by DarQraven
stoodster wrote:
DarQraven wrote:
Walls are mentioned insofar as map tile edges are included in that list and there are no walls that aren't also tile edges. In your diagram, the shot passes through a black tile edge, thus there is no line of sight.
There is no way to create something like your image given the tiles we have without the line crossing a tile edge. So, this whole discussion has been about a scenario that can't possibly come up in the game. I fail to see the worry.
Additionally, the rules don't say anything about "black tile edges," just edges, so if we're going to "really" follow the rules, players never have line of sight from one tile into another since it must cross a tile edge (the puzzle cut edge). At some point, common sense should lead you to believe that leaving walls out of that list was simply an oversight. And once you do that, your worry (impossible as it is) disappears.
DarQraven wrote:
The rules, as currently written, have huge holes in them.
I would say minor gaps that rarely affect game play. I do wish the rules were a little tighter (most notably: I wish they talked about walls), but scenarios like these are either impossible or are very easy to deal with using common sense.
I guess I disagree with you there. Sure, we deal with them all the time, and as a player I have little trouble accepting them. However, this set of rules simply leaves a lot up to interpretation and has not at all streamlined the LOS process for us - the reverse, in fact.
I also don't look forward to the time where OL or heroes lose because of a crucial shot that is allowed or disallowed by interpretation of these rules. Let's see if everyone still agrees then.
Maybe my last post was unclear (it was 3am already, after all) or you misunderstood it. I myself stated that the scenario I described was impossible with the current set of tiles.
However, it does show how counterintuitive the rules alone are, ignoring which set of tiles is included in the game. You have to selectively apply or not apply or apply some common sense (which you seem to define as "however I feel it works" which is a problem when others in your group feel differently), depending on the specific case.
That aside, replace one of the wall blocks with an obstacle or figure, and suddenly you've got a situation that regularly arises in the game. The attacker is still throwing boomerangs around the corner and 'through' the other obstacle. It's not as uncommon as you make it seem.
What I tried to show was that these sorts of situations are more or less up to individual interpretation and logic doesn't just suggest one obvious interpretation, much more so than I'd expect for a fundamental rule which is supposed to be simpler than its predecessor. For a game which was based on an existing one and specifically designed to fix issues with the previous version, I expected better. This is worse - it breaks immersion through 'impossible shots' while offering no advantages over the previous system.
Now before I get the rules lawyer/ocd label, I'm not letting this spoil the enjoyment of the game. We're not sitting here fighting tooth and nail over los rules at all, I just expected better.
DavidvD wrote:
So according to the people who have played a couple of games already the Jain-Zombie situation is not expected to come up regularly. Therefore it would not be a big change to have the figure blocks LOS rule only valid for a figure which is neither target nor attacker. Right? This results in a. effectively not changing anything in gameplay and b. satisfying our need for logic.
Works for me.
Works for me.
The specific example might not come up very often, but if you replace some of the obstacles with walls or other figures, it can be pretty common. Example: flesh moulders hiding behind tanky monsters. Heroes want to take out moulders first. Splig hiding behind his Goblin entourage in Fat Goblin pt2.
It's not that unlikely.
Your rule seems to work, though.