Results 1 to 29 of 29
  1. #1

    Unhappy [OP] LOS rules are broken

    According to the new FAQ rules (no two diagonals in a row) Clone2 is in LOS (shortest path is range 5). This does not make sense.


  2. #2

    Default

    As per other games, a line can be drawn from the corner of the one square to the other. You would have LoS in other games I've played, so it doesn't seem weird to me.
    *Post content may actually be any number of parts opinion, hypothesis, hyperbole, and/or fact. Subject to availability. Prices subject to change. Taxes and fees may apply. Consult your doctor before using. No reproduction of this post is authorized without the express written consent of the NFL.

  3. #3
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,096

    Default

    On the one hand, I think the pre-errata shortest path was four (two diagonals and two straight) and there was LOS. There are four variations of that shortest path, one of which avoids going through the wall squares.

    Edit: Shortest path is still four, though. Straight, diagonal, straight, diagonal. Or diagonal, straight, diagonal, straight. If you look at the cover diagrams on page 15, a shortest path can go off of the printed board. You have to act as if the map sections are surrounded by wall squares.
    Last edited by solkan; 02-14-2014 at 06:43 AM.

  4. #4

    Default

    @psichotykwyrm @solkan

    I was talking about Clone 2 with the green text, the one at the bottom ! He is in LOS according to the FAQ as the shortest valid path is 5 !
    I'm wondering how this could slip through playtesting.
    Last edited by LarkinVB; 02-14-2014 at 07:25 AM.

  5. #5
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,096

    Default

    Sorry about that, I misread what you wrote and thought you were talking about the bright red lettered Clone.

    I lent out my copy of the game and can't find an old version of the PDF for comparison on what that sentence used to say. Edit: Or, after reading for the fifth time and taking note that this is an added sentence, I assume this ended up trying to solve a different corner case while creating this one.
    Last edited by solkan; 02-14-2014 at 08:07 AM.

  6. #6

    Default

    The original rules did allow two diaganals in a row for shortest path. Not 100% sure why they changed that, guess it caused other LOS problems.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LarkinVB View Post
    @psichotykwyrm @solkan

    I was talking about Clone 2 with the green text, the one at the bottom ! He is in LOS according to the FAQ as the shortest valid path is 5 !
    I'm wondering how this could slip through playtesting.
    I think I focused on the first one due to both the big bold red lettering and the fact that number 2 is so ridiculously out of sight.

    If I can't find any significant issues with the original method, I'll just use that. Seriously though, how did that make it through playtest, and what issue were they trying to fix?
    *Post content may actually be any number of parts opinion, hypothesis, hyperbole, and/or fact. Subject to availability. Prices subject to change. Taxes and fees may apply. Consult your doctor before using. No reproduction of this post is authorized without the express written consent of the NFL.

  8. #8

    Default

    A bit sad that the company is ignoring this obvious LOS problem.

  9. #9
    Destroyer of Worlds Varagon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    SE Kansas, SW Missouri, NE Kansas
    Posts
    5,023

    Default

    Can someone draw the line of sight on that map for me and explain the issue?
    My wife lets me have all the miniatures I can keep hidden from her.
    My blog: Pen and Lead
    Painting, Modelling, Boardgames, RPGs, Reviews, and More

  10. #10

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Varagon View Post
    Can someone draw the line of sight on that map for me and explain the issue?
    I added a valid shortest path to the top image. The issue is obvious, the bottom clone is in LOS though he should not be.

    The original rules were better but still flawed.

  11. #11
    Destroyer of Worlds maddermax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,090

    Default

    Easiest way to do it - when drawing LOS, pick one "straight" direction and one diagonal, LOS can't use anything but those two (to prevent LOS bending, as shown in your example). Then apply the new "cannot use 2 diagonals in a row, unless all diagonals" rule, and that should work out I think...
    Looking for a game in Brisbane, Australia? Come along to Pubhammer! The friendly club in a Pub! We meet every Sunday night from 6ish at The Junction, Annerley (opposite Ace Comics and Games). Feel free to PM me or look us up on Facebook (Pubhammer group page) for more details.

  12. #12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maddermax View Post
    Easiest way to do it - when drawing LOS, pick one "straight" direction and one diagonal, LOS can't use anything but those two (to prevent LOS bending, as shown in your example). Then apply the new "cannot use 2 diagonals in a row, unless all diagonals" rule, and that should work out I think...
    Sad enough this is not a solution as it will deny LOS were it should be valid. Try for yourself. It clearly shows why lots of games struggle with good LOS rules. The designer here tried but failed too.

  13. #13

    Default

    Anybody know what issue they were trying to fix with the change? I'm just not seeing anything wrong with the LoS rules as printed in the book (besides being initially clunky). What am I missing?
    *Post content may actually be any number of parts opinion, hypothesis, hyperbole, and/or fact. Subject to availability. Prices subject to change. Taxes and fees may apply. Consult your doctor before using. No reproduction of this post is authorized without the express written consent of the NFL.

  14. #14

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psichotykwyrm View Post
    Anybody know what issue they were trying to fix with the change? I'm just not seeing anything wrong with the LoS rules as printed in the book (besides being initially clunky). What am I missing?
    You are missing that broken curveball LOS was possible with the original rules.

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LarkinVB View Post
    You are missing that broken curveball LOS was possible with the original rules.
    Care to provide an example of how that might happen? Seems to me that more consecutive diagonals should generate more "shortest paths" through walls to prevent this.
    *Post content may actually be any number of parts opinion, hypothesis, hyperbole, and/or fact. Subject to availability. Prices subject to change. Taxes and fees may apply. Consult your doctor before using. No reproduction of this post is authorized without the express written consent of the NFL.

  16. #16
    Destroyer of Worlds maddermax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psichotykwyrm View Post
    Care to provide an example of how that might happen? Seems to me that more consecutive diagonals should generate more "shortest paths" through walls to prevent this.
    You could have 4 straights along a wall, then 4 diagonals around a corner, creating a banana bending LOS to a target that would be impossible to see directly.

    Or, as we found on that piece with 4 columns in the OP, 4 straight along walls, two diagonals between the columns then a couple more straights to the back corner, which seemed silly.
    Last edited by maddermax; 02-26-2014 at 09:01 PM.
    Looking for a game in Brisbane, Australia? Come along to Pubhammer! The friendly club in a Pub! We meet every Sunday night from 6ish at The Junction, Annerley (opposite Ace Comics and Games). Feel free to PM me or look us up on Facebook (Pubhammer group page) for more details.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maddermax View Post
    You could have 4 straights along a wall, then 4 diagonals around a corner, creating a banana bending LOS to a target that would be impossible to see directly.

    Or, as we found on that piece with 4 columns in the OP, 4 straight along walls, two diagonals between the columns then a couple more straights to the back corner, which seemed silly.
    Why exactly, when doing this, are you not counting spaces off the board as implied wall spaces?

    Forcing some consecutive diagonals through the implied wall spaces should clear that up.
    *Post content may actually be any number of parts opinion, hypothesis, hyperbole, and/or fact. Subject to availability. Prices subject to change. Taxes and fees may apply. Consult your doctor before using. No reproduction of this post is authorized without the express written consent of the NFL.

  18. #18
    Destroyer of Worlds maddermax's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Brisbane, Australia
    Posts
    1,090

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by psichotykwyrm View Post
    Why exactly, when doing this, are you not counting spaces off the board as implied wall spaces?

    Forcing some consecutive diagonals through the implied wall spaces should clear that up.
    Not quite getting what you're saying here. Off board spaces are walls, and LOS doesn't go through them, yes, but I didn't imply that it did...
    Looking for a game in Brisbane, Australia? Come along to Pubhammer! The friendly club in a Pub! We meet every Sunday night from 6ish at The Junction, Annerley (opposite Ace Comics and Games). Feel free to PM me or look us up on Facebook (Pubhammer group page) for more details.

  19. #19

    Default

    But you're talking about tracing a shortest path along a wall and then hooking into the corner of a room. Shouldn't forcing a straighter path through the off board wall spaces fix that?

    Edit:
    I think I see where that might not help. There's a small case involving hallways adjacent to rooms where the number of diagonals through the wall will match the number of diagonals one could count after the wall, giving a funky shot with Cover.

    (I might just have to supplement a corner-to-corner secondary restriction in the meantime.)
    Last edited by psichotykwyrm; 02-28-2014 at 05:31 AM.
    *Post content may actually be any number of parts opinion, hypothesis, hyperbole, and/or fact. Subject to availability. Prices subject to change. Taxes and fees may apply. Consult your doctor before using. No reproduction of this post is authorized without the express written consent of the NFL.

  20. #20
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,096

    Default

    I think what it comes down to is that the shortest path calculation should prohibit having two different straight lines in it.

    On the other hand, if you move the red commando up one square and put a wall square to its left, so that the commando and the alien are standing on opposite sides of two different wall squares, things get weird. There are three different "three diagonal and one left" shortest paths to the red clone, two of which go through the walls but the 'diagonal-left-diagonal-diagonal' and 'diagonal-diagonal-left-diagonal' versions are clear. So the errata edition removes line of sight between the two by eliminating the two non-wall paths.

    That probably needs a diagram to make sense.

  21. #21
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Israel
    Posts
    282

    Default

    Just jumped in and saw this, it looks like the shortest path is 4, why are we debating the LoS of a 5 long path when the 4 path doesn't have los?
    Last edited by juggernaut1; 04-23-2014 at 05:54 AM. Reason: spelling mistake

  22. #22
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by juggernaut1 View Post
    Just jumped in and saw this, it looks like the shortest path is 4, why are we debating the LoS of a 5 long path when the 4 path doesn't have los?
    Because, according to the errata'd wording, there is no shortest path of 4. The path that would have a length of four isn't valid.

  23. #23

    Default

    If they changed it to "LOS exists if there is a shortest path using at most one orthogonal direction, and one diagonal direction, in any combination, that does not pass through a solid space" wouldn't that fix this?
    Last edited by JWEII; 04-26-2014 at 09:57 PM.

  24. #24
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    252

    Default

    I think the best would be to do like any D&D game. If any straight line from any corner of a commando square can connect with any corner of the clone corner without crossing a wall, then you have LOS. That is so simple.

  25. #25
    Conqueror
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    195

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aglardae View Post
    I think the best would be to do like any D&D game. If any straight line from any corner of a commando square can connect with any corner of the clone corner without crossing a wall, then you have LOS. That is so simple.
    I completely agree. The LOS-rules never felt intuitive to me. When you need concepts like “implied wall spaces” that don’t actually exist, that tells me the whole idea is just too convoluted.

    I’ve never grasped the implications of the counting-squares variant for determining LOS. But would simply drawing a straight line from any corner of the attacker’s space to any corner of the target’s space resolve all LOS questions in OP? If so, I’ll certainly be using that method from now on. (It does solve the above example: the commando can draw LOS to Clone 1 but not to Clone 2, which is as it should be.)

  26. #26
    Destroyer of Worlds tutenkharnage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Crawling through the Undercity with the BRI
    Posts
    4,935

    Default

    In Grind, you draw a line from the center of the front of one model/square to the center of any side of another model. Would that help?

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maddermax View Post
    Easiest way to do it - when drawing LOS, pick one "straight" direction and one diagonal, LOS can't use anything but those two (to prevent LOS bending, as shown in your example). Then apply the new "cannot use 2 diagonals in a row, unless all diagonals" rule, and that should work out I think...
    As has been discussed, if we used that adjustment to the rule, then in the above picture, the commando and clone 2 would not have LOS to each other even if all the walls were gone.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JWEII View Post
    If they changed it to "LOS exists if there is a shortest path using at most one orthogonal direction, and one diagonal direction, in any combination, that does not pass through a solid space" wouldn't that fix this?
    That would mean that the commando would not have LOS to Clone 2 even if all walls were removed.

    Any situation in which one figure is x spaces north and (x+1) spaces East would result in a similar problem. To connect one to the other, you'd need either

    A) consecutive diagonals (prohibited by the errata, and for good reason), or
    B) a Bendy "shortest path" that uses more than one orthogonal direction, creating a trapezoidal path that can dodge walls (allowed by the rules, but creates LOS that shouldn't exist, as with Commando to clone 2 in the diagram of the original post here.

    This has been discussed (and still is being discussed) at great length at BGG, with no clear resolution yet.

    My friend and I solve the problem of LOS by, well, seeing if we can draw a line of sight. It's easy and it works.

    For cover, we also use our own method, though I think the RAW seems to work adequately enough (we use our own rule for various reason other reasons).

  29. #29

    Default

    A couple of point occur to me in this whole LOS debte :-

    The walls are not really implied in the sense of imagine they are there for LOS only but rather they are there but no terrain tiles are needed as tiles show terrain cut into the underground material. Implied means treat all non tiles and solid wall terrain. In any event this only relly figures for cover of single square figures.

    Tracing two non overlapping LOS from any one corner of shooter to two corners of target, that does not pass through blocking terrain, follows these rules. Blocking terrain adjacent to the target that is also bordering any square passed through by one of the Targets LOS gives cover.

    I can see why another designer adopted this method in a more recent game.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •