$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 67.97

4,747 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
29.9% of Goal | 28 Days Left

Support:

JH
United States
Albany
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I'll check 'em out. But after four years playing Descent I still don't understand the issues people have with LOS. It's simple to figure and pretty consistent in how it works, even if it gives you some weird firing angles sometimes (which are easy enough to justify thematically when you see that the scale of the map spaces is much different than the scale of the figures).
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nigel Gooijers
msg tools
I fully understand. And to be clear, I'm not saying 'the rules are wrong and this way is better!'. This just started with me pondering a few possible alterations to the original implementation and, in the end, finalizing a radically new system all together. It was fun to do, and I find it enjoyable to discuss with other people as well. But the last thing I want to do is get into argument about whether this should be the way to go, because that's not the idea behind these rules. It's heavily slanted towards a personal preference, and i'm aware of that.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
JH
United States
Albany
California
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Fair enough! Not trying to start an argument either, it's just a subject I've seen come up so often and I'm always a little bemused by it. I'll take a look at your rules and let you know what I think!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexander Steinbach
Netherlands
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Could some moderator please move this thread to the variants subforum?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
Yateley
Hampshire
flag msg tools
designer
I must admit, the terminology used in your document leaves me rather confused. Not only that, I can't work out a method to easily see if something has LOS without painstakingly checking each law to see if it is relevant or not.

I suspect you don't have this problem because (as you wrote it) you understand what you meant. That's the main problem, you haven't explained your intentions well enough for me to understand the intent.

Law of Adjacency
You say "An adjacent attack is always a hit". For a start, I thought this was a LOS document so why is it taking about a "hit"?

And what do you mean "An adjacent attack is always a hit"? Does that mean you can ignore the X on the blue die? I assume you mean this otherwise why would you say that an attack is always a hit. If so, this means your variant is already more than just a set of LOS rules.

Law of Complete Obstruction
I don't understand the use of the term "complete row or column of squares". Do you mean a "consecutive row or column of squares"? What constitute a "complete row or column of squares"?

To me, a "complete row or column of squares" (using your diagrams) would mean six horizontal squares or four vertical squares, but that seems rather meaningless in context.

In regard the four images in this section, why is there an "R" token in the second image. Why is it needed?
In the third and fourth image, what's that funny jagged red line meant to represent?

Law of Diagonally Positioned Obstruction
BTW, I think you shouldn't use the term "random player" for the "R" token, that token doesn't represent a player, it represents a figure doesn't it? "Random figure" would make more sense.

"If one (or both) diagonally positioned square(s) adjacent to either you or the target (or both) is obstructed, this law states an attack is made impossible.
Note that for the purpose of this law, a diagonally positioned obstruction can only be between the attack and his target (i.e. it cannot be on the same row or column of either one)"

This seems rather ill-defined. To me, it seems to be a matter of opinion if something is between the attacker and defender. Again, I suspect this is because you know what you meant but for me, I'm left to puzzle what the intent is.

Law of Shared Corners
You've totally lost me on this section. I understand the diagrams but I'm not sure how I would determine this without an aid for every single possible arrangement of Attacker and Defender.

The law of 5
Again, you have lost me. What is meant by "any battle area of 5v3 or greater"? 5v3? Do you mean 5 spaces by 3 spaces?

"Attempt to establish a center". Centre of what?

Are you just saying that the centre of the attacker's square must not be blocked to the centre of the defender's square? In other words, the more usual centre to centre LOS rule?

In fact, except for one example, these rules appear to be just that, the more usual centre to centre LOS rules.

I hope you take this as constructive criticism, I don't really mind what version of LOS you use but for myself, I can't see any real benefit but that's partly because these rules seem more complex and vague than the original (which I do admit have some blindingly stupid situations).

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jacob Schoberg
United States
Elkhorn
Wisconsin
flag msg tools
it's like an accident that we keep on knitting
badge
and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting and knitting
mbmbmbmbmb
This seems needlessly complex.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Parkes
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Ngooijers wrote:
I'm sharing these in the hopes of getting feedback and starting a discussion. I would love to hear some different opinions on the matter.


I'm also having difficulty following these rules. Moreover, even if the language were clarified, I don't think I'd adopt a line-of-sight system like this, simply because it sacrifices one of the key features of Descent (simplicity and functionality).

The original rules are only 152 words spread across five sentences: the rule itself and four clarifications.

This rule-set is 518 words, spread across 5 laws which must be considered in a respective order, the last of which is a branching 4-step process for establishing the exact center of the original geometry of a battle area of squares.

If you and your players prefer the more exacting structure this rule-set provides, more power to you. But in order for me to make the jump from the existing rules to a new rule-set, that rule-set would need to be almost as simple as the original. To be really arbitrary... like, 200 words, max.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Krzysztof RabidBlackDog
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I understand why some people see the rules for LoS a bit off sometimes, but I will not adopt any new rules for it for one simple reason - tiles and scenarios were built and tested with this ruleset in mind. Every major change in that would probably be harmful to the balance of the game.

Another thing is I won't adopt something that would make a single step four times longer.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sebastian H.
Germany
Weilburg
Hessen
flag msg tools
Evil Overlord
badge
Evil Overlord
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry to say this, but as already stated by others, your rules seem to be overly complicated. The best thing about the Descent LoS rules is, that they are very simple to determine 90% of the time.

If you really dislike the Descent LoS rules, then I´d advise you to take a look at the LoS rules of Imperial Assault. They are a bit more complex, but allow for things like cover to matter. And since they are made for an almost identical game engine, there shouldn´t arise any unforeseen consequences when using them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nigel Gooijers
msg tools
First of all, thanks to all for taking the time to look at my documentation and writing up a response.

Then, the general consensus seems to be that a) the rules are close to illegible and b) overly complex. So let me address this first.

a) if not already apparent, i am not a native speaker. This appears to be especially damning when dealing with writing that requires me to be concise and use appropriate/unambiguous terminology. So all I can say on this matter is that I tried my best (which is why I also submitted this with reasonably extensive imagery, as a precautionary measure).

b) the rules are, when appraised for briefness, seemingly complex. But part of the reasoning behind my rules was to have a system that is more 'visual'. And to that extent, I feel that these rules are less time consuming/cumbersome to apply. In fact I can establish whether any given situation has LoS with just a glance, with the exception of large distances (to which the last rule applies) which requires a few seconds of consideration. But that's just something you'll have to take my word for; I fully understand that to anyone unfamiliar to these rules, they will seem daunting and and needlessly complex.

And to quickly address Chris in particular:

First of all, anytime i use dimensions or the term 'battle area', i'm referring to the area that is enclosed when you put a rectangle over the attacker and defender. This will be x amount of squares in either dimension. Anytime I use an *, as in 3V*, that symbol is representative for a random number.

Law of adjacency - I just put this in there for good measure. It's basically just there to state: You can not attack someone who's on the opposite side of a wall. The implementation of the blue die (and possibly missing an attack) is unaffected.

Complete obstruction - The R token (random figure) is likely an artifact from another image and isn't supposed to be there. As for the red line, that's supposed to indicate that there are obstructions that, when combined, extend across the battle area... so that basically makes a line between you and the target. The idea is that you cannot attack when such a line occurs (which will usually only ever be of importance in 1V* and 2V* battle areas). My awkward terminology and references probably make this seem way more complex than it is.

Law of shared corners - As the person who put these rules on paper, I really can't infer objectively how difficult it is to imagine this as a 'layperson'. But then again, I guess that's the overarching concern with all of these rules.

Diagonally positioned obstruction - again, my wording probably makes this seem more complex than it is in reality. 'Between', in this case, just means that the battle area needs to be at least 3V3, because only from this point onward do you start getting a square that can be inferred (visually) as being both diagonally positioned and also between you and the target.

Law of 5 - this is, admittedly, the most oddball rule of the bunch... I'll try to explain: because of the geometry of the squares, there is always going to be SOMETHING the most closely substitutes as being the center of the larger whole. The most fortuitous scenario is one of the given examples, where the center is indisputably a single square.. But the scenarios differs (different dimensions of a battle area) and when you can't determine the center with a single square you'll need to go with the next big thing (which will then be 2, or even 4 squares, as shown in the examples). I know it seems cumbersome, but it's supposed to produce a result that feels 'natural' and will somewhat mimic a result you'll get when determining LoS by putting a ruler between the center of the attacker and the center of the defender.

I hope I've managed to clear up at least a few things, although most likely far from all of it.

Also i'll gladly hear from and respond to anyone who might still want to express their opinion.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.