
I own a couple of tactical and wargames and never had a problem to check the losrules. I dig centertocenter and cornertocorner, but the losrules in Omega Protocol i find weird.
So, does the Commando has los to the clone and if so, why? i donĀ“t get it
 [+] Dice rolls

It took me a couple games to 'get' the way LOS works, but now that I understand it, I really like it compared to other systems. It becomes real easy to figure out quickly with little to no 'guesswork'.
LOS in this game, you 'walk' the path. In order to see if a figure has LOS to another figure, walk the shortest path possible from figure A to figure B. As long as that doesn't pass a wall, you have LOS.
Where LOS is a little trickier is determining if that figure has cover or not. If the target figure is adjacent to a wall, and there are multiple shortest path routes you could take, if one of those routes goes through the wall he's adjacent to, then he has cover.
Here's a picture diagraming from the Clone to the Commando (when I made the pic, I thought that was the way you were going, but the opposite route is valid for the commando to the clone):
The 'green' path is one of at least two 'shortest paths' to the Commando. Since it does not go through any walls, the clone has LOS to the commando. The 'red' path (diverging off of space 2) does go through a wall but is the same distance as the green path (i.e. it's another 'shortest path'). Since it goes through the wall that the commando is adjacent to, the the commando has Cover Bonus from an attack from that clone.
Not to confuse you more, but the recent FAQ slightly altered the LOS rules. You cannot trace more than one diagonal in a row when figuring LOS. For example:
The Clone used to be in LOS under the original rules. But now you cannot trace more than 1 diagonal in a row, so the spaces in Red are the only spaces in LOS of the commando.
HTH,
shnar
 [+] Dice rolls
 Bryce, thanks a lot for the explanation. I hope i get used to this method of los soon
 [+] Dice rolls

shnar wrote:
Not to confuse you more, but the recent FAQ slightly altered the LOS rules. You cannot trace more than one diagonal in a row when figuring LOS. For example:
The Clone used to be in LOS under the original rules. But now you cannot trace more than 1 diagonal in a row, so the spaces in Red are the only spaces in LOS of the commando.
I'm confused. Isn't the bottom clone also in LOS as the shortest path distance is 5, not 4, and there is a non blocked shortest path ? He is even in LOS on the top image. Range 4 is counting two diagonals in a row but not only diagonals and therefore it is disallowed according to the FAQ.
What am I missing here ? He shouldn't be in LOS by common sense.

 Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:01 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
 Posted Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:00 pm
 [+] Dice rolls
 You can't move two diagonals in a row for Los we the updated rules. THe shortest path would be E,SE,SE,SE. Thats 3 diagonals in a Row

 Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:24 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
 Posted Wed Feb 12, 2014 5:07 pm
 [+] Dice rolls

QuimeraEC wrote:You can't move two diagonals in a row for Los we the updated rules. THe shortest path would be E,SE,SE,SE. Thats 3 diagonals in a Row
What ? Aren't 3 diagonals in a row including 2 ? I do not think E,SE,SE,SE is valid.
 [+] Dice rolls

LarkinVB wrote:IMHO, the FAQ change to LOS Shortest Path routes was to try to make it align a bit more with 'common sense'. By not allowing 2 diagonals in a row, you start to exclude some of the more extreme cases.shnar wrote:
Not to confuse you more, but the recent FAQ slightly altered the LOS rules. You cannot trace more than one diagonal in a row when figuring LOS. For example:
The Clone used to be in LOS under the original rules. But now you cannot trace more than 1 diagonal in a row, so the spaces in Red are the only spaces in LOS of the commando.
I'm confused. Isn't the bottom clone also in LOS as the shortest path distance is 5, not 4, and there is a non blocked shortest path ? He is even in LOS on the top image. Range 4 is counting two diagonals in a row but not only diagonals and therefore it is disallowed according to the FAQ.
What am I missing here ? He shouldn't be in LOS by common sense.
So, with the new "no 2 diagonals in a row" rule, the clone is completely outside LOS. Here's a diagram for ya:
The Green Path is a valid path that does not go through a wall. The Red path is also valid that goes through a wall (i.e. potentially gives cover). Any other path lower 'south' would not be valid, since it would require 2 diagonals in a row in order to make it. Does that help?
shnar
 [+] Dice rolls

I do not see any rule which is disallowing to go from square 4 just south to the clone square for shortest path calculation. The result is 5 and a valid LOS.
 [+] Dice rolls

Ah, I think I see. You're moving orthogonally from space 4 south. But the shortest path is still 4 spaces away, and to get there you would have to have more than one diagonal, and so it's invalid:
The actual shortest path is 4 spaces away, and if you can't get to it without using 2 diagonals, then you just can't get to it. At least, that's how I would interpret this. I don't know if that's what DeadlyEd wanted with this new rule, allowing you to get to invalid spaces by just increasing range. Lemme move this to a different thread and see if it catches Will's attention.
shnar
 [+] Dice rolls

Posted a new thread about it, but to continue the discussion here, is this what you're talking about?
shnar
 [+] Dice rolls

Yes, you are hardcore when it comes down to written rules .
The FAQ says : "A shortest path cannot use two diagonals in a row unless it uses only diagonals."
So it is most obvious that your 4 space example is not 'shortest path' according to the rules.
Therefore even here the bottom clone is in LOS.

 Last edited Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:08 pm (Total Number of Edits: 1)
 Posted Wed Feb 12, 2014 8:08 pm
 [+] Dice rolls
 I do fear the LOS rules are broken. Any easy solution ?
 [+] Dice rolls

Well, the reason I would think it's outside LOS is because you could get to it in a shorter path by using 2 diagonals, and so the square is completely outside LOS. In other words, by using diagonals, the shortest path is 4 spaces to that clone. But getting there by extending range I never considered since it feels like it's bypassing the 2 diagonal rules.
I posted a new thread to deal with that issue specifically: New LOS rules, can you increase range to get to otherwise invalid spaces?
shnar
 [+] Dice rolls

LarkinVB wrote:I do fear the LOS rules are broken. Any easy solution ?I actually didn't mind the original LOS. Sure it led to the occassional, "Huh?" moment, but no where near as many as I've seen in other games like Doom/Descent. It was at the very least really easy to calculate and took little to no time away from the game.
The new LOS is an attempt to solve the odd extreme cases, and it's not too bad. I think it adds a minor level of complexity that I didn't feel was necessary (especially since now there are two cases of diagonals that can be used), but its a decent compromise. The only question that seems to arise is if one can extend range to get to a square you normally couldn't.
I personally don't think so, but now that makes even more rules added to LOS. Makes me almost want to revert to the original LOS rules...
shnar
 [+] Dice rolls

LarkinVB wrote:I do fear the LOS rules are broken. Any easy solution ?
Easiest solution would be: if you choose to use diagonals, your nondiagonal spaces must continue in the same direction. i.e.: all West, East, etc. No sudden trajectory changes.
Very hire me for rules make please
 [+] Dice rolls

There is no 'shorter path, allowing two diagonals' rule. The rules are only talking about shortest path and clearly define how this patch has to be calculated. In our case the distance is 5.
I agree that it does not make sense.
 [+] Dice rolls

mrkarl wrote:LarkinVB wrote:I do fear the LOS rules are broken. Any easy solution ?
Easiest solution would be: if you choose to use diagonals, your nondiagonal spaces must continue in the same direction. i.e.: all West, East, etc. No sudden trajectory changes.
In this case there is no shortest path at all to the bottom clone. Does not make sense.
 [+] Dice rolls

LarkinVB wrote:mrkarl wrote:LarkinVB wrote:I do fear the LOS rules are broken. Any easy solution ?
Easiest solution would be: if you choose to use diagonals, your nondiagonal spaces must continue in the same direction. i.e.: all West, East, etc. No sudden trajectory changes.
In this case there is no shortest path at all to the bottom clone. Does not make sense.
Therefore he would no longer be a valid target  I thought that's what we were trying to accomplish
Just a suggestion
But now that I think about it, it would create lame issues where a target across an open room who is not at a perfect diagonal couldn't be hit at larger distances.
hmm...
 [+] Dice rolls

It's an excellent game and I don't want to criticize the LOS rules but to be honest, I wouldn't mind if the developer would one day say: "what the heck, let's change the LOS rules to the ones used in Descent; except for the silly rule where a target can block his opponent's LOS by standing in the way"

 Last edited Thu Feb 13, 2014 11:00 am (Total Number of Edits: 2)
 Posted Thu Feb 13, 2014 10:49 am
 [+] Dice rolls
 You mean first or second edition of Descent?
 [+] Dice rolls