL would have to have a pretty elaborate play to pull that off, but it's not like it can't happen.

And while I can understand that train of thought, it leads to interpretations such as the one I saw in a separate thread stating a monster standing directly on Brightblaze's square may ignore his ability. What's written is not always what makes sense and that is the reason errata and house rules exist. It's up to the individual table though, but I know how my games will be interpreting it.

I think you and Robin are talking about two different things. You are talking about making house rules to make the game work the way you want it to. Robin is talking about interpreting the rules as they are written, without allowing personal opinion to influence the outcome.

If you want to make house rules, you are fo course welcome to do so. I even mentioned in my first post that you could probably house rule this situation without too much impact on gameplay. However, house rules don't help very much when discussing what the actual rules mean.

I can make a house rule that defense dice are only rolled on Tuesdays if I want to, but trying to use that house rule to answer a question about how to resolve attack rolls on a Saturday won't help someone who isn't me. When trying to discuss rules in a common forum such as this, we need a common basis to work with, otherwise we're all just shouting our own opinions at each other and nothing will actually get decided. The common basis for this sort of question is typically taken to be the Rules As Written.

By a simialr token, musing about what the game designers intended is all well and good, but the bottom line is you are not the game designer. You don't know what was going through his head when he wrote these rules, and you can't possibly know his intent for certain unless you ask him. People love to talk about "what the game designers intended" but what they're really putting forward is what they intend the rule to be. If you're lucky, that might coincide with what the designer intended, but as above, you can't know for sure without asking him.

Fortunately, FFG has a rules questions link you can use to submit your questions to the game designer and find out what they actually do intend the rules to be. Feel free to fire one off if you really want to know their intent regarding this question.

I was answering "What are your thoughts", as posed by the creator of the thread. However, everyone else's thoughts appear to be that mine are wrong. I've already stated I understand your train of thought. Thank you for the lengthy post explaining it in detail to me though.

As a side note, for a hero to be standing upon a hero token will have required that the former moved upon it previously (a token must be place in an empty square).

So, it would be quite a rare occurence that the hero figure did not interrupt movement and revive the adjacent KO'ed hero.

Of course, one could imagine a hero being thrown on the token by an Ettin or having to fight standing on his pal's body, etc.

But, in any case, adaptation to the fact that the token must be adjacent belongs to the tactical skills of a player - and if he is stuck in a situation where he cannot adapt, it just is a bad situation one has to cope with.

I have a message in to FFG and I am awaiting an official answer. I also don't have the rule books on me since I am at work, and our OL for the next game has them to get a brush up on the rules. I appreciate being called out on mistakes, it helps me to learn.

I have a message in to FFG and I am awaiting an official answer. I also don't have the rule books on me since I am at work, and our OL for the next game has them to get a brush up on the rules. I appreciate being called out on mistakes, it helps me to learn.

Keep us informed of their answer.

It would not be the first time that I would be proven wrong and an official answer helps one to make his mind.

Thank you.

Yeah I got the same response as Jab did late yesterday.