Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: exid on January 24, 2016, 08:12:12 AM
-
just to be sure:
can a CL go through a wall (first target the wall and the a creature in the zone behind the wall)?
-
Yes it can. Be aware though that because of the Wall's unique placement between zones, counting range from it may not be entirely intuitive. The 0 to 1 range of Chain Lightning means that the subsequent attack can only hit a target in a zone adjacent to the wall, because 0 would be where the wall is between zones, and 1 would be an adjacent zone (or another wall adjacent to an adjacent zone).
-
Zuberi, you are incorrect.
A while back there was a huge disussion about walls and ranged attacks. The conclusion in the end was that the attacker could "choose" in which zone it was positioned for counting. This way giving ranged (1-2) attacks the possibility to hit a wall adjacent to their zone.
Applying the same rule here, makes it possible to shoot further.
Also "0 would be where the wall is between zones". We never use these spaces to count anything. As far as I know, that space is indefinitely small.
-
ok for the wall-passing (it's what is written, but it's so unnatural, i wanted to be sure)
about range, i see it as Zubery said: the wall is not in the adjacent zone, so the adjacent zone is range 1 from a wall.
about targetting a wall it's written in the rulles supplement that if you want to target a wall you have to target an adjacent zone... so i don't see how to taget an adjacent wall with a 1-2 attack...
-
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=15699.0
-
ok for the wall-passing (it's what is written, but it's so unnatural, i wanted to be sure)
about range, i see it as Zubery said: the wall is not in the adjacent zone, so the adjacent zone is range 1 from a wall.
about targetting a wall it's written in the rulles supplement that if you want to target a wall you have to target an adjacent zone... so i don't see how to taget an adjacent wall with a 1-2 attack...
Like this
-
Zuberi, you are incorrect.
A while back there was a huge disussion about walls and ranged attacks. The conclusion in the end was that the attacker could "choose" in which zone it was positioned for counting. This way giving ranged (1-2) attacks the possibility to hit a wall adjacent to their zone.
Applying the same rule here, makes it possible to shoot further.
Also "0 would be where the wall is between zones". We never use these spaces to count anything. As far as I know, that space is indefinitely small.
You are confusing counting distance for a ranged attack originating from a wall with counting distance for a ranged attack targeting a wall. They are not the same thing. When targeting a wall, you count distances to an adjacent zone exactly how you stated. However, when counting distances FROM a wall, the first zone you encounter is a distance of 1 zone away from the wall.
Thus, if you have a creature in a zone adjacent to the wall, the wall is both 0 zones away from the creature and 1 zone away from the creature when measuring from the creature. However, the creature is exactly 1 zone away from the wall when measuring from the wall. No more and no less. That's why I felt the need to mention this in the first place even though it was not a part of the question. It is quite unintuitive.
-
you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?
-
http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=15699.0
???
but that's against the rulles!
how an attack that cannot hit a close object could hit a close wall?
i read that there was an official Laddinfance-word here, but how is ot explained?
-
you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?
I'm afraid so.
-
you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?
I'm afraid so.
Yeah, well, not gonna happen in my world.. that's just too ridiculous.
but, tbh: never had this occur ever in a game. :)
-
you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?
I'm afraid so.
that's logical: the wall is not in a zone (rulles) and to target it you have to target an adjacent zone.
i see why the adjacent zone is 1 from the wall, but i don't see why the wall is not 0 from the zone...
-
you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?
I'm afraid so.
that's logical: the wall is not in a zone (rulles) and to target it you have to target an adjacent zone.
i see why the adjacent zone is 1 from the wall, but i don't see why the wall is not 0 from the zone...
I apologize, I made a mistake in my distances with my example. The adjacent wall would be at both a distance of 0 and 1 from the zone and either could hit it. The adjacent zone though would be exactly a distance of 1 zone away from the wall. I have fixed my previous post.
-
i see why the adjacent zone is 1 from the wall, but i don't see why the wall is not 0 from the zone...
I apologize, I made a mistake in my distances with my example. The adjacent wall would be at both a distance of 0 and 1 from the zone and either could hit it. The adjacent zone though would be exactly a distance of 1 zone away from the wall. I have fixed my previous post.
So the wall IS 0 from the zone! I understand that (to hit a wall i have to target the adjacent zone, so the adjacent zone is distance 0)
But you say the wall is distance 1 from the zone TOO. How do you explain that?
-
you're kidding right? so counting TO a wall is different then counting FROM a wall?
I'm afraid so.
Yeah, well, not gonna happen in my world.. that's just too ridiculous.
but, tbh: never had this occur ever in a game. :)
The issue here is that the wall is not in a zone. It is between zones. However, distances are only measured in zones. This causes problems when trying to determine where exactly a wall is in relation to other things.
Let's look at measuring distance for effects originating from a wall first. A range of 0 always means it has to target things in the same zone as the source of the effect. In the case of a wall, there is no zone at range 0 because the wall is not in a zone. Meanwhile, a range of 1 always means the zones adjacent to the source of the effect. For a wall, that means the two zones bordering the wall.
Now, when we try to measure the distance for effects targeting a wall we have a different set of issues. If you want to target a wall adjacent to the zone you're in, we have a really serious problem. The wall is not in your zone, so it's not at a range of 0, and it's not in the adjacent zone, so it's not at a range of 1 either. It exists in between these two measurements. Unfortunately, these are the only measurements that we have available due to the way the game is designed. One falls short and the other overshoots, so neither really works and both are equally valid. This was the source of the great debate in the thread that Halewijn linked to. Instead of arbitrarily deciding to use one over the other, the official stance of Arcane Wonders is that since both are equally valid, both are acceptable to use. You can target the wall with both a ranged 0 effect and a ranged 1 effect.
I hope that makes sense. It is a bit of a headache to wrap your head around, I know.
-
i read the rules supplement again, and understand it now...
"the wall must be in LoS and an adjacent zone must be in range"
it seems natural to me that the zone in range must be in LoS... but it's not what this rule says.
a 1-2 range attacker in an adjacent zone sees the wall and has the other adjacent zone in range (without LoS, but that is not a problem!).
:) i understand now!
thanks! (and sorry for the time i needed)
-
I understand what you mean, and apart from it being crazy, your arguments do make sense. :)
However, it does not make sense at all that A-->B is an ok distance for an attack, but B--> A is not.
-
I understand what you mean, and apart from it being crazy, your arguments do make sense. :)
However, it does not make sense at all that A-->B is an ok distance for an attack, but B--> A is not.
Agreed. That's why I've been calling it unintuitive. Illogical may also apply, to draw upon my inner Vulcan. I have had discussions with people regarding these issues before, and I know it is something that irks Arcane Wonders somewhat as well, but right now this is the best solution we've got. Luckily, you don't currently have to worry about effects coming from walls except in the case of Chain Lightning, so that's not a very common headache at least.
-
I understand what you mean, and apart from it being crazy, your arguments do make sense. :)
However, it does not make sense at all that A-->B is an ok distance for an attack, but B--> A is not.
Agreed. That's why I've been calling it unintuitive. Illogical may also apply, to draw upon my inner Vulcan. I have had discussions with people regarding these issues before, and I know it is something that irks Arcane Wonders somewhat as well, but right now this is the best solution we've got. Luckily, you don't currently have to worry about effects coming from walls except in the case of Chain Lightning, so that's not a very common headache at least.
Why don't they just make zone borders be 0.5 zones away from adjacent zones? Or just count to and from adjacent zones for all purposes?
-
If we count walls as half zones it doesn't really fix anything without us dramatically changing the game, because the game currently is not setup to handle half zones. All measurements are in full zones. If we say that a wall is 0.5 zones away from you, that's well and good, but we still don't know which spells can target it. A spell with a range of 0-1 seems like a no brainer, but what about a spell with a range of 0-0? Is the wall too far? How about a range of 1-1? Is the wall too close? If we limit ourselves to only 0-1 range effects it significantly reduces our ability to hit the wall and creates a very unique targeting requirement both to and from the wall where a range of values is needed rather than just a single target value.
Counting the adjacent zones as range 0 from the wall could be done in a few different ways. The most extreme would be to say that the wall exists in both zones, retconning walls out from their in between zone status. This actually has huge repercussions for the game which may not all be immediately obvious. First off it makes walls more vulnerable as they are now subject to zone effects which they were never designed to be. Conversely, this makes zone effects more powerful than they were ever meant to be and undercosted as they are more likely to hit a greater number of targets than they would have before. It would also allow guards to prevent attacks against walls. These are just a few things for starters to illustrate that the game is not designed to handle it.
Less extreme, we could say that the wall is still between zones but that the adjacent zones still count as range 0. This isn't really any simpler of a solution than saying they're range 1 though. In fact, it's more complicated. We still have the problem with distances getting measured differently to and from the wall, to start with. A creature standing adjacent to the wall can hit the wall with a range 1-1 attack, but the wall would not be able to do likewise. On top of the problem not being fixed, we now have to completely redefine what range 0 means when the source doesn't have to be in the same zone any more.
Basically, the issue is complicated and there are no simple solutions. That's not to discourage proposals, just to reaffirm that we aren't completely bonkers, lol.
-
Measuring range for attacks from Walls makes me grumpy. >:(
Consider the following layout, with zones labeled W,X,Y,Z and the wall in red.
[W][X]|[Y][Z]
You, a mage in zone W, can cast Chain Lightning at the wall, because chain lightning has a range of 0-1, and zone X, which the wall borders, is a distance of 1 zone away. Likewise, a mage in zone Z could cast Chain Lightning and hit the wall because of the distance of zone Y. So... it kinda stands to reason that Chain Lightning can be cast from W at the Wall, and then hit a target in Z on the first hop.
Well, ok, maybe.
Attacking Walls
A creature in either of the zones bordering a wall may make a melee attack against that wall. Ranged attacks may target a wall if either of the adjacent zones is in range, and the wall is in LoS. Walls do not occupy a zone, and are not affected by Zone Attacks or spells that target a zone.
Note that you never actually check that a wall is in range of a ranged attack, only that one of the two adjacent zones is. And there's nothing written about attacks where the wall is the source.
COUNTING DISTANCES
When a creature moves, or when you make an attack, you will need to count distance across the arena. The distance, or “range,†is always counted from one adjacent zone to another (only horizontally and vertically, never diagonally).
Sooo.... range is always counted from one adjacent zone to another. There's no legal way to count range for an attack from a zone border.
Now, this is pretty clearly an oversight, and as far as I know, it only effects one card, Chain Lightning.
Basically, it comes down to this:
Can you hit a wall with a 0-0 ranged attack if you're in an adjacent zone? (Yes.)
Can a wall hit anything other than itself with a 0-0 ranged attack?
The available choices right now are either that 0-0 can't hit anything if it comes from a wall, or that a wall in the center of the long edge of the board is only 1 zone from either of that edge's corners. Neither of these are great options, but for now, for attacks where a wall is the source, I believe the rule is that you have to count as if the first zone is at range 1, if for no other reason than that the wall is not in the target's zone, so can't hit it with a range 0-0 attack.
-
that's how i see it too.
-
Measuring range for attacks from Walls makes me grumpy. >:(
Consider the following layout, with zones labeled W,X,Y,Z and the wall in red.
[W][X]|[Y][Z]
You, a mage in zone W, can cast Chain Lightning at the wall, because chain lightning has a range of 0-1, and zone X, which the wall borders, is a distance of 1 zone away. Likewise, a mage in zone Z could cast Chain Lightning and hit the wall because of the distance of zone Y. So... it kinda stands to reason that Chain Lightning can be cast from W at the Wall, and then hit a target in Z on the first hop.
Well, ok, maybe.
Attacking Walls
A creature in either of the zones bordering a wall may make a melee attack against that wall. Ranged attacks may target a wall if either of the adjacent zones is in range, and the wall is in LoS. Walls do not occupy a zone, and are not affected by Zone Attacks or spells that target a zone.
Note that you never actually check that a wall is in range of a ranged attack, only that one of the two adjacent zones is. And there's nothing written about attacks where the wall is the source.
COUNTING DISTANCES
When a creature moves, or when you make an attack, you will need to count distance across the arena. The distance, or “range,†is always counted from one adjacent zone to another (only horizontally and vertically, never diagonally).
Sooo.... range is always counted from one adjacent zone to another. There's no legal way to count range for an attack from a zone border.
Now, this is pretty clearly an oversight, and as far as I know, it only effects one card, Chain Lightning.
Basically, it comes down to this:
Can you hit a wall with a 0-0 ranged attack if you're in an adjacent zone? (Yes.)
Can a wall hit anything other than itself with a 0-0 ranged attack?
The available choices right now are either that 0-0 can't hit anything if it comes from a wall, or that a wall in the center of the long edge of the board is only 1 zone from either of that edge's corners. Neither of these are great options, but for now, for attacks where a wall is the source, I believe the rule is that you have to count as if the first zone is at range 1, if for no other reason than that the wall is not in the target's zone, so can't hit it with a range 0-0 attack.
Hmm. While it works functionally, it's very confusing and unintuitive. But aside from chain lightning, attacks originating from zone borders never attack anything that isn't passing through them. It might be a good idea to change the wording of chain lightning so that the subsequent "strikes" are actually originating from some sort of condition marker, which can move to "a creature or conjuration in its zone, in an adjacent zone, or in a zone border". If something has the marker on it, they receive the attack, and then the marker either moves somewhere else or goes away. And of course the marker can only be placed on a target once per chain lightning card.
Although using a marker like that and having it make the attack seems more like an incantation effect than an attack spell. The effect of chain lightning is kind of like an extended version of sweeping. Maybe you can give it the "multistrike" trait and then say that every time this attack damages a creature or conjuration, you must lower the attack dice and effect die by 1, or the attack ends.
And instead of range 0-1 creature or conjuration, you could have it be range 0-0, say in the card text to CHOOSE either the source of the attack's zone or an adjacent zone or zone border. Target creature or conjuration in that zone or zone border receives the attack, and then if you want to make another strike, it becomes the source of the attack (sort of like a druid using a vine marker to cast her spells originating from them) although you still control the attack they're making (like with reverse attack).
-
but the conjurations attack now!
and i dream of a watter wall in P&S, that would attack 0-1 range (that mean in the adjacents zones) with watter arm that would bring suffocate markers!