Jump to content

Do we think it's intentional that tangent lines both do and don't exist


Azahul

Recommended Posts

To put it another way. It is possible for two models to be exactly 2" apart, but it is practically impossible for a player to place the models exactly that distance apart with any more certainty than they could align three models to block line of sight. So to me, it is an abstraction I can live with - it isn't a game where I get my joy from precision measurement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

To put it another way. It is possible for two models to be exactly 2" apart, but it is practically impossible for a player to place the models exactly that distance apart with any more certainty than they could align three models to block line of sight. So to me, it is an abstraction I can live with - it isn't a game where I get my joy from precision measurement.

It is precisely because I don't get joy from precise measurements that this irks me. An exact 2" measurement being off by a minute fraction rarely matters in the same way. Tangent lines being available for LOS would have the net effect of making this particular trick impossible, which removes instances from the game where players need to bust out rulers and lasers (because you do want each thing on the table to be as close to the intended position as possible) and then resort to rule of intent regardless. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Azahul said:

It is precisely because I don't get joy from precise measurements that this irks me. An exact 2" measurement being off by a minute fraction rarely matters in the same way. Tangent lines being available for LOS would have the net effect of making this particular trick impossible, which removes instances from the game where players need to bust out rulers and lasers (because you do want each thing on the table to be as close to the intended position as possible) and then resort to rule of intent regardless. 

If they are all on a flat surface you just need a single straight edge to get them in line though, that's it. In practical terms when one is on a box or fence or whatever it might be laser time, but otherwise no measurement is required. I can see that it bothers you - and I'm not going to really say that it shouldn't, but for me it has never been an in game issue, certainly far less of an issue that the is this model in or out of range for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

If they are all on a flat surface you just need a single straight edge to get them in line though, that's it. In practical terms when one is on a box or fence or whatever it might be laser time, but otherwise no measurement is required. I can see that it bothers you - and I'm not going to really say that it shouldn't, but for me it has never been an in game issue, certainly far less of an issue that the is this model in or out of range for example.

Sure, but if you go the other way you don't need to measure at all. And you certainly don't need to go to the effort of measuring to do something you know deep down you can't actually do :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Sure, but if you go the other way you don't need to measure at all. And you certainly don't need to go to the effort of measuring to do something you know deep down you can't actually do :D

But you can do it, on a flat surface it is relatively easy and fairly practical too - it is even possible with less uncertainty than measuring a 2" push. It might be impractical on more complex table but from atop down system it is certainly possible to do.

Edit to add three bases all in alignment. Please note16488012267224588098999465479715.thumb.jpg.b1911d30e8af70cfbcdd5f96c55fac0e.jpg the stick is not strictly a tangent as it is adjacent to the three bases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Maladroit said:

But you can do it, on a flat surface it is relatively easy and fairly practical too - it is even possible with less uncertainty than measuring a 2" push. It might be impractical on more complex table but from atop down system it is certainly possible to do.

Edit to add three bases all in alignment. Please note16488012267224588098999465479715.thumb.jpg.b1911d30e8af70cfbcdd5f96c55fac0e.jpg the stick is not strictly a tangent as it is adjacent to the three bases.

But that won't be strictly correct. There will always be a minor imperfection in placement. Even with a ruler you aren't going to prevent an infinitesimally small line being drawn somewhere. Sure, this imperfection may not necessarily be discernible to the human eye, but I know it's wrong and it bothers me.

 

It also doesn't change the fact that it doesn't seem like the devs or playtesters use these rules with any regularity. Like I can't think of any case where if you allowed tangent lines to be used to prevent LOS blocking in this manner, I can think of several models with rules that would actually begin to function seemingly as intended and I can't think of any rules that would be hurt by this?

 

And that picture still looks like the kind of line I'd draw to demonstrate that I have LOS 😆 But like I said, I play other games where LOS on tangents is accepted so I likely have a bias there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Azahul said:

But that won't be strictly correct. There will always be a minor imperfection in placement. Even with a ruler you aren't going to prevent an infinitesimally small line being drawn somewhere. Sure, this imperfection may not necessarily be discernible to the human eye, but I know it's wrong and it bothers me.

This is a slightly bizarre view to me. You know theoretically it is possible. To your eye it is correct but you still want to say it's wrong.

If you know its possible and you check to the limits of what you have available and they suggest it's done right then leave it there. Arguing about infinitesimal lines seems petty unless you are also checking all bases are EXACTLY the right shape and size. I have some bases that are raw plastic and others that have paint on, and others I had to trim mold lines from them so are different sizes to the level you are complaining at. 

1 hour ago, Azahul said:

 

And that picture still looks like the kind of line I'd draw to demonstrate that I have LOS 😆 But like I said, I play other games where LOS on tangents is accepted so I likely have a bias there.

So assuming there was something on the right side that blocked LOS you'd be happy to draw that line to demonstrate you have LOS, but you're not happy to draw it to demonstrate you don't have it?

 

1 hour ago, Azahul said:

 

It also doesn't change the fact that it doesn't seem like the devs or playtesters use these rules with any regularity. 

It's hard to say if anyone plays with the rules correctly. All I can say is this was covered in the M2 FAQ, so it wasn't unknown. I'm sure it was discussed during the M3 public beta, but those conversations are gone now. From what I remember that is exactly why drop it makes the scheme marker drop in los of the attacker. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Adran said:

This is a slightly bizarre view to me. You know theoretically it is possible. To your eye it is correct but you still want to say it's wrong.

If you know its possible and you check to the limits of what you have available and they suggest it's done right then leave it there. Arguing about infinitesimal lines seems petty unless you are also checking all bases are EXACTLY the right shape and size. I have some bases that are raw plastic and others that have paint on, and others I had to trim mold lines from them so are different sizes to the level you are complaining at. 

So assuming there was something on the right side that blocked LOS you'd be happy to draw that line to demonstrate you have LOS, but you're not happy to draw it to demonstrate you don't have it?

 

It's hard to say if anyone plays with the rules correctly. All I can say is this was covered in the M2 FAQ, so it wasn't unknown. I'm sure it was discussed during the M3 public beta, but those conversations are gone now. From what I remember that is exactly why drop it makes the scheme marker drop in los of the attacker. 

On the contrary, I think my point of contention is that I know it theoretically isn't possible (insert Jack Sparrow "Not probable" here :D). Like realistically there is no way those markers are aligned in the one specific configuration they are needed. To me that's the part of this that feels petty, arguing that anyone should be able to claim an advantage from a manoeuvre they can't actually perform even in ideal circumstances. I won't deny that you can get close, but the positioning required to get the advantage in this scenario is so specific as to be more hypothetical than real. It's an order of magnitude beyond the kind of arrangements the rule of intent is used for in all other circumstances in the game in my view.

If this rule is followed and used regularly in the development process then the design intent must be that Bandidos are intended to only ever going to get their Trigger Finger attack in their own activation, and Parker2 is only getting a Perdition off Drop It the same way. I'm not discounting that possibility for certain, maybe that is the way those models are meant to work, but boy it's weird having Parker2 rocking a Bonus Action to make getting Drop It easier if he has no real interaction with Drop Its. Maybe the intent of the action was always just to be a do-nothing action that sometimes gets the Mask trigger for a free attack, but then I'm real puzzled as to why they invented a new trigger that's just a crow-based Quick Reflexes for an action to let you take an action that doesn't do anything twice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Azahul said:

 

If this rule is followed and used regularly in the development process then the design intent must be that Bandidos are intended to only ever going to get their Trigger Finger attack in their own activation, and Parker2 is only getting a Perdition off Drop It the same way. I'm not discounting that possibility for certain, maybe that is the way those models are meant to work, but boy it's weird having Parker2 rocking a Bonus Action to make getting Drop It easier if he has no real interaction with Drop Its. Maybe the intent of the action was always just to be a do-nothing action that sometimes gets the Mask trigger for a free attack, but then I'm real puzzled as to why they invented a new trigger that's just a crow-based Quick Reflexes for an action to let you take an action that doesn't do anything twice.

I can't tell you the intent because in general the designers don't tell the intent.

I do expect the majority of the play test games to have used the rules as written, and so the testing to have been based on what you describe. 

Perhaps they intended a model to potentially be at risk of both trigger finger and perdition, so at least one will come off from a third models drop it. Or it could just have the trigger to give the bandito choices of who to get trigger finger on. Or maybe just to help you litter the field with markers to use for life of crime. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 8:52 AM, Azahul said:

On the contrary, I think my point of contention is that I know it theoretically isn't possible (insert Jack Sparrow "Not probable" here :D). Like realistically there is no way those markers are aligned in the one specific configuration they are needed

So if in the image above that level was actually just a blocking htX wall, would you still say it's not possible to make it so that the middle model is blocking LoS?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/1/2022 at 3:52 PM, Azahul said:

On the contrary, I think my point of contention is that I know it theoretically isn't possible (insert Jack Sparrow "Not probable" here :D). Like realistically there is no way those markers are aligned in the one specific configuration they are needed.

But if you go to that level, you cannot actually have to pieces touching one another, either, right? So 0" melee will never reach anything as there's always a miniscule gap. And two 30mm bases touching cannot block LOS to a 40mm base since there's always a gap as nothing can truly touch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2022 at 11:49 PM, Azahul said:

Drop It lets the opponent place the scheme marker, allowing them to block LOS for the purpose of these auras quite easily a lot of the time.

Just want to get back to this because this line confuses me.  Drop it specifically stats the marker HAS to be in LoS, so it would trip the attacking Bandido's aura every time, is there some extra rule I'm missing here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Clement said:

Just want to get back to this because this line confuses me.  Drop it specifically stats the marker HAS to be in LoS, so it would trip the attacking Bandido's aura every time, is there some extra rule I'm missing here?

The drop has to be in los of the attacker, not any other models, so it is possible to stop drop it from every model except the bandito triggering trigger happy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Adran said:

The drop has to be in los of the attacker, not any other models, so it is possible to stop drop it from every model except the bandito triggering trigger happy. 

I guess?  Trigger Finger already only lets one model make the attack, so the LOS shenanigans could prevent the second Trigger generated attack from happening easily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The real question is why do the Bandidos have 8:ToS-Aura: instead of 'Whenever a model drops a scheme marker within 8"'  Like they already need to draw line of sight to make a gun attack, why do they also need to draw line of sight to the marker? All it does is fuck up the ability .

There's a lot of glitches in the game regarding :ToS-Aura: that occur because the developer uses that when they mean 8".  Like Gravity Well, Gravity Well and dismounting McCabes feels wrong (model with Gravity Well kill McCabe?  No problem.  Just do the replace and place him down inside the Gravity Well!). 

Overall I really think it should not be used as often as it is.

  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/15/2022 at 8:09 AM, santaclaws01 said:

That's not a glitch, that's called counterplay.

I'm pretty sure the fact you can place inside the 8" bubble pretty freely is not at all intuitive to anyone reading the ability for the first time or new players.  Most players would think it would stop things like Lynch's demise ability, when in fact it rarely affects them.

You can call this counterplay I suppose, but it feels exactly like unintiutive glitches in the game rules, same as with Bandidos and Drop It bugs. 

I'm reminded of the year long period where you could ricochet a bullet back onto the original target thanks to change in another - glitch due to unitituitive wording, or clever use of ability? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, RisingPhoenix said:

I'm pretty sure the fact you can place inside the 8" bubble pretty freely is not at all intuitive to anyone reading the ability for the first time or new players.

If they don't know what the aura symbol is sure.

1 hour ago, RisingPhoenix said:

Most players would think it would stop things like Lynch's demise ability, when in fact it rarely affects them.

"Most players"

1 hour ago, RisingPhoenix said:

You can call this counterplay I suppose, but it feels exactly like unintiutive glitches in the game rules, same as with Bandidos and Drop It bugs. 

Also not a bug. Just not as effective as some would like.
 

1 hour ago, RisingPhoenix said:

I'm reminded of the year long period where you could ricochet a bullet back onto the original target thanks to change in another - glitch due to unitituitive wording, or clever use of ability? 

Not at all the same situation. An FAQ was used as a targeted nerf to an ability but given language that had far reaching consequences as it changed how grammar worked. Auras were never changed from not needing LoS to needing LoS, and in fact many abilities exist that do not care about LoS at all but still have a range restriction. Things are auras because they're meant to be able to be countered by blocking LoS.


Also, gravity well has existed as the exact same ability across over half a decade and 2 editions. If LoS wasn't meant to stop it I think it's pretty safe to say it would've been changed already.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well if there's anything I've learned about the internet, it's that for anything no matter how unintuitive, backwards, and flat out stupid something is, there will be some valiant defender ready to explain how it's all counterplay and you just don't understand the genius that created it. 

Since you haven't actually given a meaningful response to anyything I said (one line was literally just repeating two words with quotation marks around them) I can't see any fruitful conversation happening here.  Bye.

  • Respectfully Disagree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having LoS not be blockable during the perfect alignment of equally big bases (and model sizes) does make more sense to me too. Mostly because of the points you argued (it's an "impossible" game state so the more elegant solution is to not have it be an option).

But in the end this is about which default is used by the system, here it's perfect alignment does block LOS, and that's not going to change.

So I just accept it and try not to (mis)remember my Warmachine knowledge for Malifaux situations.

No point to get overly frustrated about it, and I'd argue a lot of abilities without requiring LoS are "[...]backwards, and flat out stupid[...]" (see Zoraida and Nexus for example).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2022 at 12:49 PM, RisingPhoenix said:

Since you haven't actually given a meaningful response to anyything I said

I'm not sure what kind of "meaningful response" you are looking for when you just put forward your own assertions of things with no real backing beyond personal viewpoint as an absolute fact, but I guess detailing the history of the ability in the game, and why auras even exist in the first place isn't enough.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information