1) deep elves do have an ability named stealthy, which demands 3 extra range on each attack vs them, or its considered a miss. on ranged attacks i do get the idea. but what about adjascent attacks from melees? if melee attack would roll blue/red and only come up with 2 range, would it miss the deep elve?

2) so i have a fairly good idea of traps and move actions. since shiloutte doesnt perform a move action whilst in their heroic feat (but moves up to her speed) she cant be trapped with cards needing a move action to be played. but can she use her heroic feat while immobilized? immobilzied stats: you cannot perform move actions or suffer fatigue to gain movement points. it sounds like RLY odd that she could, but i cannot find a rule that explicitly forbids this... .

yours

krawallbürste

i do get it right that shilouette does NOT PERFORM search actions in her feat, but just gets the opportunity of searching those cards, right? so i could not activate like valyndras hoarder, because shilloutte would be in a special action, resolving in search cards, not specifically perform search actions, right?

oh - and something that keeps on bugging me is the geomancer class:

1) the geomancers "terracall" allows him to "place a summoned stone in an empty space within 3 spaces of you", which would include spaces behind doors, wouldnt it? so a geomancer would be able to summon a stone into the library in cardinals plight?

2) terracall allows "1 of your summoned stones may perform an attack during its activation (using 1 of your equipped magic weapons)". i do understand, that this is an attack performed by the summoned stone, NOT the hero. so the ability of the summoned stone (each of your attacks targeting a monster adjacent to a summoned stone gains 1 surge) wouldnt trigger, would it?

3) "each of your attacks targeting a monster adjacent to a summoned stone gains 1 surge" this only applies to the geomancer himself, not any other hero, right?

yours

krawallbürste

1. Based on the Official FAQ response to the greedy ability can't go through doors. I think of doors like walls when they are up. So no you couldn't sneak the summoning stone through the door.

About your next two questions, what is the source of this ability? Is this a weapon or something else? I don't have all my stuff in front of me and haven't played with the high mage to know what you are talking about off the top of my head.

1) He is not able to put a Summoned Stone behind a closed door

2) Correct

3) Correct

1) deep elves do have an ability named stealthy, which demands 3 extra range on each attack vs them, or its considered a miss. on ranged attacks i do get the idea. but what about adjascent attacks from melees? if melee attack would roll blue/red and only come up with 2 range, would it miss the deep elve?

1) You can find the answer on the Unofficial FAQ on BGG ( http://boardgamegeek.com/wiki/page/Descent_Second_Edition_Unofficial_FAQ#toc42 ) :

Q: How much range is required to hit a Stealthy unit with a melee attack?

A: The stealthy ability requires melee attacks to roll at least 3 range to hit. Melee attacks usually require 0 range (even with Reach), so 3 is all the range the attack would need.

For more discussion on this topic, see the first part of this thread: http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/89291-ffg-sez-contradictions-clarifications/

I still need to write up that email to FFG, but the TL;DR version is that according to the rules, Melee still require range (it never says that they don't, and range is in the general attack resolution section of the rules), but even with Reach, can never miss because they can only target adjacent or one space away, and the minimum range on the Attack die is 2. The "Unofficial, but still from FFG, response" to that question was "Melee don't normally require range" but this MAY be due to version confusion because that's how it worked in 1st Edition. So according to RAW, They need 4 range (5 with reach), but according to the "Unofficial, but still from FFG, response", it's 3 regardless of whether you have reach.

One of my heroes already asked.

Reach or otherwise melee attack still only needs to get a range of 3 to make the hit for stealthy. Ranged attacks, even point blank hits, need a minimum of 4.

The only logical way to apply Stealth is not to try figure out things along spatial logics, but along wording logics: one needs 3 more range on the dice than he normally needs.

So for a close combat wealon it is "none" + 3 = 3 and for ranged attacks it is "usual range R" + 3 = R + 3...

The only logical way to apply Stealth is not to try figure out things along spatial logics, but along wording logics: one needs 3 more range on the dice than he normally needs.

So for a close combat wealon it is "none" + 3 = 3 and for ranged attacks it is "usual range R" + 3 = R + 3...

That's definitely not the ONLY logical way to apply it because nowhere in the rules does it say what you "normally need" for melee attacks is "none" (or "0" or that range is ignored). You are quite simply pulling information out of nowhere as far as the current published rules are concerned (or you are begging the question by basing your premise on the conclusion you're trying to prove, which is a logical fallacy), so claiming it as the ONLY logical interpretation is simply incorrect.

That said, Justin did respond to me and said that it may end up as an errata, but that the official ruling is that Melee attacks are considered to have a range of 0, and that this is irrespective of any 1e rules (though they may be related, it is not the justification), and does in fact conflict with the current rules as written.

I am pulling my "logics" from the answers given up to now by FFG.

They are not based upon "common sense" which would count a minimum of one square for close combat.

I actually was summing up what had been expressed by preceding posters.

So your idea of "nowhere" is somewhere quite definite for me (and the fact that FFG seems to confirm what I and others explain does show that those explanations are less gratuitous than you accuse them to be).

I apologize if what you were trying to do was confirm. It sounded like you were trying to justify and use some reasoning based on current information (especially due to the insinuation that it can't be interpreted any other way, since it definitely can due to conflicting information). Since in that case you would have been using the answer (FFG's response) to justify the reasoning for that very same response, which is a logical fallacy. IMO, FFG's response is very clear, so I saw no reason to try and rehash or re-explain what was said (hence why I thought you were trying to do something else). Note that my initial criticisms weren't that the initial response was ambiguous/unclear, but that it was possibly misguided and definitely contradictory to the current ruleset (which is also unambiguous, IMO). However, Justin has now made it clear that his response was intended to be a ruling that differs from what is currently in the rulebook. (Most of their responses are just clarifications of what's in the rulebook / errata, and not actually new/corrected information.)