Please help me settle an argument. A few friends and I finished the interlude tonight. I can't remember the name of the quest. It is the one you play if the Overlord has won the majoirty of quests.

Anyways, the quest ended with a rather heated argument. The key to the final door was on the ground a couple spaces from the door. As overlord I activated one of my master monsters, in this case a spider, and played the Dash Card. I then used my first action to pick up the key, my second action was the move granted to me by the "Dash" card and my final action was to open the door. I then activated Baron Zacareth who was waiting by the door and moved through the room and out the exit for victory.

One of the Hero players cried foul. According to him I had misused the Dash card. He surmised that the Dash Card could only be used in combination with a prior move action to give me double movement points. His argument was that the card grants an "additional move" meaning that there must have been a move prior.

I countered that Dash grants an additional action which must be a move and thus picking up the key, using the card to move to the door, and then opening the door was valid.

The other heroes agreed with me, but mainly because it had been a long night and we just wanted to finish. Unfortunately this disagreement has resulted in a fairly soured victory.

So... To use dash, is it necessary for a prior action to be a movement, or is it legal to do three distinct actions so long as one of them is a move?

Card says "additional move action", as in 'in addition to it's other two actions, this monster also receives a move action.' You are correct, not the challenging hero.

It legal to do three distinct actions so long as one of them is a move action, prior action does not have to be move action.

Thanks for the quick responses. I'm pleased to hear that I was correct, although still disappointed that this disagreement has resulted in flared tempers and a less than fulfilling victory.

While I really do enjoy the game, I do feel that FFG could have been a little less ambiguous in some of their rule descriptions.

I do feel that FFG could have been a little less ambiguous in some of their rule descriptions.

They have a certain reputation they need to maintain.

While I really do enjoy the game, I do feel that FFG could have been a little less ambiguous in some of their rule descriptions.

Ambiguity is their middle name. Sometimes I wonder if there is a method behind it. Other times feel they have the same people that play text it also write the rules. Nor always a wise plan when looking for clarity.

While I really do enjoy the game, I do feel that FFG could have been a little less ambiguous in some of their rule descriptions.

It's certainly true that some of FFG rules are ambiguous due to poor wording, however, I don't think this case is one of them. I think this is just a case of a player interpreting the card the way he wants to in a desperate attempt to avoid losing.

It's certainly true that some of FFG rules are ambiguous due to poor wording, however, I don't think this case is one of them. I think this is just a case of a player interpreting the card the way he wants to in a desperate attempt to avoid losing.

While you are right, the ambiguity of the rules allows players to make desperate arguments like this on a pretty regular basis. Previous time we played ended in an argument over whether Splig could move through a large monster on the Fat Goblin Quest, since his 3'rd movement point out of 6 (using 2 movement actions) ended inside a shadow dragon. Big argument followed... hollow victory... (I will grant that I did screw up as overlord that mission since I missed that I had to take prisoners back to the torture chamber to interrogate...)

If the rules were more clear on issues like this we could spend more time playing and less time arguing.

The rule book is the hardest thing to make for game makers. They write the rule book have editors read it look for mistakes and send it back telling them to fix this and that. This goes on and on sometimes.

I got this from Tom on DiceTower (YouTube)who recently made a game of his own and went through this over and over. Apparently the finished rule book after being published had many people angry at the rule book. Because of the constant rewording, grammar problems or whatever it probably didnt get reread to make sure it still made any since...

The thing about Splig and moving through the Shadow Dragon can be fixed by saying, I take my first move go adjacent to the dragon, say I take my second move, now you have and extra boost to your movement pool. Or you could just say I take two move actions and load up the MP right at the start.

Dash is like you said no need for prior movement before using it. Still you shouldn't have won scenario like this because to win this one Zacareth or one master monster should exit the board while carrying the shadow key . it's not just about opening doors

Anyways, the quest ended with a rather heated argument. The key to the final door was on the ground a couple spaces from the door. As overlord I activated one of my master monsters, in this case a spider, and played the Dash Card. I then used my first action to pick up the key, my second action was the move granted to me by the "Dash" card and my final action was to open the door. I then activated Baron Zacareth who was waiting by the door and moved through the room and out the exit for victory.

It's certainly true that some of FFG rules are ambiguous due to poor wording, however, I don't think this case is one of them. I think this is just a case of a player interpreting the card the way he wants to in a desperate attempt to avoid losing.

While you are right, the ambiguity of the rules allows players to make desperate arguments like this on a pretty regular basis. Previous time we played ended in an argument over whether Splig could move through a large monster on the Fat Goblin Quest, since his 3'rd movement point out of 6 (using 2 movement actions) ended inside a shadow dragon. Big argument followed... hollow victory... (I will grant that I did screw up as overlord that mission since I missed that I had to take prisoners back to the torture chamber to interrogate...)

If the rules were more clear on issues like this we could spend more time playing and less time arguing.

The way I see this rule, you can't end a move action ON TOP of a space that is blocked, because I see it moving, then stopping for a second and moving again. What the rules do account for though is the ability to interrupt a move action with another move action. So you could interrupt the first move when you are adjacent, take your 2nd move action to go completely through to an empty square, then continue your initial move action.

Maybe this isn't in the letter of the law but I kind of like the house rule that no movement action can end on a blocked square.

EDIT: apologies i'm realizing i'm resurrecting zombie threads while perusing the fourm.

Maybe this isn't in the letter of the law but I kind of like the house rule that no movement action can end on a blocked square.

For what it's worth, you are correct and it is the letter of the law. A figure can't end a Move action on top of another figure (or other illegal space,) even if he intends to continue moving with a second action.

However, as you also mentioned, it's easy enough for any figure to avoid the situation entirely by simply declaring both Moves in advance and then spending the MPs in a lump sum. All figures have the option of declaring two Moves together like this, or of declaring one after the other in sequence. Whatever suits them best in the moment.

A large figure moving like this would have to sacrifice the ability to expand/re-shrink in between Moves, but that's about it. Depending on the layout of the terrain, it may or may not be able to make the same extra distance by expand/re-shrinking during the interrupt to declare Move 2.