First of all I'm on my phone so I apologize for not being able to quote powers.

1. When you successfully break away from 2 figures and can move freely through squares adjacent to them without stopping can you move diagonally through the intersection point of the two enemies squares?

DE
EO

So E for enemy, O for origin, and D for destination. After breaking away while in square O can I move into square D? Part of me says yes because I an move through squares adjacent to E with no problem. However I can't move into or through squares E so that makes me think I should treat squares E like blocking terrain which would prevent me from entering square D from square O.

2. In a situation where I have to place something like a bystander in an unoccupied adjacent square to me what do I do when there aren't any squares that qualify.

Like if I wanted to use warstar's power

B'NEE FREE!: Give Warstar a free action, or whenever Warstar takes damage from an attack; remove B'Nee and place him in an adjacent square. He becomes a bystander token as described on the back of this card.

And the map is set up as such

2222
2WE1
2222

Where 2 is second level clear elevated terrain, W is warstar, E is enemy, and 1 is first level clear terrain. W is also on 1st level and therefore there are no unoccupied adjacent squares. Is this power just not usable?


3. Can longshot destroy blocking terrain by attacking it and hitting therefore making it a critical hit increasing his damage enough to destroy it.


Special Powers
LUCKIEST 'MAN' ALIVE: All of Longshot's hits are critical hits. If Longshot rolls 12, the attack can't be evaded, damage dealt is increased by an additional 1 and damage can't be reduced below 3.


The rule book just says that attacks on blocking terrain automatically succeed but I wasn't sure if that meant it counted as a hit, and therefore a critical hit.

Thank you for all the help.

1. Yes
2. I don't think you would be able to remove B'Nee without an open adjacent square (I could be wrong on this).
3. I believe this would be a yes as well.

I think Shocker has it right on all 3 questions.

For question 3...
Rule Book on "DESTROYING BLOCKING TERRAIN"
A square of blocking terrain can be destroyed by a single attack that deals at least 3 damage. When a character attacks blocking terrain, the attack automatically succeeds.
Rule Book on "CRITICAL HITS"
If you roll a 12 on an attack roll, you automatically hit the target, regardless of what you needed to roll to hit. This is called a critical hit. A critical hit increases damage dealt by 1 to each successfully hit target.

My interpretation:
Longshot targets blocking terrain (the attack automatically succeeds) - so he automatically hits, Longshot therefore automatically critical hits, which increases damage by 1, for a total of 3 = Yes; terrain destroyed.

2) Since placing B'nee in the only adjacent square would violate the rule of occupancy, the effect does not occur. Nothing happens.

3) Yes. You may not roll to try and critically hit terrain or objects normally, however Longshot critically hits without the roll being necessary. Since critical hits increase damage dealt by 1 to hit targets it would apply that damage bonus to the wall.

Perhaps, you should re-read that bit you quoted from the rules. Characters are not terrain, so they should not block the movement on the diagonal. They never have before, so you are making a new ruling here.

I have to ask on this too. It seems that this isnt right, or we have been playing it wrong for a long time.

This is 100% correct.

I realy wanted to agree with rpgambit because that is how I always thought of it as well but once I saw VP's post I looked thru the RB pretty well and it seems as tho VP is correct.

I did however see this from page 8;

Only one successful break away roll is
required to move away from all adjacent
opposing characters or other game effects
that may require break away from that square.
Once a character successfully breaks away, it
can move through squares adjacent to every
opposing character or game effect from which
it broke away; but ends its movement as normal
if it becomes adjacent to an opposing character
that it did not break away from this action.

Now this certainly isn't concrete but it does say that you are required to move "away" from opposing characters and as I see it thru an intersection of opposing isn't away since the next square you step in is just as close as the last. It also says that you can move thru "squares" adjacent to opposing characters but makes no mention of intersections.

Again I know it isn't solid evidence but it may be at least reason for review.

There is absolutely no evidence or justification that you can't move your character around an opposing character it broke away from and must instead *ONLY* move it directly away. In fact, that line you italicized explicitly states that you can more around the opposing character.

And if you are going to pick nits about intersections, I would then submit that it also does *NOT* make any mention of moving through the dividing gridlines around the squares... so by that logic you can't move period

To move through squares, you sometimes move the character through an intersection. There really is nothing to review here.

Do you mean none besides the line I bolded? Because that seems pretty explicit.

So if you are required to move away and your next square puts you in the exact same proximity as your original square than did you move away? NO! You say there is no need for review, so I guess that means you know what the original intent was? It seems pretty strange to run as close or closer to someone that you are trying to get away from, at least to some of us.

Is your avatar a sith of some kind because you deal in a lot of absolutes. Believe it or not I do have respect for you, until you talk that. You can easily make your point without all the grandiose gesturing. And winky face doesn't take the edge off.

Inevitably I see that you are right but you could have made this far more simple and less edgy if you simply posed the question;

"what if you have opponents on your N,E,W,and S squares? Then you would have to break away thru an intersection."

Wouldn't that have worked just as well or better?

If by "explicit" you mean "doesn't define what exactly 'away' means" then, yes

Says who? Certainly not the RB...

"Some of us" isn't the rule book. Again, where does the rulebook say you can't do this?

I frankly can't think of anything to say to this that wouldn't come across as "aggressive" in your book... let's just say I think rep is pretty meaningless as to whether or not posts mean anything and leave it at that.

So when I point out the flaw in your argument, including the fact that you already highlight part of the text that points out said flaw, that is some how grandiose gesturing?

Thank you for this post. I now know where I stand with you.

I saw no gestures.

I actually had you confused with Vlad about this part you quoted, because of your relative absolutes.

If you look I revised my statement when I realized that I was mistaken, but if you think you know where you stand than so be it. I have no use of someone that makes their points the way you do.

I am obviously mistaken. My apologies.

I think it has to do with that messed up eye your avatar has.