Urgent issues for titles.

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

@Maniacal_cackle If you look at the example of a hill in the rulebook it doesn't have any other traits than height, but models still stand on it, it just doesn't spend any additional movement changing elevation. I'd argue this is the same. 

Hills are really weird, because they're an example of terrain and then don't use actual terrain rules. This has proven quite tricky to define them in a 2-D environment like Vassal.

[Maniacal_cackle]

13 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

@Maniacal_cackle If you look at the example of a hill in the rulebook it doesn't have any other traits than height, but models still stand on it, it just doesn't spend any additional movement changing elevation. I'd argue this is the same. 

But if you have a height five forest, for instance, models can stand inside the forest.

Or Lamp Markers for that matter. You can stand on a lamp marker (and if you couldn't, then people could block strategy markers with them).

EDIT: Whoops, confused double post xD

[Angelshard]

28 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

But if you have a height five forest, for instance, models can stand inside the forest.

Or Lamp Markers for that matter. You can stand on a lamp marker (and if you couldn't, then people could block strategy markers with them).

EDIT: Whoops, confused double post xD

I don't think I've ever given a forest a height trait. I don't see how you can argue that you can stand on a lamp marker, but not a decoy marker.

[Maniacal_cackle]

3 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

I don't think I've ever given a forest a height trait. I don't see how you can argue that you can stand on a lamp marker, but not a decoy marker.

I'm arguing that you can stand on either of them xD

You can't see through a decoy marker because it is blocking, and the blocking trait blocks LOS (unless you're tall enough). But if you stand perfectly on a decoy marker so you overlap it exactly, you're in the shadow of marker and arguably cannot see out of it or into it.

[Angelshard]

I'd still argue that you stand on them and add their height to yours.

Mainly because the idea that you stand in a marker with height, but not on it, scrambles my brain.

[solkan]

39 minutes ago, Angelshard said:

I'd still argue that you stand on them and add their height to yours.

Mainly because the idea that you stand in a marker with height, but not on it, scrambles my brain.

So how did you move vertically on the marker with height with no rule to tell you to do so (or allow you to do so)?

Because what it seems to me that what you're doing is complaining that the terrain rules still have a lot of "Well, obviously" in them for things like hills, and then being grumpy and trying to drag markers into the deal.  🙃  And then sort of ignoring that the hill rules do in fact state explicitly that you stand on top of them (in the third paragraph of their rules):

Quote

Hills count as Height X Terrain. The Height Trait of a Hill varies depending upon where a model is standing on it; X is equal to the distance between the lowest part of the model’s base and the table in inches (rounded down).

 

[solkan]

For what it's worth, I was one of the people asking for something like a 'solid' trait for terrain to explicitly label terrain pieces that you stand on top of (rather than in).  Instead, we got the wording in Climbable that at least acknowledged that the different parts of the terrain piece are treated differently.  😕

 

[Angelshard]

@solkan I'm being grumpy about the idea that something can have a height and be blocking, which to me indicates that it's solid, but you stand in it rather than on it.

I'm grumpy about the fact that both stairs and hills are examples that also function as rules, as they both, apparently, break the normal terrain rules. 

I'm grumpy about the fact that I've never considered that, apart from climbable, no terrain trait states that you can stand on it. Which leads to a lot of annoying interactions. 

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Angelshard said:

@solkan I'm being grumpy about the idea that something can have a height and be blocking, which to me indicates that it's solid, but you stand in it rather than on it.

I'm grumpy about the fact that both stairs and hills are examples that also function as rules, as they both, apparently, break the normal terrain rules. 

I'm grumpy about the fact that I've never considered that, apart from climbable, no terrain trait states that you can stand on it. Which leads to a lot of annoying interactions. 

That’s all valid.  
 

But it’s probably fairer to the rules for stairs, hills, and Climbable things to think of the situation as “Not all terrain interactions are defined by terrain traits.”  And the rules don’t make such terrain second-class terrain.

 

[solkan]

3 hours ago, Angelshard said:

@solkan I'm being grumpy about the idea that something can have a height and be blocking, which to me indicates that it's solid, but you stand in it rather than on it.

I didn’t think to note this part in particular on my last break...

The thing is that any piece of terrain that tries to block line of sight using the regular line of sight system (instead of blocking by “You can see in but not across” fiat) like needs a height.  If that’s all it needs it for, there’s no reason to make the terrain impassible.

 I mean, a roughly person sized cloud of dense smoke would have the same right to be treated as “Ht 2, blocking” that any Sz 2 model does. And being able to walk through the dense smoke without impediment would make sense, right?

 

[Angelshard]

@solkan I can see what you mean, I just don't tend to give height to any object that isn't also impassable or climbable or something you can stand on. In case of a height 2 smoke cloud with blocking, it would end up as just concealing or dense in my group. 

We haven't been they creative with the terrain rules.  My group also generally avoids terrain with multiple levels, as we find it tends to give a lot of headaches.

 

[touchdown]

Models aren't blocking. They don't grant cover. I don't see how a smoke pillar would grant cover instead of concealing

[Math Mathonwy]

I think that the Decoy is an illusion - basically a hologram that you cannot see through but that doesn't affect your movement as opposed to it being a doll or something. I realize that it doesn't really affect the rules considerations but it helps making sense of it, I think.

[Mycellanious]

2 hours ago, Math Mathonwy said:

I think that the Decoy is an illusion - basically a hologram that you cannot see through but that doesn't affect your movement as opposed to it being a doll or something. I realize that it doesn't really affect the rules considerations but it helps making sense of it, I think.

see, if that were the case I would have expected it to be Concealing, because it doesn't physically impede bullets. I think that the Decoys are probably just non-mechanical, Mannequins woodwork in the shape of a Human that Colette uses magic to make appear real. 

[Maladroit]

15 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

see, if that were the case I would have expected it to be Concealing, because it doesn't physically impede bullets. I think that the Decoys are probably just non-mechanical, Mannequins woodwork in the shape of a Human that Colette uses magic to make appear real. 

But blocking refers to blocking of sight lines, not movement of objects. You can push through blocking terrain but can't shoot through it because you can't draw a LOS to the target. Yes, most blocking terrain also impedes movement, but that is a separate feature of the terrain (impassable or climbable). Or at least that's my reading of the terrain rules.

[Morgan Vening]

53 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

But blocking refers to blocking of sight lines, not movement of objects. You can push through blocking terrain but can't shoot through it because you can't draw a LOS to the target. Yes, most blocking terrain also impedes movement, but that is a separate feature of the terrain (impassable or climbable). Or at least that's my reading of the terrain rules.

But blocking is what defines cover, meaning that it's got the potential to absorb some of the incoming fire.

It only marginally affects Shooting attacks, and doesn't care about non-Shooting, like Obey, so Blocking fits more into obstruction than concealment.

[Maladroit]

8 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

But blocking is what defines cover, meaning that it's got the potential to absorb some of the incoming fire.

It only marginally affects Shooting attacks, and doesn't care about non-Shooting, like Obey, so Blocking fits more into obstruction than concealment.

Maybe, but the fact that you can push through blocking terrain means that it does not have to be a physical object to be blocking. In terms of the rule mechanics I don't see any problem with blocking sply being dense smoke or similar. Anything that impedes your view of the target would reduce the effectiveness of shooting attacks. Anything that does not require the target to be hit by a projectile or similar, might not have to be so precise, you just need to be aware of the target's presence.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Maladroit
Edit to finish post

[fire5tone]

58 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

Maybe, but the fact that you can push through blocking terrain means that it does not have to be a physical object to be blocking. In terms of the rule mechanics I don't see any problem with blocking sply being dense smoke or similar. Anything that impedes your view of the target would reduce the effectiveness of shooting attacks. Anything that does not require the target to be hit by a projectile or similar, might not have to be so precise, you just need to be aware of the target's presence.

Then it would be dense, or concealing, blocking can't be seen through (unless you have the ht for it?) And it does generate the shadow, so it appears that you cant see the parts of a model inside the terrain

[Maladroit]

16 minutes ago, fire5tone said:

Then it would be dense, or concealing, blocking can't be seen through (unless you have the ht for it?) And it does generate the shadow, so it appears that you cant see the parts of a model inside the terrain

That might be a better for smoke, but again, as far as I can see there is nothing in the rules that prevents blocking terrain from being something without substance. People can agree on any terrain traits they want (that makes sense to them), but since blocking only affects LOS and not movement, I don't see how it can be argued that is must be a physical object. It can be, it often is, but I don't see why it must be.

Edit to add: and since this is a rules issues thread, I guess I'm arguing that there isn't one - it's just a bit odd.

Edited September 6, 2021 by Maladroit
Edit to finish post

[fire5tone]

12 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

That might be a better for smoke, but again, as far as I can see there is nothing in the rules that prevents blocking terrain from being something without substance. People can agree on any terrain traits they want (that makes sense to them), but since blocking only affects LOS and not movement, I don't see how it can be argued that is must be a physical object. It can be, it often is, but I don't see why it must be.

Edit to add: and since this is a rules issues thread, I guess I'm arguing that there isn't one - it's just a bit odd.

It's not a physical object but RAW it simply can't be seen through, unless you consider buildings no not be see through *just because* they're also impassible, but there's no reference for that so I consider it the very same "blocking" as it is on a building

[Maladroit]

9 minutes ago, fire5tone said:

It's not a physical object but RAW it simply can't be seen through, unless you consider buildings no not be see through *just because* they're also impassible, but there's no reference for that so I consider it the very same "blocking" as it is on a building

I'm not even sure if we are disagreeing. Yes blocking means you cannot draw LOS through or into the terrain,  buildings generally have the blocking trait, but it isn't the blocking that prevents you pushing through the wall of the building, it's the impassable/climbable trait.

[Maniacal_cackle]

White hat haberdashery ability doesn't specify other...

So the aura to be near two keyword models actually only needs one other model, cuz it counts itself.

A typo like the face in the crowd typo I think.

[fire5tone]

33 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

White hat haberdashery ability doesn't specify other...

So the aura to be near two keyword models actually only needs one other model, cuz it counts itself.

A typo like the face in the crowd typo I think.

Yeah I've been rantin about that on the forums and discords for a while cause it makes 0 sense to me

But y'know, resser cards and "other"

[Meddlesome]

On 8/27/2021 at 4:32 PM, Maniacal_cackle said:

Well...

Just found out you can use plastic surgery to give Curator 'hurl corpse' so it can yeet itself, so you can probably one-shot someone end of turn with a ~16 inch threat range xD

24 if you want to include sloth xD

EDIT: Probably not the 'best' way to play him, but an interesting ability.

As much as I would love to see a Corpse Curator throw itself across the board, alas this is an attack action so the curator wouldn't be able to target itself. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Meddlesome said:

As much as I would love to see a Corpse Curator throw itself across the board, alas this is an attack action so the curator wouldn't be able to target itself. 

It's a silly combo and don't think it'll see serious play anyway, but hurl corpse doesn't target a corpse marker (it chooses one), and targets an enemy. The corpse is then placed into base contact with the targeted enemy.