Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
I'm honestly having real issues with the way Descent LOS rules interact with walls. The most aggregiouos to me being the fact that B has LOS to A in the example bellow:

A|
X|
X|B
X|

I'm thinking of a house rule that requires the LOS line to be drawn from and to a corner that does not touch a separating wall. Looking at all the LOS situations involving walls that make me scratch the hair off of my head, this seems like the best answer to them. Thoughts?

Also considering simply using IA rules whenever the target or attacker are next to a wall. This would mean A can see B but not the other way around, which makes sense to me.

Edit: this variant would only be applied when attacker and target have a wall between them and not in ALL situations where one or both is next to a wall.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Fox Reinard
msg tools
Avatar
Your suggested fix makes a situation like this, which is head-scratchey but less so than the one that makes your example happen.

|A.|
|..|
|..|
|..|
|..|
|C.|
|.B|


A does not have LOS to B because C is blocking. By what I consider reasonable, A would have LOS to B from every range along that corridor except maybe adjacent to C.

Given this is the only situation I can think of where your LOS variant would not make as much sense as the rules dictate, it's probably the superior option.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
foxreinard wrote:
Your suggested fix makes a situation like this, which is head-scratchey but less so than the one that makes your example happen.

|A.|
|..|
|..|
|..|
|..|
|C.|
|.B|


A does not have LOS to B because C is blocking. By what I consider reasonable, A would have LOS to B from every range along that corridor except maybe adjacent to C.

Given this is the only situation I can think of where your LOS variant would not make as much sense as the rules dictate, it's probably the superior option.


Yes, I should have clarified that my variant rule would only be applied if attacker and target have a wall between them. Sorry, that's an important omission...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mlai00 Mlai00
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't consider your example an egregious LOS rules artifact. AFAIC, both A and B can see each other IRL. This is because each Descent square does not represent a figure standing immobile; it's big enough to allow a person to move around inside a small area.

If you make A move to the corner of his space, and B to the corner of hers, you simulate both figures leaning out and seeing each other.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Mlai00 wrote:
I don't consider your example an egregious LOS rules artifact. AFAIC, both A and B can see each other IRL. This is because each Descent square does not represent a figure standing immobile; it's big enough to allow a person to move around inside a small area.

If you make A move to the corner of his space, and B to the corner of hers, you simulate both figures leaning out and seeing each other.


Again, I have to apologize. I meant for the wall to continue past B...

Post has been updated.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Yeah...the more I consider it, there's just no getting around the fact that Descent LOS rules just break down when there is a wall (or more than one) between target and attacker. Case in point, according to the official FAQ, A and B cannot see each other in the example below:

A|B
X|
X|

BUT, if B moves down one space (bellow), they can BOTH see each other:

A|
X|B
X|

That is just broken any way you look at it...

I think the best thing to do is implement IA rules when a wall is between attacker and target.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mlai00 Mlai00
msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
This only occurs with "thin walls" not "wall squares"; the problem is the thin wall not the rule.

If you imagine the game board as a 2D world, a flatland dimension, then you can see how impossible the thin wall is. It is an idealized 1D object, which should not be able to exist in a 2D world. Just like how no idealized 2D object can exist in our 3D world.

That's why the LOS rule breaks down around it; it's alien geometry.

The LOS rule makes sense again if you simply rule that the thin wall is not a line, but rather a really skinny rectangle. Then none of the instances in this thread has LOS when separated by the "skinny rectangle" wall (except for the original example you edited out). Which is as it should be.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul
United States
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
Yeah...the more I consider it, there's just no getting around the fact that Descent LOS rules just break down when there is a wall (or more than one) between target and attacker. Case in point, according to the official FAQ, A and B cannot see each other in the example below:

A|B
X|
X|

BUT, if B moves down one space (bellow), they can BOTH see each other:

A|
X|B
X|

That is just broken any way you look at it...

I think the best thing to do is implement IA rules when a wall is between attacker and target.


I'm having a hard time making sense of the scenario you're drawing. Do you think you could make an image of what you're trying to show? Alternately, if it matches any of the diagrams in my LOS guide (http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/135144/guide-range-and-los...), that would work, too.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
zaltyre wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
Yeah...the more I consider it, there's just no getting around the fact that Descent LOS rules just break down when there is a wall (or more than one) between target and attacker. Case in point, according to the official FAQ, A and B cannot see each other in the example below:

A|B
X|
X|

BUT, if B moves down one space (bellow), they can BOTH see each other:

A|
X|B
X|

That is just broken any way you look at it...

I think the best thing to do is implement IA rules when a wall is between attacker and target.


I'm having a hard time making sense of the scenario you're drawing. Do you think you could make an image of what you're trying to show? Alternately, if it matches any of the diagrams in my LOS guide (http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/135144/guide-range-and-los...), that would work, too.


The vertical lines are a wall and the X's are empty spaces; I'm just using them as spacers...
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul
United States
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To me it looks like you're drawing the bottom right panel of this image:

http://i.imgur.com/S5vcO6P.jpg

There is indeed no LOS there. Are you drawing one of the other panels?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Lawson
United Kingdom
Yateley
Hampshire
flag msg tools
designer
zaltyre wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
Yeah...the more I consider it, there's just no getting around the fact that Descent LOS rules just break down when there is a wall (or more than one) between target and attacker. Case in point, according to the official FAQ, A and B cannot see each other in the example below:

A|B
X|
X|

BUT, if B moves down one space (bellow), they can BOTH see each other:

A|
X|B
X|

That is just broken any way you look at it...

I think the best thing to do is implement IA rules when a wall is between attacker and target.


I'm having a hard time making sense of the scenario you're drawing. Do you think you could make an image of what you're trying to show? Alternately, if it matches any of the diagrams in my LOS guide (http://boardgamegeek.com/filepage/135144/guide-range-and-los...), that would work, too.

The examples are the same as those in that older LOS graphic that has been used in these forums. I'll see if I can find / remember the url of the image.

The diagram is called "A Few LOS Examples" and the examples above are the same as Example 6 and 9 in the diagram.

It's one of the staple "head-shakes" of Descent LOS rules.

EDIT: Here it is.
 
 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.