Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: LOS (again) rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
David Folksman
United Kingdom
liverpool
Merseyside
flag msg tools
badge
Keep Crom and crush you enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Im totally dumbfounded and confused by the LOS rules in this game.

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/859...

How on earth is 6 no LOS and 7 and 8 LOS?

Dont get me started on 9!!!

Please could somebody clarify this rule before I explode.

Thanks very much.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Frank Franco
Australia
flag msg tools
Avatar
Hehehe, we haven't had one of these for a while!
9 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Darren Nakamura
United States
Columbus
Mississippi
flag msg tools
http://www.destructoid.com/author.phtml?a=1364
badge
Darren@destructoid.com
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Case 6 was defined as a special case, because allowing line of sight by the letter of the rules also allowed figures to move freely between those two spaces. They were deemed to be nonadjacent, contradicting the rule that if two spaces share a corner, then they are necessarily adjacent and within line of sight.

Cases 7, 8, and 9 all follow the letter of the rules (trace an unbroken line from attacking space's corner to defending space's corner). The only exception you need to remember is Case 6.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Folksman
United Kingdom
liverpool
Merseyside
flag msg tools
badge
Keep Crom and crush you enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Look at the illustrations....

The rules make no sense...

The wall blocks adjacent figures, but not ones that are one space or more further away.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
joel siragher
United States
silver spring
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dave, i'm right behind you buddy. I think I was thinking the same explode comment when i saw that picture a few weeks ago. It had my ENTIRE group scratching our heads. SO... we just use simple corner to corner to corner.

In our game 7, 8 and 9 all fail the LOS test.

However, if you can imagine in 9 some one poking their head around the corner to get a shot off, then it works. If you stretch the 'poking your head around the corner' paradigm then ALL of them would pass LOS, this is why we fail 1-9 in my group.

HAHAHA

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Folksman
United Kingdom
liverpool
Merseyside
flag msg tools
badge
Keep Crom and crush you enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of their women.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I'm totally failing this too.

it makes ZERO sense.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
M M
United States
New York
New York
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You got your answer on the 3rd post.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Stephen Williams
Canada
Mississauga
Ontario
flag msg tools
Avatar
DaveyF wrote:
I'm totally failing this too.

it makes ZERO sense.


Once upon a time, there was a board game called Descent: Journeys in the Dark. First edition made very little sense, unless you thought of it like a video game (ie: Final Fantasy, not D&D.) Then it sort of made sense, a little.

It made less and less sense as time and expansions wore on. Eventually FFG decided the game was collapsing under the weight of its own contradictory rules, so they made Second Edition. Things were good for a time, but inevitably, the contradictions and illogical rulings returned.

Personally, I think the extremely competitive nature of the game is to blame for this. The idea to make the OL an equal player who has an equal chance at winning is cool and all (don't get me wrong), but it can lead to some very heated gaming sessions among people who can't keep their cool or who really want to win. In return, FFG has a tendency to provide rulings for ambiguous situations by the letter of RAW simply to avoid favouring one side over the other. They only really deviate into errata if there's an obvious flaw that can't be resolved otherwise.

Some people become numb to the never-ending stream of illogical situations and just play by the letter of the law.

Others make up house rules to help themselves sleep at night. (Our group is in this camp regarding the LoS examples mentioned above, btw.)

Still others design elaborate variant games to make Descent into what they want it to be rather than what it is. (I would totally do this if I had that kind of time ;P)

And I'm sure there are some who sell the game off because it's not what they want. We don't generally hear from those people again, though.

Best of luck, wherever you end up on that spectrum!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mr. Doctor
Sweden
Stockholm
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I agree to that the LOS rules are really fishy, but looking at case 6 I can't bring to mind a map piece with that kind of "thin wall". I.e. could that situation even arise (with content released at present)?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig Bocketti
United States
Clifton Park
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
MrDoctor wrote:
I agree to that the LOS rules are really fishy, but looking at case 6 I can't bring to mind a map piece with that kind of "thin wall". I.e. could that situation even arise (with content released at present)?


Not A map tile but many together make that situation arise. Death on the wing encounter 1. Where the hallway meets the fire pit tile. IIRC.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Damien M
United States
Salt Lake City
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Fat Goblin has two in Encounter 1, near where the objectives are.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Cincinnati
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Dexter345 wrote:
Case 6 was defined as a special case, because allowing line of sight by the letter of the rules also allowed figures to move freely between those two spaces. They were deemed to be nonadjacent, contradicting the rule that if two spaces share a corner, then they are necessarily adjacent and within line of sight.

Cases 7, 8, and 9 all follow the letter of the rules (trace an unbroken line from attacking space's corner to defending space's corner). The only exception you need to remember is Case 6.


this post explained why. #6 is an exception. If you don't like it house rule and move on instead of nit picking the fun out of the game.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Johannes Benedikt
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
It somehow makes sense mechanically, but it's kind of unthematic. The biggest problem is that in example 9 "B" can go one space forward to move out of LoS while blocking LoS from "A" to "D", which makes no sense theme wise.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Marian
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I houseruled that in very simple way: in case in which there is a wall between 2 fields, they do not have LoS, even though you can draw a line crossing only a corner of this wall - as per the rules, since the wall blocks LoS. In the "9 examples" diagram, none has LoS - as simple as that
Sersiously, as described above - 6 is not a "special" one - walls always blocks adjacency and LoS, regardless if you're standing next to it, or 2 fields away... Otherwise - it's doesn't have any sense.
Like in this example: http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1651539/littlefinger9
Female yellow token can see the mage monster figure (there is only a corner of the wall between the middle of these figures fields) and male cannot - there is a wall standing between them.
I use this rule, as I believe it's most reasonable, and nobody argues about that in my party... What do you think guys?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jason Walker
United States
Madison Heights
Virginia
flag msg tools
See the Legendary forums for monthly solo leagues!
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
We do pretty much the same thing, but we follow lines on the map. LOS requires corner to corner, but if you look at 6-9, there's no corner if you're standing next to the wall. If you try to trace through the wall, like in number 8, you're tracing through a map edge (no grid lines) so it doesn't work either.

Again, this is just how we house rule it for consistency and intuitiveness.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jan Marian
Poland
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
Very good point, that actually removes the "from middle of the field to middle of the field wall check" step. I will use it I believe from now on. Thanks!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Johannes Benedikt
msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
JanMarian wrote:
I houseruled that in very simple way: in case in which there is a wall between 2 fields, they do not have LoS, even though you can draw a line crossing only a corner of this wall - as per the rules, since the wall blocks LoS. In the "9 examples" diagram, none has LoS - as simple as that
Sersiously, as described above - 6 is not a "special" one - walls always blocks adjacency and LoS, regardless if you're standing next to it, or 2 fields away... Otherwise - it's doesn't have any sense.
Like in this example: http://boardgamegeek.com/image/1651539/littlefinger9
Female yellow token can see the mage monster figure (there is only a corner of the wall between the middle of these figures fields) and male cannot - there is a wall standing between them.
I use this rule, as I believe it's most reasonable, and nobody argues about that in my party... What do you think guys?


As stated here: http://boardgamegeek.com/article/12182054#12182054

official rules say both villagers have LoS to the mender.

I believe these rules balance out the relativly small tiles of Descent2. Without them it would be very easy to go out of LoS with little trade-off position-wise. Blocking doorways and position around the entrance would be even more powerful and there would be no real commitment to keep one unit out of LoS, you don't even need figures for achieving that, you could just use one of the many walls. Even when moving in a hurry you could very easy hop from one point to another without LoS.

Consequently defensive positioning wouldn't be a real tactical choice with some kind of dedication or meaningfull trade-offs. This would lead imo to much less critical decisionmaking in regards to staying defensive or being aggressive, less intense confrontations and overall less attacks.

I was scepitcal at first as well and even played it wrong (by mistake). Nevertheless in my experience the original LoS rules work best for the scale of the rooms and floors and while I still think there are harsh thematic inconsistencies with the LoS rules (especially in case 9), granting LoS through the edge of a wall never really seemed problematic to me.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Williams
Scotland
Elgin
Moray
flag msg tools
mbmb
I actually generally like the LoS rules as they are not too restrictive and allow more exchange of blows.

However I agree with the OP in this case. Seems to me the official FAQ and quote from Justin Kemppainen contradict each other, at last in spirit if not directly.

We interpreted the FAQ to be saying that the 2 squares either side of the wall not only don't have direct LOS to each other, but block LOS to each other.

That said, you could rationalise the situation that the closer squares are viewing that corner from more acute angles and so can see around the corner a bit less than the more distant ones. Except... this would not account for why 9B has LOS but 6 does not!

I think we will stick with what we have, the 2 adjacent squares actually block LoS to each other, so no LoS passing through or along the side will have LoS.
 
 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.