JH
United States
Albany
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
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
JH
United States
Albany
California
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
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
let's go.
badge
it's like an accident that we keep on 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...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
This seems needlessly complex.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Nate Parkes
United States
Chicago
Illinois
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
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
Avatar
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
Avatar
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
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.