


Assuming the following situation and that the monster M1 has Move 1, Attack (melee) it will not move. But what about Move 2 with melee attack? Disregard the a and b labels.
The Rulebook says:
Quote: If a monster has a move but no attack afterward as part of its ability card, it will use its movement to get as close as possible to its focused target (determined as if it had a melee attack), moving along the shortest possible path to enter a hex adjacent to its focused enemy. If a monster has an attack ability after its movement, it will move the least number of hexes possible in such a way as to attack its focused enemy with maximum effect.
Whereas the Enemy Focus and Movement Flowchart v6 says:
Quote: It must end its movement with a shorter path to (or on) the hex or it will not move
I thought with Move 2 the monster would also stay put, kind of like with pull/push every movement must get the monster closer. But I cannot see how these rule fragments contribute to it so now I'm unsure. The flowchart definitely doesn't contradict the M1 moving next to M2/M3 as the monster is then closer to the attack hex than before the movement.


Marcel Cwertetschka
Germany Vienna
Gloomhaven: Forgotten Circles!

move 1 = stays put as M1 cannot shorten the distance
move 2 = move to a and 1 down or to b and 1 down, as the distance is now shortened to a hex adjacent to C1 (shortened to move 2) move 3+ = move next to C1 through M2 and M3




Morthai wrote: move 1 = stays put as M1 cannot shorten the distance move 2 = move to a and 1 down or to b and 1 down, as the distance is now shortened to a hex adjacent to C1 (shortened to move 2) move 3+ = move next to C1 through M2 and M3
Thanks, I guess I should trust the flowchart more than I have.


Dee Wongsa
United States Houston Texas

The part where they rulebook says "it will use its movement to get as close as possible" takes precedence over the part where it says "moving along the shortest possible path." The FAQ on monster movement clears this up.


M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom Basingstoke Hampshire

dejadee wrote: The part where they rulebook says "it will use its movement to get as close as possible" takes precedence over the part where it says "moving along the shortest possible path." The FAQ on monster movement clears this up. The FAQ on Monster Movement saysQuote: If a monster can't get within range to attack with its movement, will it still move closer? Absolutely, monsters will always use the minimum movement required to get as close as possible to a hex where they can attack their focus, attempting to get into a position where they can attack with maximum efficiency if possible (e.g. avoiding disadvantage (first priority) or maximizing attacks on other targets (second priority)). Closeness is measured by the minimum total number of hexes the monster needs to physically move to reach the desired hex. Notice the bit I have highlighted (which does not mean proximal closeness, which is what you all seem to have used).
To me, this means that as moving to "a" or "b" reduces "the total number of hexes the monster needs to physically move to reach the desired hex", it moves to "a" or "b". In what universe is the path from "a" to the hex above C1 not shorter than the path from M1 to the same hex?


patrick mullen
United States Washington

mccrispy wrote: dejadee wrote: The part where they rulebook says "it will use its movement to get as close as possible" takes precedence over the part where it says "moving along the shortest possible path." The FAQ on monster movement clears this up. The FAQ on Monster Movement says Quote: If a monster can't get within range to attack with its movement, will it still move closer? Absolutely, monsters will always use the minimum movement required to get as close as possible to a hex where they can attack their focus, attempting to get into a position where they can attack with maximum efficiency if possible (e.g. avoiding disadvantage (first priority) or maximizing attacks on other targets (second priority)). Closeness is measured by the minimum total number of hexes the monster needs to physically move to reach the desired hex. Notice the bit I have highlighted (which does not mean proximal closeness, which is what you all seem to have used). To me, this means that as moving to "a" or "b" reduces "the total number of hexes the monster needs to physically move to reach the desired hex", it moves to "a" or "b". In what universe is the path from "a" to the hex above C1 not shorter than the path from M1 to the same hex?
In the universe where when you count the distance you get 3 each time (either moving 3 steps down through his allies, or 2 steps down and one step south east from a).


Matthew Watson
Scotland Edinburgh

mccrispy wrote: In what universe is the path from "a" to the hex above C1 not shorter than the path from M1 to the same hex? I'm not sure how you're counting the hexes, but you should be counting whole hexes. Then from (M1) to the gap to the N of (C1) is 3 hexes, and from (a) to either the gap to the NW of (C1) or the gap to the N of (C1) is also 3 hexes.




mccrispy wrote: To me, this means that as moving to "a" or "b" reduces "the total number of hexes the monster needs to physically move to reach the desired hex", it moves to "a" or "b". In what universe is the path from "a" to the hex above C1 not shorter than the path from M1 to the same hex?
You seem to be missing that M2 and M3 are not obstacles for M1. It just can't end it's movement there.


M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom Basingstoke Hampshire

HisDivineShadow wrote: mccrispy wrote: In what universe is the path from "a" to the hex above C1 not shorter than the path from M1 to the same hex? I'm not sure how you're counting the hexes, but you should be counting whole hexes. Then from (M1) to the gap to the N of (C1) is 3 hexes, and from (a) to either the gap to the NW of (C1) or the gap to the N of (C1) is also 3 hexes. What I'm doing wrong is forgetting that hexes containing Allies are not blocked hexes for the purposes of determining the shortest path to the target hex. It's got nothing to do with counting whole hexes.


M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom Basingstoke Hampshire

florencka wrote: mccrispy wrote: To me, this means that as moving to "a" or "b" reduces "the total number of hexes the monster needs to physically move to reach the desired hex", it moves to "a" or "b". In what universe is the path from "a" to the hex above C1 not shorter than the path from M1 to the same hex?
You seem to be missing that M2 and M3 are not obstacles for M1. It just can't end it's movement there. Agreed. I'm a fool


patrick mullen
United States Washington

mccrispy wrote: florencka wrote: mccrispy wrote: To me, this means that as moving to "a" or "b" reduces "the total number of hexes the monster needs to physically move to reach the desired hex", it moves to "a" or "b". In what universe is the path from "a" to the hex above C1 not shorter than the path from M1 to the same hex?
You seem to be missing that M2 and M3 are not obstacles for M1. It just can't end it's movement there. Agreed. I'm a fool
Easy to miss


M.C.Crispy
United Kingdom Basingstoke Hampshire

saluk wrote: mccrispy wrote: florencka wrote: mccrispy wrote: To me, this means that as moving to "a" or "b" reduces "the total number of hexes the monster needs to physically move to reach the desired hex", it moves to "a" or "b". In what universe is the path from "a" to the hex above C1 not shorter than the path from M1 to the same hex?
You seem to be missing that M2 and M3 are not obstacles for M1. It just can't end it's movement there. Agreed. I'm a fool Easy to miss No, it's pretty easy to spot that I'm a fool




