Bigsoph,

I read your answer but it doesn't satisfy my question. Did you read my response to your answer?

Heroclix has turned into a very precise game where little tiny details make an extreme difference in game play. The devil is really in the details and I have been stabbed several times by the devil's pitchfork so that is why I'm trying to get a very precise answer and quote from the rulebook that deals specifically with this issue.

The answer you gave, though logically correct and understandable, does not address my issues specifically. I am sure in the long run you will be correct, two diagonally adjacent squares of blocking terrain will be ruled as preventing adjacency between two characters in opposite diagonal squares, however, the rulings you quoted does not specifically state that.

LOSH pg 31
As I stated before, this rule, that you quoted, does not mention anything about the adjacency of two opposing figures at a diagonal between the blocking terrain. It just says that it blocks movement and LOF, but nothing about adjacency of the two characters.


Tyroclix,

Thank you for your detailed explanation of this adjacency issue and I see your point.

However, I don't see how the pg 30 rule on hindering terrain not affecting close combat attacks logically implies anything when it comes to blocking terrain. It also doesn't say anything about elevated terrain or water terrain...does that mean that it implies we should take special consideration for those types of terrain?

You are right, under blocking terrain, it gives no exemption for close combat attacks, one way or another. So which is it? Can you preform a close combat attack through the diagonal of two squares of blocking terrain or not? Yes, logic dictates that you can't with the pg 31 rules on LOF and movement, but how often has logic failed us on heroclix rules. I'm looking at you "not adjacent to the square a character occupies" rule!

The page 31 rule of blocking terrain having the potential to completely impede a character's actions doesn't help much. Yes, blocking terrain has the potential to impede a character's action, but does it in this specific case? With the available rule here, no one can really tell. Or at least I can't.

I know this evidence is a bit old but if you look in past rulebooks, such as Universe, it specifically stated under blocking terrain:

It says no such thing in the current rulebook.

So since it has been stated in a previous rulebook, why would it suddenly be taken out of the current rulebook? Perhaps it was meant to so that characters could attack each other in this situation? Perhaps it was just an oversight by the rulebook publisher?

Furthermore, since it was in a previous rulebook, it would lead to a group think mentality where everyone just expected it to be true and that made it true. Is that what truth is?
Just because everyone thinks 2+2=5 doesn't make it so.

Actually, it always has been.... there's just more game mechanics that have been added since it started

Well, he answered it, but not as directly as you were looking for. Basically, if it's continuous blocking terrain, the two figures are not adjacent, so they can't attack each other even in close combat.

Well, not really. As you said earlier, it's a very language-specific game.... you shouldn't assume anything if it's not specifically listed.

The long and short of the quote/rule is that any squares terrain that are adjacent (diagonal or otherwise) is considered continuous terrain as long as it's the same terrain.

No, you can't.

Well, it's not so much that "there's no logic"... but "there is no common sense". Game logic doesn't always match up with "real-world logic". Just remember:

good catch!!!

I think that if you would have started your question with this post then everybody would have understood you from the beggining.

You are not being capricious, you just see a change in a a rule description and you want to know if it was on purpose or if it is a mistake in the rules book (a missing line).

This would not be the first time we asume a rule or ruling (or whatever we want to call it) and then GD or the RA told us that we have been cheating each other 5 years in a row (shame on us for not being telepaths!!!)

I´m very sad to tell you that I have no answer regarding this.
I´m pretty sure nowhere in the rules says nothing about it. I also looked in the erratas and the FAQ and could find nothing about it.
In this case I think common sense should apply.
Anyway when in doubt ask your local judge before the game starts how he would rule this situation.

I hope this helps!

as_bat,

I wish I did start my question with that old rule quote. As I was writing my last response it dawned on me that I remember seeing the rule in an older book somewhere so I went searching for it and did find it.

You are right, my local venue judge is the best person to give me a ruling on it. Heck if I were a judge I would rule it the way everyone has been playing it for the past five years. I agree that two squares of diagonally blocking terrain prevent adjacency.

However, I think it is our responsibility as players to make note of problems in the game so that they can be fixed. And I see this oversight in the rulebook as a problem that could be exploited by some players.

Now everyone has been repeating the same ruling back to me, but that rule doesn't say anything about the loss of adjacency. I really don't know why I have had to illustrate that several times now. I know, I know, it should prevent adjacency, but it just doesn't say it in the rulebook.

Quote burleigh2:
I'll ask you the same thing I have asked everyone else, can you quote in the rulebook, E&C, or FAQ where this is stated? The pg 31 rule on continuous blocking terrain only addresses movement and LOF.

I'm sorry if everyone thinks I'm being a pain in the tush here. I don't intend to be at all. I would never condone someone playing the game as if the characters are adjacent in this situation I have issue with. I will fully admit when I have something wrong too...but so far, I am not convinced that the current rulebook addresses this issue effectively. We can infer that the ruling is such that everyone has described, but of course we have inferred a lot of rulings in the past that turned out to be wrong. Again, I bring up the "not adjacent to the square you occupy" rule.

Thanks everyone!

I totally agree, I do feel anyway that WK does not pay all the atention they should to our claims.

Sure! Walls are continuous blocking terrain, as is the diagonal blocking terrain issue. Also:


Oh, not at all. We were all in your shoes at one point... even the best of us had to learn these rules at some point, and we've all made errors (intentional or otherwise) because we didn't know certain rules. That's why we're here to help others, and that's why there's a stickied thread that says "Don't forget, you were a newbie once too"... so we don't forget

This issue WAS formally addressed when Copsicles was ruled on, and it was addressed in a way that unambiguously filled-in the gap in the rulebook. "There is no adjacency across the diagonal of 2 touching squares of blocking terrain" is pretty conclusive to me!

It's too bad the rulebook doesn't state this anymore... but that's what FAQs are for I suppose.

I was shocked to discover that double-based figures can "cut-off" adjacency between two figures by positioning on a diagonal! It makes Lockjaw even more insane when you think about it.

burleigh2,

I made mention to a similar rule from page 32 of LOSH in my original post

The page 11 rule you quoted says basically the same thing:

Again though, these two rules specifically state walls. Blocking terrain and walls are different so these rules are not applicable.

Not really.

Essentially, walls and blocking terrain are treated the same way and walls are basically a special type of blocking terrain (that doesn't take up a full square)

As for the Copsicle ruling:

Pg 20, FAQ:
Did this rule create the rule on the loss of adjacency between two diagonal squares of blocking terrain or did the loss of adjacency between two diagonal squares of blocking terrain create this rule?

If the latter is true then that means the Copsicle ruling is based on a rule that doesn't exist in the current rulebook. If the former is true, then isn't it unusual for a major game mechanic to be addressed in an esoteric special power FAQ?

Burleigh

Mummy is just asking where is OFFICIALLY stated that way, and not by inference (I think this is the proper word).

For how long how we played the adjacency to objects including being upon the object and a couple months ago GD decides its about time to explain that being ON the object is no the same to be adjacent to the object?

It was clearly explained in previous versions of the rule book and now it´s not.
Mummy doesn´t want the logic process that makes us rule it that or this way.
He wants the rule, clear and in plain sight...
And to say the truthfull... it isn´t there.
We have to use our common sense and (as I said) ask our judges how are they going to rule it.
This should be in the errata and not left to "questioning".

burleigh2,

That is a very compelling quote. Thanks!

It is still curious though that walls do have all the effects of blocking terrain, yet it doesn't say that blocking terrain has all the effects of walls.

Yes, walls do have all the effects of blocking terrain and characters on opposite sides of walls are not adjacent...but how does that make characters on opposite sides of blocking terrain, which is not a wall but what walls have all the effects of, not adjacent?

That's my issue with all this. Thanks as_bat!
I understand why it should be ruled as such, and I agree with the rule, however, we can't expect everyone to rule in this same way. If it is corrected in a future rulebook then we will not have any problems with it.

I'd like to share an example of something that happened to me at a venue I attended when I was out of town:
As we may all know, and if you don't please check the appropriate forum on this issue, you can opt not to use the stealth ability that is granted via the Batman TA without canceling the Batman TA for the duration of the turn. It is clearly inferred in the PAC but not specifically stated. So when I played in this tournament I opted not to use the Stealth given by the Batman TA for the duration of a free action so my Batman character could be Perplexed, then opted to use it afterwards so that I could make an attack and not be visible for PC. Well the judge ruled that I couldn't do that. It was an interpretation that he made of the rule that wasn't correct but was still a valid interpretation. The same could apply here to this adjacency issue and I would like to, at very least, bring awareness to it.

This thread is making my head hurt..

The latter. Two diagonal squares of blocking terrain have always, ALWAYS cut off adjacency in Heroclix. The current rulebook citation that they represent continuous blocking terrain -- just like two squares of same sitting side-by-side are also continuous blocking terrain --should be enough to settle the question.