Jump to content



Photo

Sweep + Reach


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#21 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 05:51 PM

Let me see if I got this right if I have LOS of target 2 and not adjacent 1 and 3 I can't hit them with the AoE of sweep? Would something as big as a giant care if his leg, or exstention of his arm (a weapon) hit a door frame, or a barrel (in some cases probably breaking that too)? Think of the Troll in Lord of the Rings a giant is bigger then that. If you are a hero with this ability then you possess the power of a giant. Have reach? Then your simply a giant with either a long weapon like a pike or you have long arms. Either way no door frame will stop this attack! And hiding behind it shouldn't matter. And heroes should be getting there defense dice ready or carving a tomb stone before it hits.

It shouldn't matter if you have reach or not in my opinion.

Edited by Silverhelm, 10 October 2013 - 06:55 PM.


#22 Steve-O

Steve-O

    Member

  • Members
  • 4,680 posts

Posted 10 October 2013 - 08:06 PM

It shouldn't matter if you have reach or not in my opinion.

 

If it bugs you that much, make a house rule.  RAW is RAW, doesn't mean you have to play by it.


  • Robin likes this

#23 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:53 AM

Rugal, don't worry: I consider things strange when I finally realise that I was right ! ;-)

In a game which has abstractions by definition, having one's "idea of reality" being hurt is unavoidable.

BTW, that sense of reality accepts that sweep does not work through doors or walls...
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#24 rugal

rugal

    Member

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:18 AM

As I said to Justin, a sentence is missing

 

For Sweep, figures do not block line of sight.



#25 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 03:51 AM

As I said to Justin, a sentence is missing

 

For Sweep, figures do not block line of sight.

You mean that you would like to change the RAW, so that it fits your (wrong) interpretation ?

Better create a house rule rather than try to force FFG in creating a supplemental erratum.


An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#26 rugal

rugal

    Member

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 04:20 AM

I do not force anybody. I'm proposing, since i'm not the only one to play like that (in fact, all players i've played with since now)

 

Because even if i'm wrong, i'm not the only one.



#27 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 06:17 AM

But your opinion is not based on the rules, but just on a subjective idea about what sweep is about.
Many other players, applying the RAW, agree with FFG's answer.
So it is preferable to apply a house rule than impose it to all those who don't see a major problem with the rule.
If FFG adapt to all the whims of players, we are heading towards something chaotic.
Why would they not then change the reach rule to allow it to work without LOS, declare that doors, obstacles and walls don't block sweep?
You lost the argument.
Show some fair play rather than try to change the rules.
If your p.o.v. had prevailed, I would have adapted.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#28 RagsMckay

RagsMckay

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 08:18 AM

The only way this makes sense to me is if there were a situation where a Giant could not get in line of sight to a single target and the giant dicided to sweep for the single target. I would agree that the giant would not be able to do this simply because the giant would have no way of knowing if the target is truly there or not. I find that this type of situation would be rare but certainly possible.

 

Otherwise I will continue to play as sweep does not require LOS, but I will add as long as there is another target in range that he does have LOS on.

 

I shall continue with the disclamer that this is only my opinion.

 

Robin did bring up an interesting point about obsticales blocking sweep. As to this I am not sure, but my instince tells me they might block sweep.


I die...A lot.


#29 rugal

rugal

    Member

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 09:27 AM

But your opinion is not based on the rules, but just on a subjective idea about what sweep is about.
Many other players, applying the RAW, agree with FFG's answer.
So it is preferable to apply a house rule than impose it to all those who don't see a major problem with the rule.
If FFG adapt to all the whims of players, we are heading towards something chaotic.
Why would they not then change the reach rule to allow it to work without LOS, declare that doors, obstacles and walls don't block sweep?
You lost the argument.
Show some fair play rather than try to change the rules.
If your p.o.v. had prevailed, I would have adapted.

I don't get the point why you're so aggressive.

 

There's rules, and there's some stranges situations about logics. Since we're not on a german game, I don't think we should be too close-minded about rules, and forgetting the play behind.

 

Since it's not logical, i'm going to play it with the fact that figures do not block line of sight of sweep. More fun, less complicated.



#30 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 10:50 AM

It shouldn't matter if you have reach or not in my opinion.


If it bugs you that much, make a house rule. RAW is RAW, doesn't mean you have to play by it.
Doesn't mean I got to agree with it either. "Stupid is what stupid does" it's like the Forest Gump of rules to me. Each to there own right Robin? Pfft!


If a goblin had sweep I'd totally understand it its called physics with a mix of reality. When the giant for this game was made did they give him sweep because of his size? Well a little reality was required to make a giant with an ability called "sweep".

Ahh well it was worth debating while it lasted!

Edited by Silverhelm, 11 October 2013 - 11:11 AM.


#31 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:43 AM

Who is agressive?
Me simply saying that one can house rule freely, or someone who wants to make mandatory his house rule?
As explained, the "logics" of not taking LOS into account for Sweep have been considered as not fitting the rules.
A rules' debate is about applying the rules, not about imposing one's idea of "reality".
BTW I don't feel the necessity of LOS as illogical, even within my idea of "reality" (in all other cases, the giant can't see out of LOS heroes, so why should he suddenly be able to swing his club as if he knew targets out of its sight existed? And why shouldn't there be penalties for such an approximative attack?).
As you can see, most "reality" arguments can be countered by other "reality" arguments.

In the present case, the debate is simply about applying the rules, and not about changing them along subjective perspectives.

But of course, house rules are a fine way to go... in one's house.
I however try to stick to the RAW as long as they work within the logics of the game's system.
FFG's ruling in this case is not an erratum, nor even a clarification that could be added to the FAQ. It is the most natural explanation of the rules.
And I don't feel less "logical" because of my choice of following the RAW - nor more logical than someone who decides to house rule sweep after one's subjective appreciation.

I simply plead for respect and freedom.
And, as already said, if those who stated that LOS was not necessary had recieved approval from FFG, I would have adapted (which seems not to be the case from some people whose interpretation was not confirmed by FFG).
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#32 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 11:50 AM

To activate sweep in my opinion needs 1 target in LOS. If player activated sweep on that target any other model in LOS or not should still suffer from this attack. Just my humble opinion...
  • RagsMckay likes this

#33 rugal

rugal

    Member

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 01:06 PM

You're only talking about rules.

I'm talking about logics.

 

The giant high is so that I can't see a way to explain why he shouldn't see a hero behing another one. Talking about explanation only, I don't see anything to say to my players. And since the sweep attacks hit also friendly units and ennemis ones, why would an attack not target a figure in line of sight ?

 

doesn't seems logic to me. And since I can do wathever I want with my game, what the point to insist? because rules are rules? Good, I know, and then ?


Edited by rugal, 11 October 2013 - 01:25 PM.


#34 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:00 PM

I only "insist" about your endeavour to change the official rules and impose your logics which certainly are not universal truth, but your subjective (but of course defendable) idea of what sweep should represent in reality.
Play as you want, but don't try to make me believe that your logics are more coherent than other people's.
They are just your opinion, no more no less.
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#35 rugal

rugal

    Member

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 11 October 2013 - 02:03 PM

I don't.

You're the one who takes it that badly, and the only one.



#36 Dam

Dam

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,301 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 12:53 AM

I'm talking about logics.

 

doesn't seems logic to me. And since I can do wathever I want with my game, what the point to insist? because rules are rules? Good, I know, and then ?

 

Alright then, explain magic to me. You know, logically.


"A dirty mind is its own reward."


#37 Varikas

Varikas

    Member

  • Members
  • 76 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 02:38 AM

and not only magic...the LoS rule of this game can be a lot of things but not logical. Its absurd that I can make an attack diagonally with a rock just in the middle..., but that is the rule...

Can you change all what you dont see logical? of course yes, are playing Descent? of course not...

If you change things like that, you are unbalancing the game, giving more power to sweep than the game developers want, or in the case of LoS decreasing the power of abilities based on LoS...

That could make in a future a game very unbalanced and a bad experience of it.

If you do someting, do it well, so my advice is that, if you want to give more power to Sweep only cause you see it more logical, put him less health points. If you do that, maybe the game could be more balanced, and maybe you could be playing something similar to Descent second edition, thats my advice.

But I dont understand something.

1º) The people of this forum tell you that there is a ruling about it, and you dont belive that rule.

2º) You make the question to the game developers

3º) The game developers tell you the same than in the ruling

4º) After all of that...you play like you want, like at the begining...why did you do that questions? only to say: "ok, I am playing bad and I am going to play bad also in the future..." I dont understand it sorry.


Edited by Varikas, 12 October 2013 - 02:41 AM.

  • griton and Robin like this

#38 Dam

Dam

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,301 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 04:22 AM

and not only magic...the LoS rule of this game can be a lot of things but not logical. 

 

Yeah, I think my favourite LoS situation is one where the figure in the target space is blocking LoS to itself (can't see either front corner and of course figure blocks LoS to the back corners :lol:  . I have no LoS, so I can't shoot, but if the target by itself is blocking LoS, couldn't I just attack the blocking part? And no is the answer. Granted, very rare to get this situation, but never any less funnier when it does.


"A dirty mind is its own reward."


#39 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 07:34 AM

Actually, the situation where a figure blocks itself is quite rare, as it occurs when the "front" corners are out of LOS.
Even if the situation seems weird, there is a logic that if you cannot see the front of a target, you cannot see its back.

Edited by Robin, 12 October 2013 - 07:34 AM.

An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#40 rugal

rugal

    Member

  • Members
  • 678 posts

Posted 12 October 2013 - 09:19 AM

I'm not the one who makes the question in the first place. I never doubt about my way of thinking, i never ever thought I was wrong.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS