Forums

Logically adjacent vs physically adjacent Terrain: seeking pedantic definition of "adjacent"

Forums/ The 7th Continent/ Rules and Operating Points4 posts
64x64
Posted
#1
i'm looking for the pedantic definition of "adjacent" as it regards to Terrain cards. Specifically, i'm using weather effects for the first time, and they rely, in part, in that definition. The definition is normally clear, but there are cases where we need to distinguish between "physical adjacency" and "logical adjacency":



In that photo, the top and bottom cards are logically adjacent but not physically. This is important not just for weather effects, but also for purposes of removing the Paranoid state. It's also not clear whether the distance between those two cards is 1 or 2 (i don't think that actually matters for any case i can think of, but the answer would still be interesting to know).

Opinions are welcomed, but citations for an official ruling are better :).
64x64
Posted
#2
Not only are the the two terrain cards pictured not adjacent, they are not even connected for the purposes of the :move_arrow: action.

Adjacent just means physically adjacent.
64x64
Posted
#3
I agree with Brisingre. I understand what you mean by logical adjacency, but the game does not use that concept. The only adjacency is the physical grid adjacency.
64x64
Posted
#4
I agree that they are not adjacent if you are applying some specific effect such as weather. A by-the-book answer is clearly not to consider the cards adjacent for the effect.

But also, the logically you are talking about is more like a roleplay way of understanding the rules and there is not cheating in doing so. This is your game and if your experience is better playing that way, go on! I totally agree that in some cases two cards are not adjacent but their continent parts are clearly connected.
Forums/ The 7th Continent/ Rules and Operating Points4 posts
Log in & Answer