Range

[BurkerKiing]

Please answer the following question.

Character A is at the top of a 6" high tower (on the edge) and character B is 2" from the base of the tower.

How far apart are they?

[dgraz]

Are we talking about melee or shooting?

for melee there is 6" between you if the guy on the ground is Ht 2.

For Ranged attacks / effects then you are only 2" apart. Those things are measured horizontally with no concern for vertical differences (unless it is a LoS issue).

[BurkerKiing]

Thanks for the reply. I have a big issue with this "all distances are measured horizontally" thing, and actually I can't find anywhere in the rule book that states this is so.

It does state that for LoS you use a top-down view (P20) - thus reducing three dimensions to two. However, when you get to combat it states (page 40, Declare Target, then Check Range) that

"All range measurements in Malifaux are made from the attacking model's base edge to the closest point on the target model's base edge."

Hence in this scenario, for ALL purposes the two characters would be 6.3" apart, i.e. more than 6", less than 7".

[dgraz]

There is an FAQ. The one for Errata and Clarifications right at the top.

Link:

http://www.malifaux.com/Errata.php

[BurkerKiing]

OK, thanks for the link to the FAQ. Is that basically saying that Malifaux players are too stupid to be able to cope with non-horizontal or vertical measuring so they have made it really easy for us? Can the general Malifaux player not cope with diagonals?

Imagine the following scenario:

Molly Squidpidge is standing atop the 6" tower from my first post, the Dead Rider is 2" away from the base of the tower. Player A measures the distance to the Dead Rider and says "great, I am only 2" away I can cast The Shocking Truth" (Range 3"). Player B measures the same range and says "Damn, can't attck you as my Scythe only has a range of 3" and you are 6" away!"

How on Earth does this simplify measuring when the distance between you depends on what you want to do?

I don't think the average Malifaux player is an idiot and think they are more than capable of holding the tape at an angle and reading from it. Why was it deemed too difficult to measure to different elevations! It seems an unnecessary complication to say how far apart are you? Well that depends on what you want to do!!!

[dgraz]

There are certainly some rules in this game that don't seem to make complete sense and I understand your frustration. I couldn't attempt to guess at the minds of the developers and why they make the decisions they make. I do know that they do put a lot of effort into the decisions they do make which includes much discussion and internal play-testing.

I'm certain they don't think we're stupid, there are tons of complicated interactions that prove that. I'm sure the decision had it's reasons. In a complex game like this, not everything can make perfect sense.

[Boshea]

Its no more stupid than warjacks not being able to see over infantry.

[Ratty]

One thing it allows you to do is play on a 2D board (as can be shown by how well it translates to something like Vassal), this makes it much easier for people starting up to get the right amount of scenery, and makes the game a lot more portable.

[BurkerKiing]

Hi Ratty - thanks for the input. I was hoping a Marshall would get involved.

With regards to your comment about the range rules allowing you to play on a 2D board I don't see how these 'simplified' rules make any difference as they only have an effect when you use 3D.

Further, the FAQ starts off with the sentence "Malifaux removes a lot of the complexity of playing a game with 2D or 3D terrain by abstracting measurements as ‘top-down’." I'm sorry but the players of Malifaux have got to be one of the most 'rules-lawery' (real word!) group of gamers I know! In no other game are individual words, phrases, sentences analysed as much as in Malifaux; and yet, a decision has been made to simplify one aspect of the rules (range) to such an extent that they no longer make sense to those very people who you point to in your post above.

In fact, new players would NEED to start on a 2D board because if they go to 3D (say using the 'official' Malifaux scenery Terraclips) they will have to unlearn anything they have learnt about ranges from other games (or even real-life) and cope with possible scenarios I have outlined above. How can this really be better than measure the distance with a tape and that is the range? How can the same distance be 4" one way, but 2" another - try explaining that to your new player who you are trying to get interested in this different style of game!

As I read back my post, please understand I do love this game but this one aspect really, really bugs me.

[Mister Shine]

I generally just explain it as pillars and sticks. Casts like The Shocking Truth make a 2" diameter pillar of truth that if you're peeking over a 6" roof to look at you still get hit by, but if you try to poke molly back with your stick, which is only 3" long, you don't manage to reach her

[Omenbringer]

I'm sorry but the players of Malifaux have got to be one of the most 'rules-lawery' (real word!) group of gamers I know! In no other game are individual words, phrases, sentences analysed as much as in Malifaux; and yet, a decision has been made to simplify one aspect of the rules (range) to such an extent that they no longer make sense to those very people who you point to in your post above.

Well damn, I don't know whether to be mad or honored by this comment (though there is definately some truth to it ).

[Ratty]

The situation we are talking about in your quote is where a player can't play with nice scenery, so instead of using 3D terrain draws on lets say a whiteboard a shape to represent a hill and marks the Ht. In this situation it would be necessary for a player to whip out a calculator and solve Pythagoras' theorem to calculate the distance. Not to mention the difficulties working ot whether a model had LoS to another model.

So in Malifaux all Hts and distances are abstracted,which means that it plays identically in both situations. And doesn't involve any trigonometry.

This makes some things feel a bit wierd, but this is only natural of n abstraction, but what it does mean you don't need to deal with some of the issues other games have, like partial cover, true LoS that can cause equal amounts of issues. And I would argue that once you get used to it it does make things a lot faster and cuts out a lot of arguments.

[Ausplosions]

I love the fact that range is always measured horizontally, makes range measuring, etc much much simpler.

[BurkerKiing]

I do see your point about the scenery being drawn, but I'm willing to bet that those players are in the minority by a long way - even using books as hills would eliminate any problem with height, calculating the diagonal, or LOS.

Hell if they really need to actually calculate the distance using the horizontal and vertical distance I'll make a table for them!

Partial Cover? We have rules for that in the game. LoS? There are rules for that too. How would measuring the actual distance change any of those rules?

[TheUnseemlyOne]

No, but it can cause arguments if it isn't necessarily clear what part of the model you may need to measure to. Measuring horizontally to the base clears up that particular issue that I've seen in some other games.

[BurkerKiing]

Except distances aren't ALWAYS measured horizontally! Read my post re: Molly vs Dead Rider. If they were all measured the same I could understand it. But how it is measured depends on what the character is doing.

[Gruesome]

I'm sorry but the players of Malifaux have got to be one of the most 'rules-lawery' (real word!) group of gamers I know! In no other game are individual words, phrases, sentences analysed as much as in Malifaux;

I was not especially interested in joining the debate, but I gotta comment on this...

Whatever sort of experience you might claim in other game systems, I can't help but feel like you are not particularly familiar with the communities of 40K, Fantasy, Warma-Hordes and especially not familiar with the CCG universe that is usually personified by Magic the Gathering to say something like you did...

On our worst day, we are a fancy tea party compared to Dakka Dakka...

[BurkerKiing]

Again I would say that if you have LoS to the figure (as stated in the rules - no need to change them) you simple measure base to base as stated in the main rules p40. And if that means you need to measure diagonally you do so. You have already checked the figure is in LoS so that isn't an issue.

Don't forget you don't actually care about the distance - all you care about is whether they are in range or not which usually boils down to are they within x" or not?

---------- Post added at 06:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:00 PM ----------

40K lots, Fantasy lots, Magig CCG some - the others you are correct I don't have much experience. However, my point still stands. I was validating the fact that Malifaux players are more than capable of accepting that distances are not just horizontal or vertical and can be measured diagonally.

My apologies if you are insulted by that comment but that was not its purpose.

[Ratty]

I do see your point about the scenery being drawn, but I'm willing to bet that those players are in the minority by a long way - even using books as hills would eliminate any problem with height, calculating the diagonal, or LOS.

It might be a minority, but that minority does include every Vassal game ever played.

Hell if they really need to actually calculate the distance using the horizontal and vertical distance I'll make a table for them!

I can't help but think having a look up table may slow down things.

Partial Cover? We have rules for that in the game. LoS? There are rules for that too. How would measuring the actual distance change any of those rules?

[Boshea]

It might be a minority, but that minority does include every Vassal game ever played.

The best games I've every played were in the forest of "I suck at drawing".

[edonil]

Could we measure diagonally? Sure. Physically capable of that. But, hey, the rules don't say to do that. And frankly, that's where I'm okay to stop. I don't play this game for hyper realism, I play it because it's fun. If a little weird abstraction results...oh well?

If you don't like it, don't use it within your play group. The rest of us are content with what we've got.

[Ausplosions]

Again I would say that if you have LoS to the figure (as stated in the rules - no need to change them) you simple measure base to base as stated in the main rules p40. And if that means you need to measure diagonally you do so. You have already checked the figure is in LoS so that isn't an issue.

Don't forget you don't actually care about the distance - all you care about is whether they are in range or not which usually boils down to are they within x" or not?

EDIT:

Just realised there is no point in arguing with this guy.

Don't like it, don't play it. But there is a reason.

And it is not because we are "Stupid". Nice way to start out here by the way...

Edited December 29, 2012 by Ausplosions

[DeleteAccount]

My question is at what height of the model am I supposed to start placing my ruler diagonally to determine range? Do I use the height of the base? do I use the top of the model? Do I decide that a ht 2 model should start to be ranged by putting the ruler 2" above the table?

Or do I just cut the crap and do a line? Yeah, I know what I prefer. I might be able to get your point if what you mean is that ranged weapons worked the same as melee where height of the model and height of the scenery difference would reduce the inches of range in a simple mathematical operation (ht 2 model shots something at ht 4 therefore should have 2 less inches of range for example) though in the end I don't think it really adds enough to the game to go full bore with this, I'd rather apply auras and pulses as cylinders than abstract spheres and that a melee spell gets a little bit extra omph out of it's range isn't anything that's reducing my enjoyment of the game anytime soon either (consider it a perk to having to have to cheat everything before the other guy even draws a card to resist). The only time where I can really see the being a real problem is Von Schill and his stupid high mobility plus gun and even then, that's more a problem with Schill than anything.

While we are at it, lets add premeasuring to the game, that destroys pretty much all ranged related debates right there.

[Ausplosions]

My question is at what height of the model am I supposed to start placing my ruler diagonally to determine range? Do I use the height of the base? do I use the top of the model? Do I decide that a ht 2 model should start to be ranged by putting the ruler 2" above the table?

Or do I just cut the crap and do a line? Yeah, I know what I prefer. I might be able to get your point if what you mean is that ranged weapons worked the same as melee where height of the model and height of the scenery difference would reduce the inches of range in a simple mathematical operation (ht 2 model shots something at ht 4 therefore should have 2 less inches of range for example) though in the end I don't think it really adds enough to the game to go full bore with this, I'd rather apply auras and pulses as cylinders than abstract spheres and that a melee spell gets a little bit extra omph out of it's range isn't anything that's reducing my enjoyment of the game anytime soon either (consider it a perk to having to have to cheat everything before the other guy even draws a card to resist). The only time where I can really see the being a real problem is Von Schill and his stupid high mobility plus gun and even then, that's more a problem with Schill than anything.

While we are at it, lets add premeasuring to the game, that destroys pretty much all ranged related debates right there.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Exactly.

You do not take the model into account in this game at all. It is all done by base to base measurement. So the quoted post is spot on in pointing out the problems.

It is actually possible to play this game with bases without models on them.

[Boshea]

Or do I just cut the crap and do a line?

All games can be improved by doing lines. Jokes aside, you illustrate the problem with drawing LoS from models very well.

[BurkerKiing]

OK a couple of issues. Firstly I didn't say you were stupid - I play Malifaux and enjoy the game. In a game of zombies, giant teddy bears and robots I'm not looking for hyper-realism. I'm simply looking for some internal consistency. As the rules (in the rule book) read there is that consistency. It is the FAQ that has introduced the spell vs melee attack wrinkle.

I feel saddened that you feel you can't enter in to a debate with me before you play the "well hey don't play the game" argument. Isn't that how rules get looked at, reflected on, and dare I say changed because they were debated? Is everything npow written canonical?

I totally agree with the fact that it is easier to say Pulses and Auras act as if a cylinder - it makes the game much easier. I also get that melee has a reach. As far as spells go I fail to see what extra complication it adds to the game by measuring diagonally. If you need reference points use the figures bases.

I also agree with Razhem - lets add premeasuring, it won't destroy the game.