I need a rule clarification.

In the image below, who would be hit if the giant used his sweep action? Remember, Giants have Reach too.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/6mmh3mo7td8l8c8/Sweep%20and%20Reach.png

Thanks for responding. I checked Google to find the answer, but just found Decent 1 rulings.

-Cursain

Everyone except Hero 3 would be hit. Note that this includes the skeleton; Sweep affects all figures in range and LoS.

Hero 3 is only saved because the giant doesn't have Line of Sight to him.

Everyone except Hero 3 would be hit. Note that this includes the skeleton; Sweep affects all figures in range and LoS.

Hero 3 is only saved because the giant doesn't have Line of Sight to him.

Looks like you're wrong

"sweep : perform an attack. This attack affects each figures within range of this monster's attack"

So, i would say all figures of the exemple are affected, skeleton also.

Looks like you're wrong

"sweep : perform an attack. This attack affects each figures within range of this monster's attack"

So, i would say all figures of the exemple are affected, skeleton also.

Am I now? Not according to the unofficial FAQ over on BGG.

"-- Sweep

Q: Does sweep affect all figures in range or is line of sight required also?

A: Sweep requires line of sight to the target."

Perhaps you're thinking of the ruling that says abilities don't require LoS unless they explicitly say they do. That is true, in general. However, Sweep says to "perform an attack" that affects all figures in range. Attacks, per the rules on page 12, require Line of Sight.

As long as it's unofficial, i'm not sure about it.

logically, the attack would affect all figure.
Maybe it needed to question FFG, should i do it ?

What would lead you to ignore the Line of Sight requirement for an attack?

because of the wording

The wording gives no exception to the LOS requirement (no more than, say, the requirement of not rolling an X).

As long as it's unofficial, i'm not sure about it.

logically, the attack would affect all figure.

Maybe it needed to question FFG, should i do it ?

You're always free to contact FFG yourself, of course, if you like.

Mind you, the answers in the unofficial FAQ all come from FFG employees, based on questions sent in by fans just like you. The only reason its considered "unofficial" is because it isn't included in the actual FAQ pdf (as yet.)

:::Varriant from UOF on BGG:::

To me sweep is more of an area of affect type attack like blast. I don't feel that blast needs LOS and therfore I feel that Sweep does not need LOS either. You only make one attack that affects multiple targets.

I know this goes aggainst the unoficial faq on board game geeks, hence the header. This is just my opinion and you play the way you need to.

:::Varriant from UOF on BGG:::

To me sweep is more of an area of affect type attack like blast. I don't feel that blast needs LOS and therfore I feel that Sweep does not need LOS either. You only make one attack that affects multiple targets.

I know this goes aggainst the unoficial faq on board game geeks, hence the header. This is just my opinion and you play the way you need to.

Sweep isn't AOE? Well that's just silly! I don't have anything that can sweep but if I did I'm sure we all agree its AOE.

I am in the camp that LoS is needed for an attack. The difference with the Blast comment is Blast only needs LoS on the first target after that the effects take over. You can't reach attack something that you can not see.

I disagree,

If I have three people stand in a line: 1 2 3

If 1 swings a long pole at 2 and the pole is long enough to hit 3. Well 3 will be hit. It didn't matter if 1 saw him or not. Sweep isn't a targeting attack. It is an area of affect.

Again this is all my opinion.

I disagree,

If I have three people stand in a line: 1 2 3

If 1 swings a long pole at 2 and the pole is long enough to hit 3. Well 3 will be hit. It didn't matter if 1 saw him or not. Sweep isn't a targeting attack. It is an area of affect.

Again this is all my opinion.

same idea here

This is how I reason, after the rules (rather than after any idea of "reality", which is void within a rules application debate) :

1) Reach attack requires LOS.*

See p. 13 : " The Reach keyword allows the figure to use a Melee attack to target a figure up to two spaces away, rather than only adjacent spaces. The target still needs to be in line of sight ."

2) In the case of Sweep, the only non adjacent figures that can be attacked are attacked by the giant's Reach ability.

3) So LOS is necessary for Sweep to affect one of its targets. No need to repeat what is already explained about Reach in the rules.

* BTW, the "pole" idea given by RagsMckay does not fit the reach rule - so it cannot apply to the Sweep rule either.

This is how I reason, after the rules (rather than after any idea of "reality", which is void within a rules application debate) :

1) Reach attack requires LOS.*

See p. 13 : " The Reach keyword allows the figure to use a Melee attack to target a figure up to two spaces away, rather than only adjacent spaces. The target still needs to be in line of sight ."

2) In the case of Sweep, the only non adjacent figures that can be attacked are attacked by the giant's Reach ability.

3) So LOS is necessary for Sweep to affect one of its targets. No need to repeat what is already explained about Reach in the rules.

* BTW, the "pole" idea given by RagsMckay does not fit the reach rule - so it cannot apply to the Sweep rule either.

So your answer is based on the argument that the reach attack is made first and sweep is added to it.

Could you not also make an argument based on the sweep being the primary attack and adding reach to it. Look at the definition of sweep:

Sweep: Perform an attack. This attack affects each figure within range of this monster's attack. Each figure rolls defense die separately.

Emphisis mine. Because the sweep says to make an attack not targeting any specific square and everything with in range is affected. Because of reach the other figure is now within range.

So creature 1 decides to swing a pole as a sweeping attack and creatures 2 and 3 are in the way, hence affected by the attack.

::Again this is my opinion. I happen to disagree the one of the creators answers and am explaining why I disagree.::

i'm waiting for Justin's response.

hope he will answer soon, i'm a bit confused

Ranged attack always requires LOS.

So the "within range" specification does imply that LOS is required.

**Of course, I am just having a nice time debating about the rules. Let's see what FFG answers.**

If figures don't disallow sweep, what about obstacles?

official answer

Let me see if I got this right if I have LOS of target 2 and not adjacent 1 and 3 I can't hit them with the AoE of sweep? Would something as big as a giant care if his leg, or exstention of his arm (a weapon) hit a door frame, or a barrel (in some cases probably breaking that too)? Think of the Troll in Lord of the Rings a giant is bigger then that. If you are a hero with this ability then you possess the power of a giant. Have reach? Then your simply a giant with either a long weapon like a pike or you have long arms. Either way no door frame will stop this attack! And hiding behind it shouldn't matter. And heroes should be getting there defense dice ready or carving a tomb stone before it hits.

It shouldn't matter if you have reach or not in my opinion.

It shouldn't matter if you have reach or not in my opinion.

If it bugs you that much, make a house rule. RAW is RAW, doesn't mean you have to play by it.

Rugal, don't worry: I consider things strange when I finally realise that I was right ! ;-)

In a game which has abstractions by definition, having one's "idea of reality" being hurt is unavoidable.

BTW, that sense of reality accepts that sweep does not work through doors or walls...

As I said to Justin, a sentence is missing

For Sweep, figures do not block line of sight.

As I said to Justin, a sentence is missing

For Sweep, figures do not block line of sight.

You mean that you would like to change the RAW, so that it fits your (wrong) interpretation ?

Better create a house rule rather than try to force FFG in creating a supplemental erratum.