Is there any consistency in 5th Ed.?

[Agent X]

My query:

 

"Lord Liaden asked you a question about adjacent hexes and the answer wasn't clear enough for my meager intellect.

 

You said, "1. No. Adjacent is adjacent — right next to the hex the character is standing in when he begins or launches the attack."

 

Here's the deal. For a move through, the first sentence in it's description describes that attack as a full move up to the target and then an attack: "Move Through allows a character to attack at the end of a Full Move by running right into his opponent."

 

So, in a move through, not stretching or the like, is the hex adjacent to you when you attack at the end of a full move considered adjacent? I really can't understand the rationale for a hand to hand attack against a person in the hex right beside you to be anything but an adjacent hex which means a area affect attack would be attacking DCV 0.

 

This came up concerning Viperia's affect a hex strength."

 

Steve Long's answer:

 

"My answer stands. A hex at the end of a Move Through is not "adjacent" in the sense that term is used regarding Area Of Effect attacks."

 

Notice no attempt to explain said answer that "Stands." I'd say it stands with a limp.

 

The language on when the attack roll happens for the move through seems specific enough for me to call this Standing Answer into question.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Is there any consistency in 5th Ed.?

 

Originally posted by Agent X

The language on when the attack roll happens for the move through seems specific enough for me to call this Standing Answer into question.

So don't use it. It seems to me like your nose is kinda out of joint, just because you disagree with one of Steve's rules rulings. No need to be sore; if you disagree with the ruling, just shrug, write "Move Throughs count as attacking into "adjacent" hexes for the purpose of no-range Area Effect attacks" into your house rules, and move on. No biggie.

 

FWIW, I see logic in both positions. You have a valid point in that the actual attack part of a Move Through occurs when the attacking character is "adjacent" to the target. Steve has a valid point in that a hex that's 10" away from where you started your Half-Phase does not have the same sense of being "point blank range" as the hex next to where you started your Half-Phase.

 

Personally, I think it's great to have official rulings we can disagree with. For many years, getting an official ruling to a HERO System rules question was only slightly easier than walking the wings of a flying roc. I'd much rather know what the "official" position is (even if I then choose not to follow it), rather than being left to guess and argue.

[Nightfly]

Well said, as usual, Derek

[Killer Shrike]

I can understand your point regarding the place of executing the actual strike being from an adjacent hex w/ a MT, but the MT itself is the manuever, not the part where you get to the end of the charge and make contact. Since you start the MT from a distance away, you are effectively rolling to hit from the starting point to begin the manuever, and are not then adjacent.

 

Also from a game mechanic standpoint, it would be pretty easy to design an unreasonably effective move-thru specialist brick that could just FMOV over from a distance away and hit your hex as a 0 DCV, which is practically an auto-hit.

[Lord Liaden]

As I implied when I responded to this point on the other thread, this would depend on how you visualize a Move Through: moving up into a hex and then attacking, or one continuous motion that ends at the hex you're attacking. Steve and Killer Shrike seem to be using the latter interpretation, and I agree with that myself. For me the fact that Move Through takes no Range Modifier no matter how many hexes you cross on the way is enough of a benefit.

 

So, to answer the question of this thread, in general and in this specific case I would say that 5E is consistent.

[lemming]

I'm in the hex has a DCV of 3 for movethru purposes. Unless you're doing a movethru on a hex right next to your starting position.

 

Hmm, and just to stay consistant, since you might already be at high speed at the end of one phase, I'm thinking that if you're in motion, then the hex will have a DCV of three.

[dugfromthearth]

basically you aren't wanting to do a move through, you are wanting to do a move up and hit. Which would be a 1/2 move followed by an attack. In which case the hex would be adjacent at the start of the attack and be DCV 0.

 

but if you want the extra dmg from the move through, then you also suffer the penalties of the move through - which includes that the hex was not adjacent at the start of the maneuver.

 

players choice

[Caveman]

But it does get an even worse modifier for ocv(-v/5). Though, I still agree with the one complete maneuver rule as it pertains to FMOVE.

 

 

 

Originally posted by Lord Liaden

As I implied when I responded to this point on the other thread, this would depend on how you visualize a Move Through: moving up into a hex and then attacking, or one continuous motion that ends at the hex you're attacking. Steve and Killer Shrike seem to be using the latter interpretation, and I agree with that myself. For me the fact that Move Through takes no Range Modifier no matter how many hexes you cross on the way is enough of a benefit.

 

So, to answer the question of this thread, in general and in this specific case I would say that 5E is consistent.

[JmOz]

Re: Re: Is there any consistency in 5th Ed.?

 

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

So don't use it. It seems to me like your nose is kinda out of joint, just because you disagree with one of Steve's rules rulings. No need to be sore; if you disagree with the ruling, just shrug, write "Move Throughs count as attacking into "adjacent" hexes for the purpose of no-range Area Effect attacks" into your house rules, and move on. No biggie.

 

FWIW, I see logic in both positions. You have a valid point in that the actual attack part of a Move Through occurs when the attacking character is "adjacent" to the target. Steve has a valid point in that a hex that's 10" away from where you started your Half-Phase does not have the same sense of being "point blank range" as the hex next to where you started your Half-Phase.

 

Personally, I think it's great to have official rulings we can disagree with. For many years, getting an official ruling to a HERO System rules question was only slightly easier than walking the wings of a flying roc. I'd much rather know what the "official" position is (even if I then choose not to follow it), rather than being left to guess and argue.

 

Well said,

 

This c oming from someone who almost NEVER agrees with :)steve

[Agent X]

Re: Re: Is there any consistency in 5th Ed.?

 

Originally posted by Derek Hiemforth

So don't use it. It seems to me like your nose is kinda out of joint, just because you disagree with one of Steve's rules rulings. No need to be sore; if you disagree with the ruling, just shrug, write "Move Throughs count as attacking into "adjacent" hexes for the purpose of no-range Area Effect attacks" into your house rules, and move on. No biggie.

 

FWIW, I see logic in both positions. You have a valid point in that the actual attack part of a Move Through occurs when the attacking character is "adjacent" to the target. Steve has a valid point in that a hex that's 10" away from where you started your Half-Phase does not have the same sense of being "point blank range" as the hex next to where you started your Half-Phase.

 

Personally, I think it's great to have official rulings we can disagree with. For many years, getting an official ruling to a HERO System rules question was only slightly easier than walking the wings of a flying roc. I'd much rather know what the "official" position is (even if I then choose not to follow it), rather than being left to guess and argue.

If my nose was out of joint, it didn't stay there very long. But I really don't like having to ask questions on the Hero Discussion Boards because the language in Fred clearly contradicts something said in an FAQ.

 

As to Steve Long's point, the attack is already suffering a penalty for being a move through. Oh well, house ruled away.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Killer Shrike

I can understand your point regarding the place of executing the actual strike being from an adjacent hex w/ a MT, but the MT itself is the manuever, not the part where you get to the end of the charge and make contact. Since you start the MT from a distance away, you are effectively rolling to hit from the starting point to begin the manuever, and are not then adjacent.

 

Also from a game mechanic standpoint, it would be pretty easy to design an unreasonably effective move-thru specialist brick that could just FMOV over from a distance away and hit your hex as a 0 DCV, which is practically an auto-hit.

It's one of many unreasonably effective things you can do in the game but not all of those unreasonably effective things you can do or picked on. The change is from a DCV 0 to a DCV 3. That can really matter, but for the most part it's not that big a deal. What is a big deal (and not really that big a deal) to me is that the language in FRED contradicts what he's come up with now.

[Guest Keneton]

I see your point agnet x, but for consistnecy sake. . .

 

If you started a move through 5" away from the target and on the way you get tossed by TK from targets teammate or a nearby martial artist, is your attack action spoiled? The answer is yes it is. Therefore Steve's answer makes sense as the attack action started when you began the move.

 

ALSO for consitency your CV modifiers start as you move.

 

I have often disagreed with Steve's rulings from the FAQ, but his job is hard, and frankly so are some of the questions he is asked! I agree with DH, house rule it if you like, but consider what I wrote above before doing so.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Keneton

I see your point agnet x, but for consistnecy sake. . .

 

If you started a move through 5" away from the target and on the way you get tossed by TK from targets teammate or a nearby martial artist, is your attack action spoiled? The answer is yes it is. Therefore Steve's answer makes sense as the attack action started when you began the move.

 

ALSO for consitency your CV modifiers start as you move.

I would assume that if someone tossed you while you were doing a full move and they didn't just throw you in the ground you could make a dex roll with modifiers to adjust for that action, if you were flying or swimming, and change course.

[Agent X]

Basically, it's this. If he's arguing that the maneuver begins with the first hex of movement and that the attack is wound up and released from there - then the first sentence in the description of the move through is inconsistent. If you want to argue that the DCV 3 is consistent with his conception of how this maneuver works that is fine but that first sentence is not consistent with his conception... and that's annoying.

[Guest Keneton]

X you are fast

 

You posted twice while I edited. I see your point of view as well read my edit.

[Agent X]

Re: X you are fast

 

Originally posted by Keneton

You posted twice while I edited. I see your point of view as well read my edit.

I type a lot.