Ranged Attack vs Wall bordering same zone

[Zuberi]

Yes, Laddinfance is an official Arcane Wonders response and settles the debate. I actually discussed this with him at GenCon. The official answer is that both distances are equally valid and you can choose either zone when measuring. The result is that a range 1 attack can hit a wall bordering the attacker's zone.

Also, in case it needs said, it is official that distance is a separate measurement from Line of Sight. So the fact that you don't have line of sight to the zone on the far side of the wall, does not prevent you from measuring distance to that zone. You still have Line of Sight to the Wall itself, and your choice of zones for approximating distance to the wall is valid.

[Coshade]

Cool! Thanks for the quick reply

[Laddinfance]

My post should settle this, for now.

[wtcannonjr]

My post should settle this, for now.

A sad day for using walls as a strategy against minimum range 1 archers.

That would mean that Akiros Hammer can also hit a wall just one zone away but not adjacent to the hammers zone using the same rule. Does that sound right?

[Laddinfance]

That would mean that Akiros Hammer can also hit a wall just one zone away but not adjacent to the hammers zone using the same rule. Does that sound right?

Yes.

[Coshade]

My post should settle this, for now.

A sad day for using walls as a strategy against minimum range 1 archers.

There is always another way! It does mess up some of my strategies as well.

[gw]

Interesting discussion - continue please 

*munches popcorn*

[Halewijn]

It's the most logical solution. (And how we house ruled it for a very long time)

[wtcannonjr]

Yes, Laddinfance is an official Arcane Wonders response and settles the debate. I actually discussed this with him at GenCon. The official answer is that both distances are equally valid and you can choose either zone when measuring. The result is that a range 1 attack can hit a wall bordering the attacker's zone.

Also, in case it needs said, it is official that distance is a separate measurement from Line of Sight. So the fact that you don't have line of sight to the zone on the far side of the wall, does not prevent you from measuring distance to that zone. You still have Line of Sight to the Wall itself, and your choice of zones for approximating distance to the wall is valid.

We have a new case since this ruling was handed down that I discovered in recent play this weekend. I wanted to check our interpretation of the Attack spell Luminous Blast. It is a Holy, Light Ranged Attack with Min-Max range of 0-0.

We played that this 5 dice spell could attack Walls in the adjacent zone border, which proved a very effective method to help take down walls. However, on reflection after the game I discovered this discussion folder and the following statement on p.14 of the Rules Supplement.

"Zone borders are not considered to be inside the zones they border, so a Zone attack will not affect walls."

Before Luminous Blast was released the only Ranged Attacks that had a range of 0-0 were Zone attacks that targeted a Zone. So the question is does the quoted statement above apply to ANY Ranged Attack with a 0-0 range or just to Ranged Attacks that Target a Zone and use the Zone Attack icon?

Did we play Luminous Blast correctly?

[Zuberi]

Luminous Blast can absolutely be used to attack walls bordering your zone. While walls are NOT in your zone, they also are not 1 zone away. The situation is exactly the same as it has been described earlier in the thread, that walls exist in a nebulous in-between state where counting them as range 0 is equally as valid as range 1, which is to say neither is actually correct but we don't have another way of measuring range. So you still pick one of the zones bordering the wall, even if the one you choose happens to be the one you're standing in. That's fine.

[wtcannonjr]

Luminous Blast can absolutely be used to attack walls bordering your zone. While walls are NOT in your zone, they also are not 1 zone away. The situation is exactly the same as it has been described earlier in the thread, that walls exist in a nebulous in-between state where counting them as range 0 is equally as valid as range 1, which is to say neither is actually correct but we don't have another way of measuring range. So you still pick one of the zones bordering the wall, even if the one you choose happens to be the one you're standing in. That's fine.

So while the ranged zone attack does target an adjacent zone bordering a wall it does not attack the wall because of the rule that states zone attacks only attack objects within a zone. Understood.

I wonder why the need for the zone attack exception for walls? Seems like a candidate for rules simplification that would not impact game balance. If zone attacks could attack all objects within or adjacent to a targeted zone it seems more consistent with the range to zone to wall discussion in this folder.

Thanks!