Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Cursain

Sweep + Reach

49 posts in this topic

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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
Robin13 and griton like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Robin13 likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

jadedbacon and Robin13 like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0