Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Myth» Forums » Rules

Subject: Line of Sight (Heroes) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've already posted this in the "Rules Clarifications" thread, but we didn't seem to arrive at a satisfactory answer...so I'm hoping for an official answer in this thread.

Update: Answered by Brian a few posts down, and clarified further a few posts later.
Here is a brief summary: LoS can not pass through the corner of Lairs, Traps, Walls, single Monsters, or Red Realm Tile Squares. LoS can pass through the corners of two diagonally adjacent Monsters but only if one of those Monsters does not sit directly between the Hero & Monster in question. Having said that, using LoS to select targets for attacks doesn't come into play in many of the referenced situations since the card mechanics dictate attacks.


This is going to be a long post, but you can skip to the end for the tl;dr version.

Here are the rules on Line of Sight:


For anyone who has played Descent, these rules are very similar. As such, I made the assumption that the LoS can pass through the corner of a 'blocking' square.

This example in the rulebook, however, shows that this is an incorrect assumption:


According to this example, LoS can not touch the corner of a 'blocked' square...or at the very least, it can not pass through the corner of a 'red-outlined' square.

I made this assumption based on the fact that the above image could be redrawn as:

H=Hero, red=outlined square, M=Targeted Monster

The rules, however, very clearly state that LoS can pass through two diagonally adjacent Monsters. In that case, it appears that LoS can touch the corner of a monster figure at the very least.

In the most straight forward sense, it is stating that this is legal:

H=Hero, m=monster, M=Targeted Monster

I'd extend that rule to assume that this is legal:


The rules clearly state that LoS can be traced from any corner of the Hero's square to any corner of the Monster's square.

So keeping that in mind, shouldn't this be legal as well?: (Edit: No. Brian has stated that this is not legal LoS because a Monster sits directly between the two)


Which is essentially the same thing as: (Edit: Again, Brian states that this LoS is not legal)

Ignore the cursor in the image.

And this example is basically the same thing as in the rulebook only the 'red-outlined' square has been replaced with a Monster. So are we to assume that LoS can pass through the corner of a Monster square but not a 'red-outlined' square?

Following that logic, according to the rules, this situation should also be legal no matter how non-intuitive it is: (Edit: Brian states that this is illegal as well)


In Descent, all of the examples that I provided are legal attacks according to the LoS rules lines of sight. As a matter of fact, the Myth example of an illegal attack LoS with the 'red-outlined' square would be a legal attack LoS in Descent as well. In Descent, however, a Monster can actually block the LoS to its own square.

So, in Myth, can Monsters being attacked block LoS from a Hero to themselves?

For example, in Descent this is an illegal attack due to LoS the Monster is not in the LoS of the Hero:


According to Descent, the Monster being attacked somehow blocks the LoS since the line actually intersects with the Monster before hitting the corner. It's pretty gamey and not very intuitive, but at least players know how to handle it.



tl;dr version:
- Are we to assume that LoS can pass through the corners of Monster squares but not 'red-outlined' squares?
- If so, then what about the corners of Lairs, Traps, and Walls?
- Do Monsters being attacked block LoS to themselves? (See last example)

Thoughts? Opinions? Answers?


(Edited for clarity)
Edited again: Note that Diagrams 1, 4, 5, & 6 are not legal LoS in Myth.
3 
 Thumb up
5.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alex Sorbello
United States
Albuquerque
New Mexico
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmb
The way i interpeted this was that because both lines of the corner are red the corner is concidered red as well without question

We always rule that LOS is always the worst of 2 if there is question on the matter. It must be clear.
So in the case where one line is red and the other is clear. I would rule it as a red corner as well. Of course this is just a general rule in our playgroup that eliminates this dilemma.

I do find making the rule for LOS from anywhere in the square to anywhere in the target square makes for more questions. The rule should have read from the center of the square. However they might have a reason unbeknown to me.

Just my 2 cents
Cheers
Lexen
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
jef stuyck
Belgium
flag msg tools
Simple, monsters do not block los for archer, only red lines. You cabn see the image in your post.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Shotton
United States
Westfield
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry I missed the discussion in the other posts.

As you said, the rules clearly state that LoS can pass through two diagonally adjacent Monsters. This is a very specific rule.

The first image (the LoS sidebar) could have easily been altered to read:

Block LoS

Monsters (except for the Archer and except in cases where the monsters are diagonally adjacent)
Lairs
Red Realm Tile Lines
Traps
Wall

But, we felt that a bit much. So we made it a specific rule: diagonal monsters don't block LoS.

Are we to assume that LoS can pass through the corners of Monster squares but not 'red-outlined' squares? This is correct. LoS can pass through diagonally adjacent Monsters. It cannot pass through to a Monster completely behind another.

If so, then what about the corners of Lairs, Traps, and Walls? Yes, they block LoS. You posted the image yourself.

Do Monsters being attacked block LoS to themselves? I don't understand this question.

As for your diagrams, some are right and some are wrong. You begin by talking about LINE-OF-SIGHT, then turn the language to "attack".

For ease of my explanation, I'll choose the last one. As you say, in Descent that would be illegal. In Myth that would be "legal". In so much as the Heroes could SEE that target. Attacking the target from the original location is another matter. You cannot attack a target at all unless you have an ability card that let's you. At no point, can a Hero say I am attacking and roll the dice. In Myth, attacks are ability cards played from the Hero deck and those abilities determine things like range, damage, etc. Items change the dice pool and offer special bonuses.

The difference seems to be in function. What may be viewed as crazy with letters on a diagram functions differently in the game. There are no Heroes that can target that Monster in the traditional way except for the Archer (and she doesn't have to worry about LoS anyway). If the Apprentice or the Acolyte have a spell that can hit that target (then they can target it). I don't have the cards in front of me, but it would be in an AOE and would have to be directed at one of the closer monsters. The Soldier and Brigand would have to go to great lengths to hit that monster, but not before changing the diagram to one where they are adjacent to it.

I guess what I am suggesting is you can draw LoS to the highlighted Monster in the last diagram, but that does not mean you can attack it.


12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Shotton
United States
Westfield
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I actually have many more thoughts on this, from a design perspective, but I have to go teach a kids bjj class.

I will add this and hopefully it will remind me what I was going to type:

Descent must to define LoS much more strictly, because it tends to denote the strength of an adventurer through his or her weapons. And it has an Overlord, so it defines LoS the way it does to help him.

In many ways, Myth and Descent are apples and oranges, and my dialogue was going to note the fundamental differences from a design perspective.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BShotton wrote:
Sorry I missed the discussion in the other posts.

As you said, the rules clearly state that LoS can pass through two diagonally adjacent Monsters. This is a very specific rule.

The first image (the LoS sidebar) could have easily been altered to read:

Block LoS

Monsters (except for the Archer and except in cases where the monsters are diagonally adjacent)
Lairs
Red Realm Tile Lines
Traps
Wall

But, we felt that a bit much. So we made it a specific rule: diagonal monsters don't block LoS.

Are we to assume that LoS can pass through the corners of Monster squares but not 'red-outlined' squares? This is correct. LoS can pass through diagonally adjacent Monsters. It cannot pass through to a Monster completely behind another.


Perfect.

So Monsters are an exception to the rule. LoS can pass through the corner of Monster squares, but not other objects that block LoS.

I should be able to assume that this applies to even a single monster, correct?

BShotton wrote:
If so, then what about the corners of Lairs, Traps, and Walls? Yes, they block LoS. You posted the image yourself.

My question was specifically in regards to the corners of Lairs, Traps, and Walls. IMO it wasn't clearly stated in the rules that the corners of Monster squares were an exception, so I just wanted to verify that the Monsters were the exception and not the 'red-outlined' squares.

In other words, it appears that LoS can not pass through the corners of Lairs, Traps, and Walls. Correct?

BShotton wrote:
Do Monsters being attacked block LoS to themselves? I don't understand this question.

You answer this below. I think the way Myth handles this is more intuitive, but since Descent rules that situation differently, I thought it was worth asking.

BShotton wrote:

As for your diagrams, some are right and some are wrong. You begin by talking about LINE-OF-SIGHT, then turn the language to "attack".

Which ones are wrong? If I understand your reply correctly, then all of the lines should be valid LoS (except the re-trace of the rulebook example). Or are you just saying that the diagrams may have valid LoS, but not necessarily be valid attacks?

I apologize for switching the terms "attack" and "sight." I didn't understand the card mechanics in Myth well enough to realize that the terms were quite so distinct. Going back to Descent, generally players are checking LoS when they wish to attack an opponent...so using the term 'attack' seemed natural.

Edit: Brian clarifies which ones are wrong below

BShotton wrote:
For ease of my explanation, I'll choose the last one. As you say, in Descent that would be illegal. In Myth that would be "legal". In so much as the Heroes could SEE that target. Attacking the target from the original location is another matter. You cannot attack a target at all unless you have an ability card that let's you. At no point, can a Hero say I am attacking and roll the dice. In Myth, attacks are ability cards played from the Hero deck and those abilities determine things like range, damage, etc. Items change the dice pool and offer special bonuses.

The difference seems to be in function. What may be viewed as crazy with letters on a diagram functions differently in the game. There are no Heroes that can target that Monster in the traditional way except for the Archer (and she doesn't have to worry about LoS anyway). If the Apprentice or the Acolyte have a spell that can hit that target (then they can target it). I don't have the cards in front of me, but it would be in an AOE and would have to be directed at one of the closer monsters. The Soldier and Brigand would have to go to great lengths to hit that monster, but not before changing the diagram to one where they are adjacent to it.

I guess what I am suggesting is you can draw LoS to the highlighted Monster in the last diagram, but that does not mean you can attack it.



Thank you.

It's helpful to know that the cards don't particularly function in a way that Heroes can just choose to target a Monster at any specific location within LoS. I started to read through the pdf that describes each card's function, but I decided that it would be easier with the game in hand. Since it appears that targeting functions differently than other games due to the card mechanics, I'm sure it will be much clearer when I can actually play the game.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but...
In summary, LoS can pass through the corners of Monster squares but not through the corners of other objects that typically block LoS. When it comes down to it, however, using LoS to select targets for attacks doesn't come into play in many of the referenced situations since the card mechanics dictate attacks.


(although I'm still not sure which diagrams in the OP would be incorrect...unless you're specifically referencing the attack vs LoS issue.)

Edit: See Brian's clarifications below.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Remi Bureau
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Because Brian said "it cannot pas through to a monster completely behind another", I think your diagrams 4, 5 and 6 don't have LoS (diagram 1 doesn't either as you already know).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RemiBureau wrote:
Because Brian said "it cannot pas through to a monster completely behind another", I think your diagrams 4, 5 and 6 don't have LoS (diagram 1 doesn't either as you already know).

That's what I was thinking initially, but then I thought he just meant if they were lined up in a row.

i.e.
E - E - E
H - m - M
E - E - E

From the rules, there just doesn't seem to be any reason to think that diagrams 4, 5, and 6 wouldn't be valid. Intuitively, yes; LoS may be blocked. By the rules, however, I don't see any reason why LoS wouldn't be valid in those three diagrams...

Edit:
Or maybe he even meant a situation like:
E - E - E
H - m - M
m - E - E

Edit:
Additionally, I think that disallowing diagrams 4, 5, and 6 makes the rules on LoS a bit messy. It just seems so much simpler to state that LoS can pass through the corners of Monster squares, but not the corners of other objects that typically block LoS. Unless it breaks the game, I think that's how we'll play it. Brian's explanation on attacking and cards makes me think that it won't be too big of an issue regardless.


Edit:
You're right. I'm glad I prodded a bit on this topic because I definitely wouldn't have played LoS as it was meant to be played. Although, it sounds like the card mechanics are much more important than LoS...
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Remi Bureau
Canada
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
mfaulk80 wrote:
RemiBureau wrote:
Because Brian said "it cannot pas through to a monster completely behind another", I think your diagrams 4, 5 and 6 don't have LoS (diagram 1 doesn't either as you already know).

That's what I was thinking initially, but then I thought he just meant if they were lined up in a row.

i.e.
E - E - E
H - m - M
E - E - E


If that's the case, then all you examples have LoS (except the first one).

Hopefully, Brian specifies which don't have LoS when he comes back to explain the design choices.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Shotton
United States
Westfield
Indiana
flag msg tools
designer
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
I see diagrams 4, 5, and 6 as wrong.

In all three cases, LoS is blocked by the target Monster being direct behind another from the attacker. When looking at it through the diagonal rule, perhaps it should have been wrote as "Diagonally adjacent monster do not block LoS if the Monster is not directly behind another" or I could have used language to define the center of a target's square. I think both are unnecessary, because Hero's attacks are defined by the abilities.

(Design choices) I have never liked the idea that the damage a fighter does comes from the weapon. In my experience with combat and combat sports, the person's skill is far more important than the weapon itself (until the advent of the gun). RPGs understand this and circumvent this with a skill that increases.

What we have done is imagine that skill as a deck of 25 cards. Novice Heroes have the base deck. They may or may not have the answer (ability card) to play in the circumstance or not. As Heroes level up they will be able to streamline that deck so they have the answer they want in their hand more often when those circumstance come reoccur.

The difference is that at no time do we delegate the potency (damage) of a Hero to the weapon. The weapon grants them a greater chance to effect change in combat. Our argument is that damage is not so much the weapon, but how you use it.

Because we keep the bad-assery with the Heroes, we can treat LoS more honest. (I don't like the usage implied here, but I have sat here for a couple minutes and a better word isn't jumping into my head, so on I type...) If you were to boil advancement in weapon technology down, it is really about making my ability to attack and LoS the same circle. With a knife for instance, these two circles don't intersect much. When the gun arrives, these circles intersect a lot. What I can attack and what I can see (LoS) are basically the same. The gun also happens to reduce the amount of skill one needs to actually effect change in combat, which is why the rules for modern combat and ancient combat are so different.

LoS for us doesn't mean what I can attack. It means what I can see. What I can attack has to do with the range of my weapon, and my skill in getting to my target.

The second thing this does is allow us to control the power curve of the Heroes as they grow a bit better. We don't have to worry about weird interactions with powerful weapons, because the power is in the Heroes. This allows us to offer all kinds of cool treasure, and not worry about breaking the game. Will Heroes notice the difference between the Horrifying Spear and the Fire-place poker? Oh my goodness, yes! But they will notice the jump to journeyman abilities a whole lot more. And these ability allow them to actually define how their Hero plays. They aren't just a more powerful way to do the same thing they did before. It changes how the Hero plays.

In many other games, the balance is between the monsters and the weapons. In Myth, it is between the monsters and the Heroes (the Hero Decks more specifically).

9 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mathue Faulkner
United States
Austin
TX
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I finally think I have it.

Thanks Brian. I also really appreciate your thoughts on game design with regards to Heroes and Weapons...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Callahan
United States
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BShotton wrote:


In many other games, the balance is between the monsters and the weapons. In Myth, it is between the monsters and the Heroes (the Hero Decks more specifically).



This is one of the best things about the games that Brian is designing! It works the same way in MERCS,.... the person that wins that game is the one that utilizes what they have in the best way. There is no uber-faction that kicks everyone's ass. If you make better tactical decisions than your opponent and take advantage of your teams abilities; 9/10 times, you will win the engagement.

The same seems true in MYTH,..... make good tactical decisions, and do a good job of managing your deck and working your deck's mechanics to your advantage and you will do very well. It does not matter if you have the best weapon in the game,... if you play your deck poorly and/or put your hero in bad positions; chances are that you won't do well.
2 
 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.