Jump to content



Photo

Sweep + Reach


  • Please log in to reply
48 replies to this topic

#41 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 496 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 10:31 AM

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.

"Stupid is what stupid does"

These are the kind of comments that are likely to trigger people being defensive. Implying that they, the way they think, or the rules they play by are "illogical" or "stupid". Be careful of your language or be prepared for people to take offense.

 

 

You're only talking about rules.

I'm talking about logics.

It's been discussed MANY times before, but this is an incredibly slippery slope, especially in a discussion about the rules as written, which this thread is. You can come up with all sorts of "logic" to describe things, but that doesn't make them true. ("Logic" is not necessarily truth, it is merely a pathway of going from one idea to another via some other idea or set of ideas, and a person's logic may be objectively wrong. It may also be right, but for the wrong reasons.)

 

In general, it is a much wiser plan when trying to tie reality to rules (which I don't think you should do anyway, more below) to find a situation in reality (of which there may be many) that reflects the implementation of the rules (of which there are few) than the other way around. Example: Instead of immediately jumping to the first assumption that comes to mind with "Well this doesn't make sense because if (insert assumption here), then it'd work this way, so I'm going to change the rules" invest a bit more thought and search for some assumption that fits this: "Well, if we think of it like (insert another assumption here), then this rule actually makes much more sense." 

 

 

That said, everyone should remember that game rules for almost any immersive game are an abstraction of reality, not a model of the universe's physics. In Descent, Range and Line of Sight for attacks aren't always hard and fast rules about "Can you shoot an arrow this far" or "Can you see the target". They represent an added difficulty based on distance and obstructed vision. I might be able to shoot an arrow twice as far as my target, but it doesn't mean I can hit my target with any consistency. I might be able to see parts of a target behind a tree, but the likelihood of me hitting the target is so small that it's pointless to try. Once you realize that rules are NOT physics and are instead an abstraction intended to create balance in the greater picture that is the entire game, and that changing such rules may have unintended consequences (as Varikas pointed out), you'll, in general, be much happier with many games.


  • Robin likes this

#42 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 14 October 2013 - 03:23 PM

@griton
"Stupid is what stupid does"
These are the kind of comments that are likely to trigger people being defensive. Implying that they, the way they think, or the rules they play by are "illogical" or "stupid". Be careful of your language or be prepared for people to take offense.

This is a reference from the movie Forest Gump and has nothing to do with any post here (you might want to reread that,or watch the movie perhaps)!

As for the rest of this post I agree. I could literally make a Topic on this forum called "what a rude post is in English" gather and collect them,copy paste them there. Without mentioning names I could even tell you who would win a medal.

I wouldn't let posts about rule complaints and things of this nature offend you. We/They we all bought it and can complain if we wish. Most of which is just smoke in the breeze anyway.

As far as telling people what they know already about "being careful" and what not. You can be a cyber daddy, or a cyber bouncer if you choose but eventually that will offend somebody!

#43 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 496 posts

Posted 15 October 2013 - 09:07 AM

This is a reference from the movie Forest Gump and has nothing to do with any post here (you might want to reread that,or watch the movie perhaps)!

I've seen the movie, and know the quote, but if it doesn't have anything to do with any post here, as you say, why bother inserting random movie quotes as a response to a quote from another post.

 

As far as telling people what they know already about "being careful" and what not. You can be a cyber daddy, or a cyber bouncer if you choose but eventually that will offend somebody!

You can try to call it whatever you want, but encouraging civil discourse in a public forum and discouraging insults when people start to get heated/defensive is generally considered good form, whether online or in meat space. If people are going to take offense to someone encouraging civil behavior before things get out of hand, they're welcome to.


  • Robin and jadedbacon like this

#44 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 07:23 AM

Because it has everything to do with the person who made the rule. Not a poster!

As for as your last post that's your opinion and that's fine. As far as encouraging behavior it almost sounds like a cyber Jesus. Lol I wanted to put that in my last post and I forgot grr.

#45 Robin

Robin

    Member

  • Members
  • 694 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 07:42 AM

 it almost sounds like a cyber Jesus. Lol I wanted to put that in my last post and I forgot grr.

I would not frown upon someone encourageing peaceful talk.

Debates easily can become heated on a forum - through misunderstanding as much as through knee-jerk reactions.

 

Now, on topic, we have a double confirmation from FFG that sweep does require LOS to affect a target.

It is the nearest to an official answer we could hope to recieve in this thread.

FFG has given the line to follow.

 

So what now?

 

Some players don't like that ruling, for "thematic" reasons (i.e. based on their idea of "reality"), others approve of it.

One will apply a house rule, one won't.

One will consider that following the official ruling is logical, one will consider that his logics say the opposite.

 

Where an itch was scratched, was when, even facing the clear answers given by FFG, someone insisted that they should change (btw it would be funny, if they changed, to see how many people who accepted the first ruling would whine that FFG should revert to it  ;) ).

 

Oh, and if the allusions to people being rude alluded to my own posts, I apologize for having caused any disturbance, further than what I call a frank, direct debate.

I did not want to indulge in personal attacks, and I hope my "rough" posts did not give the impression that I lacked respect towards anyone - I mean, I can strongly disagree without calling someone names. This is just a game.

 

Now, we all agree that our common aim is having fun playing Descent.

So what about moving on?

All the dust in LOS has been swept, I think. :rolleyes:


Edited by Robin, 16 October 2013 - 07:43 AM.

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

#46 RagsMckay

RagsMckay

    Member

  • Members
  • 57 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 08:06 AM

I hope that I made it abundantly clear, my posts were always my opinion and I knew from the start that the offical ruling required LOS.

 

I wrote the post with the intention to give others the possability for a variation to the unoficial ruling. And to state my reasons for it. My intent was never to change the ruling, but to offer an alternative for those who disagreed with it.

 

If the players prefer RAW, then by all means play them.


  • Silverhelm likes this

I die...A lot.


#47 griton

griton

    Member

  • Members
  • 496 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:05 AM

As far as encouraging behavior it almost sounds like a cyber Jesus.

 

Jesus' beard wasn't as awesome as mine. ;-)



#48 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:33 AM

As far as encouraging behavior it almost sounds like a cyber Jesus.

 
Jesus' beard wasn't as awesome as mine. ;-)

Lol

#49 Silverhelm

Silverhelm

    Member

  • Members
  • 222 posts

Posted 16 October 2013 - 09:40 AM

it almost sounds like a cyber Jesus. Lol I wanted to put that in my last post and I forgot grr.

I would not frown upon someone encourageing peaceful talk.
Debates easily can become heated on a forum - through misunderstanding as much as through knee-jerk reactions.
 
Now, on topic, we have a double confirmation from FFG that sweep does require LOS to affect a target.
It is the nearest to an official answer we could hope to recieve in this thread.
FFG has given the line to follow.
 
So what now?
 
Some players don't like that ruling, for "thematic" reasons (i.e. based on their idea of "reality"), others approve of it.
One will apply a house rule, one won't.
One will consider that following the official ruling is logical, one will consider that his logics say the opposite.
 
Where an itch was scratched, was when, even facing the clear answers given by FFG, someone insisted that they should change (btw it would be funny, if they changed, to see how many people who accepted the first ruling would whine that FFG should revert to it  ;) ).
 
Oh, and if the allusions to people being rude alluded to my own posts, I apologize for having caused any disturbance, further than what I call a frank, direct debate.
I did not want to indulge in personal attacks, and I hope my "rough" posts did not give the impression that I lacked respect towards anyone - I mean, I can strongly disagree without calling someone names. This is just a game.
 
Now, we all agree that our common aim is having fun playing Descent.
So what about moving on?
All the dust in LOS has been swept, I think. :rolleyes:

Lol agreed like I said just "smoke in the wind".

Just wanted to add Trollfens is awesome so far! Got it yesterday. OT but think this been OT for awhile anyway. Yeah moveing on...




© 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