Mr_Smigs Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 Measuring Distance is just Horizontal/Vertical, right, so: A model stands atop a 6" tall building, at the edge of the building. B model stands 8" away from said building (measuring to the point directly below A model) Is the distance from B to A 1. 10 inches 2. 8 inches 3. 14 inches ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ratty Posted November 2, 2011 Report Share Posted November 2, 2011 (edited) 8" Edited November 2, 2011 by Ratty Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 minmax Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 I just want to add to be aware of ranged strikes. Subtract the height of B from height of building and add that to range increment to determine distance to target. p41 Rules Manual Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Fading Memory Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 I just want to add to be aware of ranged strikes. Subtract the height of B from height of building and add that to range increment to determine distance to target. p41 Rules Manual That's for melee, not ranged. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 wait wait wait... so a Ht 2 model at the base of a 6" building, is 4" away from the model when trying to do melee to a model on the top of the building at the edge... but 0 inches away when trying to shoot it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Firebox Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 wait wait wait... so a Ht 2 model at the base of a 6" building, is 4" away from the model when trying to do melee to a model on the top of the building at the edge... but 0 inches away when trying to shoot it? Yep. Remember, rules are an abstraction, not reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Yep. Remember, rules are an abstraction, not reality. i just seems odd that a model could be at a negative distance then... if A is on a bridge, and B is under the bridge (half the base sticking out) and the models are one above the other... can A shoot B, can B shoot A? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ratty Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Under the Euclidean Geometry the distance between two points can never be a negative value. If two bases are over each other the distance for shooting would be 0 inches. As the model on top of the bridge is within 1" of the edge it ignores the shadowing created by a flat elevation therefore could see the model with half his base out from under the bridge. The answer to whether they could shoot each other would be no, unless the bridge was high enough that they were not in melee with each other. If they are a Ht 2 model with reach 1, the bridge would need to be Ht4 for them not to be in range of each other for melee. In this case the model on top of the bridge would ignore the bridge lip as it's within 1" of the model and so could shoot the model under the bridge normally, but the model under the bridge is not within 1" of the lip so the model under the bridge would have a on it's Attack flip as the model on top of the bridge could claim cover from being shot from below. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Under the Euclidean Geometry the distance between two points can never be a negative value. If two bases are over each other the distance for shooting would be 0 inches. As the model on top of the bridge is within 1" of the edge it ignores the shadowing created by a flat elevation therefore could see the model with half his base out from under the bridge. The answer to whether they could shoot each other would be no, unless the bridge was high enough that they were not in melee with each other. If they are a Ht 2 model with reach 1, the bridge would need to be Ht4 for them not to be in range of each other for melee. In this case the model on top of the bridge would ignore the bridge lip as it's within 1" of the model and so could shoot the model under the bridge normally, but the model under the bridge is not within 1" of the lip so the model under the bridge would have a on it's Attack flip as the model on top of the bridge could claim cover from being shot from below. cool. thanks. Didn't think we were in standard Euclidean Geometry as we don't use diagonals... if the bottom of the bridge is 3" up, but the top of the bridge is 4" up... can both ignore the cover? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 nerdelemental Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Part of the reason we don't use diagonals is for me (well, people like me). In design and dev, there must always come a point where our drive to emulate reality and mirror real world physics and geometry simply have to come to an end and give way to playability and ease of understanding for everyone involved. Don't think that we didn't plan, develop, and test many different models that include everything you're talking about. Here's part of the conundrum, showing a brief glimpse into the debate behind the scenes: Where do you measure on a model? If one is on a hill that's 4" higher than the shooter? From base to base? Logical. However, say there's a 1" wall in the way, or simply some rocky elements. You cannot see the base. But the model is Ht2 shooting a Ht2. So, can you not say there's a volume of mass that's 30mm circumference and 2" high and anything in that volume is targetable? We could. What about using a truly flat 2D playing surface but the terrain elements are representative of 3D terrain. For example, a circle of felt ~ 6" in diameter is symbolizing a 3" tall hill. So, in this particular game, lines are not drawn to an imaginary triangulation, but on a true 2D surface even though we have to pretend to take the 3" pretend elevation into account. There are so many unknowns and variables to account for and there's a point where emulating real world mechanics no longer makes it fun and interesting (to envision how it works in real life) but suddenly bogs it down and makes it too complex. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 good point. so, in reality, this is a 2d game with elevation levels marked on the map... has Wyrd ever considered doing roll-out demo maps (like Mercs just had made?) but the bridge question still stands. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Ratty Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Yep in the case that both models are within 1" of the lip neither would have to take a :-flip for shooting into cover. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 nerdelemental Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 good point. so, in reality, this is a 2d game with elevation levels marked on the map... has Wyrd ever considered doing roll-out demo maps (like Mercs just had made?) Yes, actually. However, we could do away with 3D miniatures, too, and just have a name written on a 30mm base and play. Everything could be 2D. We all would likely agree that we want our game 3D and we want it to look real so we can imagine in cinematically, and we all have variable levels to which we want it to play real, but, in the end, it's still a game. It's not real. There's elements of 2D blended with 3D and real physics (and math!) mixed with simplified versions.... It could go on. Ultimately, we've learned that not ever will everyone think it's totally perfect. There's a point where, like the Dev/Design team, we all have to accept a point where we suspend our disbelief, suspend our understanding of real world physics, and just agree that we're playing a game. Knowing the rules is probably more important than envisioning why a rule exists, although I'm in the camp that likes to know a real world explanation for things, too. Makes memory and logical understanding tighter. Chess, the first minis game, has a Queen that's the most powerful piece on the board and a Knight that can leap over any other piece, including guards in a tower (Rook), and pawns are such stupid soldiers that they cannot even figure out how to go back home when the going gets tough. They're so stupid, in fact, that if someone runs up into the front of them they don't know what to do and just sit there. Furthermore, that stupid soldier can suddenly evolve into any other piece save a king when it touches the other side of the board. How friggin illogical is this game?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Cats Laughing Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Chess, <snip> How friggin illogical is this game?! shhhh, I hear people take that game very seriously... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Dracomax Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Yes, actually. However, we could do away with 3D miniatures, too, and just have a name written on a 30mm base and play. Everything could be 2D. We all would likely agree that we want our game 3D and we want it to look real so we can imagine in cinematically, and we all have variable levels to which we want it to play real, but, in the end, it's still a game. It's not real. There's elements of 2D blended with 3D and real physics (and math!) mixed with simplified versions.... It could go on. Ultimately, we've learned that not ever will everyone think it's totally perfect. There's a point where, like the Dev/Design team, we all have to accept a point where we suspend our disbelief, suspend our understanding of real world physics, and just agree that we're playing a game. Knowing the rules is probably more important than envisioning why a rule exists, although I'm in the camp that likes to know a real world explanation for things, too. Makes memory and logical understanding tighter. Chess, the first minis game, has a Queen that's the most powerful piece on the board and a Knight that can leap over any other piece, including guards in a tower (Rook), and pawns are such stupid soldiers that they cannot even figure out how to go back home when the going gets tough. They're so stupid, in fact, that if someone runs up into the front of them they don't know what to do and just sit there. Furthermore, that stupid soldier can suddenly evolve into any other piece save a king when it touches the other side of the board. How friggin illogical is this game?! Well, bishops can only go diagonally because they weren't originally bishops but ships tacking into the wind. Originally, the queen was much less powerful(only had the movement of the king) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 without going way off on a tangent... my base thought with the 2d map was that it'd be a great demo kit... being able to roll out a well-rendered representation of the city with examples of the kinda terrain to expect, while still being nice and portable, and showing off the minis (the quality sculpts being a big draw for a lot of people in the game... ) as for chess and the brokenness of the queen, let's just avoid that one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 nerdelemental Posted November 3, 2011 Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Smigs just privately inquired if I was perturbed about any of this. I assure you all, my playful and pretty calm tone simply didn't come across. I'm totally good. Totally not angry. Totally willing to discuss this issue at any length. The Dev team certainly has! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 3, 2011 Smigs just privately inquired if I was perturbed about any of this. I assure you all, my playful and pretty calm tone simply didn't come across. I'm totally good. Totally not angry. Totally willing to discuss this issue at any length. The Dev team certainly has! tho, that "just field 30mm bases" struck me with an awesome Nightmare Edition set of models you need to do... Nightmare edition tyrants... see, since they're all unseen, invisible forces, you could just release 50mm custom bases with heavy footprints pushed into the debris... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr. Bigglesworth Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 tho, that "just field 30mm bases" struck me with an awesome Nightmare Edition set of models you need to do... Nightmare edition tyrants... see, since they're all unseen, invisible forces, you could just release 50mm custom bases with heavy footprints pushed into the debris... Lol. I like it would be good basing idea for masters. Personally about the 2d map idea it doesn't appeal to my sense of game play. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Asphyxxious Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 So simply out of curiosity, where in the rules manual is it stated that diagonal measurements aren't taken? Only vertical and horizontal. I am in no way disagreeing with this, I am merely curious as to its location. I went looking but could not find it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 So simply out of curiosity, where in the rules manual is it stated that diagonal measurements aren't taken? Only vertical and horizontal. I am in no way disagreeing with this, I am merely curious as to its location. I went looking but could not find it. there's a thread about running off the top of a building and taking fall damage, then still running some more... the ruling was made there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 http://wyrd-games.net/forum/showthread.php?t=23896 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Asphyxxious Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yeah i read that thread, but I was just hoping it was in the rules manual as well because some people i play with don't really like the "well I saw it on the forums" reason lol. Thanks though Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Mr_Smigs Posted November 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Yeah i read that thread, but I was just hoping it was in the rules manual as well because some people i play with don't really like the "well I saw it on the forums" reason lol. Thanks though look between pg 14 and 16... IIRC, it mentions a top-down look there with no angles.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Asphyxxious Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Hmm interesting. I feel kind of silly reading that multiple times before and not interpreting that as no diagonals.. So then one quick question.. Say you have something like frighting dream for the dreamer to place a model within 6" and you are on the ground, but there is a HT10 terrain piece you are 5" away from. If you don't measure diagonals are you able to place the model on top of the terrain piece since you are within 6" of it measuring horizontally? Or does it have to be within 6" horizontally AND vertically? If this question requires a new thread i will go do that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0 Lucidicide Posted November 4, 2011 Report Share Posted November 4, 2011 Hmm interesting. I feel kind of silly reading that multiple times before and not interpreting that as no diagonals.. So then one quick question.. Say you have something like frighting dream for the dreamer to place a model within 6" and you are on the ground, but there is a HT10 terrain piece you are 5" away from. If you don't measure diagonals are you able to place the model on top of the terrain piece since you are within 6" of it measuring horizontally? Or does it have to be within 6" horizontally AND vertically? If this question requires a new thread i will go do that. You could put it on the terrain piece from everything I've read. The times that you take into account vertical distance are explicitly stated. Otherwise, it's horizontal only. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Question
Mr_Smigs
Measuring Distance is just Horizontal/Vertical, right,
so:
A model stands atop a 6" tall building, at the edge of the building.
B model stands 8" away from said building (measuring to the point directly below A model)
Is the distance from B to A
1. 10 inches
2. 8 inches
3. 14 inches
????
Link to comment
Share on other sites
32 answers to this question
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.