I apologize in advance for the wall of text you're about to see. I considered breaking this into multiple posts, but the questions all tie together somewhat in my understanding, so I thought it better to consolidate them.
There's something interesting in the Rampage power attack that I just noticed today when looking the interaction between flying monsters and causing a hazard to appear. I've got a few questions that are really rather fundamental to the Rampage attack, but I've never had cause to ask them before.
1. When I make a Rampage attack, the description (pg. 36 Now! rulebook) sounds like I look at the squares I'm about to move into and compare my strikes to the defense of anything in those squares. Units hit are crushed, buildings hit are destroyed, and if it's a monster, I stop moving. There are a couple questions from this description.
1a: Is a building destroyed by a Rampage attack destroyed and removed immediately (i.e. before any further movement takes place) or does it just get marked as "hit" and dealt with in a later step of the attack?
I've always thought it was just "hit" and then removed in step 6 of the attack, but the description in the rules seems to imply it's dealt with immediately, before the monster moves into the spaces. This is especially important when dealing with flying monsters. If doesn't get its reactions until after the monster has moved onto the spaces, then the flying monster won't suffer damage from, for instance, a fire hazard. However, if the flying monster moves to that space BEFORE the fire hazard enters play, they would take damage when the hazard enters play (pg. 32 Now! rulebook).
1b: If there are two entities in the spaces the monster is about to enter, do you check and resolve both of them independently?
I'm almost certain the answer here is yes, but the example shown on pg. 37 of the Now! rulebook suggests otherwise. In that example, King Kondo is stopped by a Newspaper building because he rolled 3 strikes, however the Howitzer Ape that he also would have hit is not crushed. Why not? Does the Newspaper's defense mean that NOTHING in that space is hit or does the attacker get to choose the order of how the defenses are checked?
2. Hazards specifically say "The rampaging monster is immune to hazards in its path, but it can be affected by hazards in the spaces where it stops." This is somewhat related to the above question on timing, however I have a couple of more specific issues that I want to draw out.
2a. Blazing Inferno specifically says "Figures moving onto [the] hazard take 1 damage." However, at the point where the monster ceases to be immune, it's already ON the hazard and not moving onto it. Does the "[monsters] can be affected by hazards in the spaces where [they] stop" wording in the Rampage description cause an exception to the "moving onto" of the hazard itself or is a rampaging monster fully immune to hazards it moves onto?
The wording of Rampage suggests that a monster that would normally suffer damage from "moving onto" the hazard still does if they happen to stop there, however they don't stop until the Rampage ends and throughout the Rampage they're supposedly immune. I don't mind the way we've all been playing it, but it seems almost like Rampage would be better worded as saying the rampaging monster is not affected by hazards except for those they end their movement on.
2b. The next line of the Rampage rules says: "Flying figures ignore hazards, so a flying monster that ends its rampage on a hazard will not be affected." However, if a hazard enters play under the flying monster (for example, a Newspaper Office is destroyed and the flying monster ends its movement where the hazard will/did appear) shouldn't the flying monster still take a damage from it?
This is what I was initially researching and it seems to come down to timing. If the hazard appears before the monster ever moves onto the space, it's obviously not going to affect the flying monster. However, if it appears while the flying monster is on the space, then it seems like the description of Rampage is misleading.