Arcane Wonders Forum
Mage Wars => Rules Discussion => Topic started by: Dundee on July 10, 2015, 01:11:00 PM
-
(http://i58.tinypic.com/jju4co.jpg)
Played a game today where situation 2 emerged. Ballista attacked the wall but it did not affect outcome of game so we did not bother to get an answer if it was ok or not.
After game my opponent asked a well know person in the community (no name needed) and came back with the answer that Ballista could not attack the wall.
This lead me to this Question:
Who can/can't attack the wall and why?
Taken from page 17MWC Ranged attacks may target a wall if either of the adjacent zones is in range AND LOS
Taken from Mage_Wars_Official_Rules_and_Codex_Supplement.pdf
In order for a creature to be able to perform a ranged attack against a wall, it must (1) have LoS to the wall
(trace LoS to the center of the border where the wall resides), and (2) be in range of at least one of the zones the wall borders.
This would suggest it's ok for 1 and 3 and not ok for 2 sins Ballista is not a creature. Seems kinda weird if so.
-
According to this thread (http://forum.arcanewonders.com/index.php?topic=15523.0), the Ballista can indeed attack a wall that borders its zone. However, I see what you're saying. A strict reading from your second reference (FAQ) specifies "creature" whereas your first reference (MWC) is referring to a ranged attack from any source. But I think the FAQ is supposed to overwrite the text from the MWC and is intended to cover all ranged attacks.
(As you can see in the thread I linked, I had agreed with you, thinking that Ballista could be countered by a wall just as easily as Akiro's Hammer)
*edit* As per DaveW's post below, I have in the past used melee attacks with a Skeleton Archer to attack a wall bordering his zone, assuming he couldn't shoot the wall as it blocked LoS to a legal ranged shot. But according to others, you don't need LoS to the zone that is at proper range.
-
My answer was: none of these, as they each have a minimum range of one. None of these objects can see into the other zone that the wall borders, and the range to the wall is zero since it borders on the zone that the creatures are in. In no case does any of these have both range and LOS.
Note that the rule mentioned in that other thread specifically states "creature." The ballista is not a creature.
What I had thought on the range rule is that the creature has to both 1) be in range of one of the zones, and 2) have LoS to the same zone. I don't know the intent of the rule, and it may not actually be read two ways, I think.... Others will say that all three can target it....
Here's a silly corollary: If this were a Bloodspine Wall (for example... really, any way that does not block LoS), and if the answer is that the wall can't be targeted because either 1) both Range and LoS has to exist for the same zone, or 2) because the Ballista isn't a Creature... would the attack then be permitted? Both of these restrictions would be ignored if you can see to range 1....
-
I could never imagine not being able to shoot my bow an Arrow at a Wall in real life! I know its a fantasy setting but yeah its there to shoot. A Wall borders both zones and, as noted in Schwenkgotts thread about Walls, is more than one zone away from either a creature or a conjuration (Ballista is not the only Conjuration with a 0-2 ranged attack). Logically a Wall Blocks line of sight into the next zone, because your looking at it (LoS) and you can't see through it, unlike a Bloodspine Wall which you can apparently peer through.
The Hammer on the other hand has a Range of 2-3, this means that a Wall that is placed in front of him is one zone away. This makes good game mechanics sense, however since it is an indirect-fire ranged weapon it should still be able to shoot something "blindly" over the Wall placed in front of it with a negative to the dice roll modifier to take into account the reduced accuracy due to the Wall Placement.
-
I cannot support this Rule from the Supplement, because it's totally nonsense in my eyes. This has to be fixed asap.
Ranged attacks with a minimum range of 1 against a wall bordering the own zone should not be possible, simple as that!
-
I cannot support this Rule from the Supplement, because it's totally nonsense in my eyes. This has to be fixed asap.
Ranged attacks with a minimum range of 1 against a wall bordering the own zone should not be possible, simple as that!
huh? That is just crazy talk! You are literally saying I can run up to a Wall and bash it my sword, a melee attack against an object not in the same zone, but I can't stand back 5 feet from the wall and sling a stone, shot an arrow or bolt at an object once again not in the same zone.
-
Wow, I find this thread extremely interesting. I did not realize there was so much ambiguity here, though I think it is simpler than people are making it. First, the rules in question are basically in regards to how does one target a wall. I think the first thing we need to do therefore is refresh ourselves on the rules for targeting. In order to target an object three things must be true:
1. You have LOS to the object.
2. The object is within range.
3. The object is a legal target for whatever effect you are using on it.
Now, the rules that have been discussed are simply clarifying how these targeting rules are applied with regards to walls. Since walls do not exist within a zone, the normal rules for determining 1 and 2 above can not be used. It doesn't make sense to draw a line to the center of the zone containing a wall, because walls are not within a zone. So, instead we have:
1. Instead of drawing a line to the center of the zone containing the target object, for a wall you draw a line to the center of the zone border containing the wall.
2. Instead of counting the number of zones up to the one containing the target object, you count the number of zones up to a zone adjacent to the target wall.
Now, the problem at hand seems to be the fact that there is no rule to determine which adjacent zone you must use when counting range. It would be much easier if they stated the nearest adjacent zone, which is how I have typically interpreted it. This interpretation would mean that any attack with a minimum range of 1 would be incapable of attacking a wall bordering it's zone. However, rules as written lacks this specification which grants the player the option of which zone they would like to use when counting range. Thus, strictly going by the rules as written, you get to choose whether the bordering wall is 0 zones away or 1 zone away whenever you target it.
This is not something I realized until now, and is an interesting spin on things. Up until now I've been considering walls a paradox, because measuring distance to them using the nearest adjacent zone would mean that the wall is closer to the attacker than the attacker is to the wall. Because, measuring distance to a bordering wall from an attacking creature (or conjuration) would result in 0 zones away (the nearest zone adjacent to the wall is the one your creature's in) while measuring from the same wall to the same creature would be 1 zone away (the zone adjacent to the wall).
Now, instead we have a paradox similar to Schrodinger's Cat, where the wall is both 0 and 1 zone away from you, and you don't know which until you decide to target it, lol.
-
Or, better yet, it's both at once.
-
Am I the only one annoyed by people's instance on saying that walls are "in" a zone? Just me? Ok, then. Carry on.
-
I cannot support this Rule from the Supplement, because it's totally nonsense in my eyes. This has to be fixed asap.
Ranged attacks with a minimum range of 1 against a wall bordering the own zone should not be possible, simple as that!
huh? That is just crazy talk! You are literally saying I can run up to a Wall and bash it my sword, a melee attack against an object not in the same zone, but I can't stand back 5 feet from the wall and sling a stone, shot an arrow or bolt at an object once again not in the same zone.
All I'm saying is: If i cannot sling a stong on a target that is standing right beside me, then I should not be able to sling a stone on a target, that is only somewhat further away (for the same reasons). It just feels more consistent to me, if minimum range works the same for all things, that are in the same zone (and walls can be understood as in the same zone, because they can be melee attacked)
Using math to explain the contrary (walls are 1.5 zones away = between two zones) does not make me feel comfortable and I would imagin that new players, who think Mage Wars is complicated because of all the traits etc, feel exactly the same.
-
This 1.5 zones business is wrong, wrong, wrong. Distance in mage wars is a step function, and not subject to mean averaging. It'd confuse a new player because it's wrong. Did I mention it's wrong?
-
...walls can be understood as in the same zone
Only if you completely ignore the rulebook. The rules are very clear that walls exist between the zones. They are not in any zones what-so-ever, and to say otherwise is to ignore the frame work of the game. You are then playing by house rules.
-
No I'm not. Melee attacks work like you can attack whatever is in your zone. And that's one of the most basic rules of Mage Wars at all! Following this, walls can be considered as in two zones for attacking purposes, because melee creatures in both zones can attack them.
It would be SO MUCH simpler to understand and to play, if this would apply also for ranged attacks in a logical way as discribed above.
And btw. I would always play by house rules, if i experienced that they are just better than official rules. In this case, they are definitely.
-
All I'm saying is: If i cannot sling a stone on a target that is standing right beside me, then I should not be able to sling a stone on a target, that is only somewhat further away (for the same reasons). It just feels more consistent to me, if minimum range works the same for all things, that are in the same zone (and walls can be understood as in the same zone, because they can be melee attacked)
Think of it this way.
The reason why you cant sling the stone vs an enemy creature in the same zone is that he is actively engaging you in combat, walls do not. And the ballista could technically attack a creature rubbing its chest on the tip of the arrow but are unable to due the the clumsiness of aiming it so it will not happen. A wall on the other hand is a big thing that doesn't move. And the fact that you can melee attack (range 0) vs a wall should not be a factor here sins the creature have legs to move into position for the attack.
I prefer to think of walls more like the way we do with flying creatures. Flying creatures exist in the zone but at the same time above it and can therefor be target by range attacks with min range higher than 0. I see walls in a similar way. They don't exist in the zone but in the outskirt of the zone, and if a creature can move in position to attack it with melee it can with ranged as well.
The wording in supplement is weird and should be changed to same wording used with ranged attacks vs flying creatures.
"Any ranged attack can always target a wall bordering the same zone."
This change would also give min range 2+ the ability to attack the wall but that's fine cause if you cant shoot over the wall you will hit the wall.
-
It would help if range to walls was traced using LOS rules (i.e. traced to center of wall) and range was lowest number of zones traced THROUGH. This prevents tracing through a blood spine wall and using the resulting higher range to get around a range attack with a minimum range greater than zero.
-
I believe you can just choose if it is 0 or 1 zones away. If you want to shoot, then you choose 1 and you can attack the wall.
I also think this is in the theme of the game, a ranger that cannot shoot someone in the same zone is because they don't give him enough time to "draw his arrow". The wall on the other hand is not giving him any pressure so he can take his time.
-
I'm not even sure if it makes sense thematically for most ranged attacks to work against walls. Has anyone ever destroyed a wall slinging stones, or broken down a wall with bow and arrows? Spear? If it wouldn't break the game in some way, I could see a ruling that makes walls immune to creature-based non-spell ranged attacks. Of course, you need things like Force Hammer and Akito's Hammer to work on walls (at legal range).
-
It's not only about time to draw an arrow but space required to release it. The energy stored up in the string is only transferred into the arrow when it returns to its resting state.
I think most creatures have a melee attack for a reason. The entire world seems to be well trained in short swords. If I had to choose between a 10 dice high powered rifle shot vs my 1 dice shovel to get through a wall, I'd save my bullets and roll up my sleeves.
If I was a goblin grunt I'd dig really slowly so I don't need to face the opposing mage. Perhaps he has job openings if I live...
-
I'm not even sure if it makes sense thematically for most ranged attacks to work against walls. Has anyone ever destroyed a wall slinging stones, or broken down a wall with bow and arrows? Spear? If it wouldn't break the game in some way, I could see a ruling that makes walls immune to creature-based non-spell ranged attacks. Of course, you need things like Force Hammer and Akiro's Hammer to work on walls (at legal range).
Ugh, If we apply those rules, I guess we could say the same about hand held clubs and swords and just make walls immune to all non-magic attacks. If this were the case walls would need to be much higher in Level, and cost much mana or just much weaker Armor & Life wise. This is a totally different topic than target a wall with a ranged attack.
Looking at the cards in question here all Attack spells, other than three zone attack spells, all have a 0 in its range. So they would not be affected by any change in this rule.
Listing Creatures, Conjurations, and Equipment that would be affected by this rule change:
Goblin Slinger, Grimson, Deadeye, Sniper, Ludwig Boltstorm, Bloodwave Greatbow, Flaming Hellion, Gorgon Archer, Royal Archer, Skeletal Archer, Anvil Throne Crossbowman, Ballista, Hunting Bow, Ivarium Longbow, and Staff of the Arcanum: Arcane Blast attack. So 13 objects in question out of 52 objects with Ranged in the AttackBar, also I didn't check to see if all 52 could legally target a Wall. This change as proposed is a large amount of power creep for Walls and for these 13 in question makes them even weaker, making many of them completely unplayable, much in the same fashion Wall of Fog totally destroys the Hammer.
What is broken here that we are trying to fix? There are multiple rules in game that don't line up with logic or theme, this is one of them. My question once again, what is broken? Remember everything in the Arena other than the Mage are magical creations and we use Armor and Life to determine how long and hard it is to destroy that creation.
It's not only about time to draw an arrow but space required to release it. The energy stored up in the string is only transferred into the arrow when it returns to its resting state.
I think most creatures have a melee attack for a reason. The entire world seems to be well trained in short swords. If I had to choose between a 10 dice high powered rifle shot vs my 1 dice shovel to get through a wall, I'd save my bullets and roll up my sleeves.
If I was a goblin grunt I'd dig really slowly so I don't need to face the opposing mage. Perhaps he has job openings if I live...
If we start applying this logic how would an archer destroy a Temple of Light which is made out of Stone or other objects made of stone. Most arrows against Iron Plate will just bounce off. etc. etc., I can go on for days and days about IRL logic not applying in this Game. Oh and don't forget Claws to the list with Short Swords.
It would help if range to walls was traced using LOS rules (i.e. traced to center of wall) and range was lowest number of zones traced THROUGH. This prevents tracing through a blood spine wall and using the resulting higher range to get around a range attack with a minimum range greater than zero.
This makes good sense, as you would always trace through a minimum of one zone. It is simple, concise, and very elegant.
-
No I'm not. Melee attacks work like you can attack whatever is in your zone. And that's one of the most basic rules of Mage Wars at all! Following this, walls can be considered as in two zones for attacking purposes, because melee creatures in both zones can attack them.
But that is not how the rules work......
Melee attacks targeting a wall is a special rule, much like how ranged attacks ignore minimum range when targeting flyers in the same zone.
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, the wall is
in LoS. Walls do not occupy a zone, and are not affected by
Zone Attacks or spells that target a zone."
See walls don't occupy a zone. For melee attacks to be able to target walls you have to have a special rule defined for that interaction. When teaching new players basic rules you must stress that walls are not in zones and are not effected by zone attacks and so on.
As Kich very well knows melee attacks technically have a 0.5 range :P
LOL! J/K ;P
LINE OF SIGHT
"In order to cast a spell or make a ranged attack
against a target, you must have a clear “line of sight”
(called “LoS” for short). Normally, a creature has
LoS to the entire game board, even into zones that
are out of range. But, some walls block LoS. You
cannot cast a spell or make a ranged attack through
a wall that blocks LoS.
When you count range to your target, you must
also check if you have clear line of sight (LoS).
Draw an imaginary straight line from the center of
the attacker’s or caster’s zone to the center of the
target’s zone. LoS is blocked if the line crosses
through a zone border that has a wall on it with the
blocks LoS trait. Walls do not normally block LoS if
the line crosses diagonally through the corner of a
wall border, as long as at least one side of that
corner does not block LoS. When drawing LoS to a
wall, draw it to the center of the zone border"
-
Walls do not occupy a zone
Zone borders are not considered to be inside the zones they border
The rules are quite clear and unambiguous about this point, Schwenkgott. Walls are not within any zones, much less two. The fact that melee attacks can target adjacent zone borders shows that melee attacks are not limited to within their zone. The specific rules allowing this trumps the general rules for melee attacks and the language is unambiguous in that the melee attacks are able to reach the wall from a bordering, i.e. adjacent, zone. They are not a sign that the wall is within the zone, and there is in fact no such sign that such is the case. The rules are crystal clear that walls exist outside of zones and to say otherwise is ignorant of these facts, and wrong.
If you want to play by a houserule, then you are free to do so. However, I caution that the price and power of walls is balanced around the fact that they exist outside of zones. Changing this will have several impacts on the game, including allowing guards to protect walls and zone attacks to hit walls.
It would help if range to walls was traced using LOS rules (i.e. traced to center of wall) and range was lowest number of zones traced THROUGH. This prevents tracing through a blood spine wall and using the resulting higher range to get around a range attack with a minimum range greater than zero.
Currently it would seem that you can do this trick with any wall, as LOS and Range are different metrics and not dependent of each other. The rules for targeting are that it must be within LOS and within Range, but you don't need LOS to measure Range.
Regardless, I would not be upset by such a rule change. It is actually how I've been playing walls up until this point because it never occurred to me that you could choose which zone you wanted to measure range to. It does not completely solve the paradoxes inherent to walls though.
-
I don't see a problem with how walls work with a range >1. Just chatting.
-
It will have no impact, because my rule is more logical than the rule in the supplement... All you are bringing to the discussion is "it's in the rules" but you don't refer to the fact that this rule is bad and makes no sense :)
Do we are stuck at this point and i hope to see so.ething from official side here.
-
I think your proposed rule is just as bad, and breaks more than it fixes. I see it as illogical not being able to shoot a wall bordering the zone you are in with a 1 Ranged Attack.
-
I see it as illogical not being able to shoot a wall bordering the zone you are in with a 1 Ranged Attack.
If someone official would just make a statement allowing this in the Rules and Codex, then I think everyone would be happy.
-
this rule is bad and makes no sense
That is your subjective opinion and is debatable. The game is designed around the idea that walls exist outside of zones, and I don't think your suggestion makes any more sense than the current rules. As sIKE said, your suggestion breaks more than it fixes.
I really do appreciate that you want as simple and intuitive of a rules system as possible. I agree with that goal. However, we don't want to risk breaking the game we love by trying to rewrite large sections of the rules. The game has been designed with walls existing outside of zones, and it does make sense within the framework of that design. Changing that would be an unacceptable and reckless amount of errata, in my opinion.
Currently, the only issues with walls is regarding the complications of measuring range to and from those walls. If you don't like the current range rules, then how about we focus on ways to improve them rather than trying to redefine what it means to be a wall entirely?
-
It would help if range to walls was traced using LOS rules (i.e. traced to center of wall) and range was lowest number of zones traced THROUGH. This prevents tracing through a blood spine wall and using the resulting higher range to get around a range attack with a minimum range greater than zero.
Currently it would seem that you can do this trick with any wall, as LOS and Range are different metrics and not dependent of each other. The rules for targeting are that it must be within LOS and within Range, but you don't need LOS to measure Range.
Regardless, I would not be upset by such a rule change. It is actually how I've been playing walls up until this point because it never occurred to me that you could choose which zone you wanted to measure range to. It does not completely solve the paradoxes inherent to walls though.
I think blood spine wall added some inconsistency since you can trace LOS through the wall itself and the adjacent zone is still considered adjacent to that wall making it "in range". So now you can have a situation where the range to a wall is 0 and 1. I don't think this was possible with all the other walls.
-
Regarding simplicity and consistency:
Upon reading the rules (but not FAQ), we thought a creature (or other source of attack) couldn't use a ranged attack with min range 1 against an LoS-blocking wall bordering its zone because it didn't have LoS to a zone at range 1 that the wall bordered. Hence, I used a Skeletal Archer's melee attack on the wall. This does have strange interactions with Bloodspine Wall and Wall of Pikes, but we didn't see that as a big issue. This is also why I didn't see Ballista as any more powerful than Akiro's Hammer, having the same counter by putting a wall next to it.
I find the ruling of needing LoS to the wall but not to the zone that is at the required range to be very unintuitive and contrary to the general rules of the game... but the FAQ makes a clear ruling. The only problem remaining is that upon reading the rules only, a player (like me) might think it's fairly clear and not bother to check the FAQ to see that the opposite ruling is correct.
-
I am curious how it could be any simpler?
Does the source have an uninterrupted LOS?
Is the wall bordering a zone that is in range of the attack?
Resolve.
Regarding simplicity and consistency:
I find the ruling of needing LoS to the wall but not to the zone that is at the required range to be very unintuitive and contrary to the general rules of the game... but the FAQ makes a clear ruling. The only problem remaining is that upon reading the rules only, a player (like me) might think it's fairly clear and not bother to check the FAQ to see that the opposite ruling is correct.
The bold part is also incorrect as the wall is not at a zone. Yes it is splitting hairs, but it is a very important hair to split.
as per the rules:
Blocks Line of Sight (LoS):
This symbol indicates that the wall prevents creatures on one side of the wall from seeing anything on the other side. Abilities and spells cannot target any object or zone that is on the other sideof a wall that blocks LoS. Walls never block LoS to or from any creature with the Flying trait.Note: The walls around the outside of the arena have the Passage Blocked and Blocks LoS traits. They are considered high enough to affect Flying creatures too.
The wall is not on the other side and LoS only prevents targeting to objects on the other side of the wall, not the wall itself.
Here is how the discussion in the OP plays out:
I want to target the wall of Bones with my Ballista attack.
You dont have LoS to the zone.
I dont need it, I have LoS to the wall
But the wall blocks range attacks into this zone.
False, LoS prevents targeting into that zone, which I am not doing because the wall is not in the zone
The reason this works as a block for Akiro's hammer is because a gremlin got into the printer and the hammer's range is 2-3.
H W _ | _ | C |
H: Hammer
W: LOS blocking Wall
C: Conjuration
In this instance the wall bordering a zone in the range window of hammers attack and is not a valid target.
H | _ W _ | C |
In this example that is not the case and the hammer could attack the wall, assuming it is a corporeal conjuration
-
It will have no impact, because my rule is more logical than the rule in the supplement... All you are bringing to the discussion is "it's in the rules" but you don't refer to the fact that this rule is bad and makes no sense :)
Well this is a Rules discussion forum so lets discuss
You're gonna have to walk me through that logic.
Also you need to keep in mind that "distance" is only defined in mage wars as number of zones, so there is no "right beside me" or "somewhat further away". There is only zones, which themselves are undefined, they could contain 10 creatures or 100(in a very big multiplayer game :P).
Unless you are trying to say that the wall prevents targeting because it blocks LoS to itself, which it could indeed do if walls were changed to be put into zones (very illogical)
-
Gentlemen, right now I can only say how I've always played it, which from the sound of it may or may not be correct. I've played it so that a minimum range one would be able to attack a wall bordering its zone, because they had LOS to the target and the adjacent zone was in ranged.
Now clearly, in our attempt to clean up something else, we have muddied that particular rules interaction. I will be consulting Bryan about this to see how he meant for it to actually work. However at the moment that will take a little while as Bryan is indisposed.
Until then, it would seem there is no more to say on this issue. sorry for the wait.
-
I am curious how it could be any simpler?
Does the source have an uninterrupted LOS?
Is the wall bordering a zone that is in range of the attack?
Resolve.
I understand how the rule stated in the FAQ is applied. That's not the problem here. The problem is it seems unintuitive given how attacks usually work. Intuitively, and according to the rules, you can only attack a target in a zone that is at a range listed for the attack (0 for melee, stated range for your ranged attack) AND to which you have line of sight. That usually involves one measurement: to the zone that contains the target. Walls aren't in zones so they are an exception with their own ruling. All that is fine. What gets weird is that a ranged attack with range limitation 1-X can target the same object that could also be targeted by a melee attack, which inherently has a range restriction of 0-0. Then one can argue that's fine because the wall isn't in a zone, it's on the border between zones that are at range 0 and range 1. Ok, that's still fine. Then what gets weird is I can use a range 1-X attack even if I don't have LoS to any objects at range 1 (or beyond). Attacking a wall can require 2 separate measurements: one for LoS to the wall, and another for range to a zone. Intuitively you might measure LoS and range to a zone the walls borders to determine if the attack is legal (as you would for any other type of target), but this is apparently wrong.
Flying is already an exception to this rule, but it makes sense thematically since it's easy to imagine the target might be range 1 (or further) vertically above the arena floor. For me at least, It's less easy to imagine attacking something that's closer than the minimum range measured horizontally parallel to the floor.
As somebody else suggested, think of walls as being at range 0.5. Melee attacks, then, have range 0-0.5. Ok, but to be consistent with the current rules about walls that block LoS, ranged weapons that say range 1-X actually have a range of 0.5-X. That seems odd since the stated ranged of melee and "range 1-X" attacks don't seem to overlap... but with walls (and flying creatures) they do.
I don't have a gripe against the current rule. It's easy to follow. A bigger problem is that it isn't terribly easy for new players to find because new players tend to check the core set rules first, then maybe check the Codex as a reference (especially for key words), but probably don't check the more extensive FAQ unless there's an ambiguous case. From the rules and codex, it would at first seem that a range 1-X attack cannot target an LoS-blocking wall. This a new player may not bother to check the FAQ to find the current correct ruling. Perhaps the targeting rule for walls should be made more clear in the rules to prevent new players from missing it. Perhaps adding the following statement would be sufficient:
"If an attack has LoS to a wall and has range (but not necessarily LoS) to either zone the wall borders, then it can make an attack against that wall."
-
Royal Archer has minimum range of 1
A Wall bordering her zone is either at range 0 (if it counts a part of the same zone) or it is somewhat 0,5 (if you consider a wall inbetween two zones)
In both cases, the minimum range of 1 is preventing an attack.
3 sentences to summon up how this should work in my eyes. There is no way to put more logic into this.
-
There is always a way to put more logic into something.
-
3 sentences to summon up how this should work in my eyes.
Measuring range in Mage Wars deals in whole numbers only, despite the wall existing between two whole numbers in actuality. Therefore, the wall exists at both range 0 and range 1 for purposes of measurement because it's actual distance is not possible to measure with the tools available. If your attack is capable of hitting an object at either of these ranges, it can hit the wall.
-
Yes, and why not always using the shortest range for this issue? using the longest range would mean the arrow is flying over the wall, turns around and hit the wall from the other side.
I hope, we see a change of rules here in the future.
-
3 sentences to summon up how this should work in my eyes.
Measuring range in Mage Wars deals in whole numbers only, despite the wall existing between two whole numbers in actuality. Therefore, the wall exists at both range 0 and range 1 for purposes of measurement because it's actual distance is not possible to measure with the tools available. If your attack is capable of hitting an object at either of these ranges, it can hit the wall.
The fact that this bolded statement isn't quite true (or at least is decieving) is the source of much of the debate. You can hit the wall with a range 1-X attack even if you can't hit an object in either of the zones it borders - that is, the closer zone is too close (range 0) and you don't have LoS to the further zone (because wall).
-
Royal Archer has minimum range of 1
A Wall bordering her zone is either at range 0 (if it counts a part of the same zone) or it is somewhat 0,5 (if you consider a wall inbetween two zones)
In both cases, the minimum range of 1 is preventing an attack.
3 sentences to summon up how this should work in my eyes. There is no way to put more logic into this.
No. A wall bordering her zone is not at any range at all. N/A: Not Applicable. NaN:Not a Number. You cannot measure the distance to a wall with range. Range is always zones. No zone = no range. You can only measure distance to the zones adjacent to a wall.
The only reason you can attack a wall at all is that there are special wall rules that let you:
1. Make melee attacks against walls that border your zone
2. Make ranged attacks against walls for which you have LoS and one of the two adjacent zones in range.
Any discussion of range to the wall is counter to the rules.
Now, if we want to make things more complicated, measuring range FROM a wall (e.g. Chain Lightning) is something that we must do sometimes, and the rule seems to be that either of the zones adjacent to a wall are at range 1.
-
Royal Archer has minimum range of 1
A Wall bordering her zone is either at range 0 (if it counts a part of the same zone) or it is somewhat 0,5 (if you consider a wall inbetween two zones)
In both cases, the minimum range of 1 is preventing an attack.
3 sentences to summon up how this should work in my eyes. There is no way to put more logic into this.
No. A wall bordering her zone is not at any range at all. N/A: Not Applicable. NaN:Not a Number. You cannot measure the distance to a wall with range. Range is always zones. No zone = no range. You can only measure distance to the zones adjacent to a wall.
The only reason you can attack a wall at all is that there are special wall rules that let you:
1. Make melee attacks against walls that border your zone
2. Make ranged attacks against walls for which you have LoS and one of the two adjacent zones in range.
Any discussion of range to the wall is counter to the rules.
Now, if we want to make things more complicated, measuring range FROM a wall (e.g. Chain Lightning) is something that we must do sometimes, and the rule seems to be that either of the zones adjacent to a wall are at range 1.
What? How is it range 1? That's 0!
-
I was working off memory. That one might not actually have been answered publicly yet, oops. :-\
I do not actually remember, now, how that was ruled.
-
I was working off memory. That one might not actually have been answered publicly yet, oops. :-\
I do not actually remember, now, how that was ruled.
The chain lighting bit?
I think it was posted in the "will never matter in a game of Mage Wars ever" forum :P
-
3 sentences to summon up how this should work in my eyes.
Measuring range in Mage Wars deals in whole numbers only, despite the wall existing between two whole numbers in actuality. Therefore, the wall exists at both range 0 and range 1 for purposes of measurement because it's actual distance is not possible to measure with the tools available. If your attack is capable of hitting an object at either of these ranges, it can hit the wall.
The fact that this bolded statement isn't quite true (or at least is decieving) is the source of much of the debate. You can hit the wall with a range 1-X attack even if you can't hit an object in either of the zones it borders - that is, the closer zone is too close (range 0) and you don't have LoS to the further zone (because wall).
Notice I did not say that the attack needed to be capable of hitting an object in the zone, just at that range. We are just discussing range. LOS is a different metric all together, and while I don't think you're claiming the wall blocks LOS to itself, I will remind you that to check this you need to draw an unobstructed line to the center of the Zone Border. Which we can easily do in this case.
Royal Archer has minimum range of 1
A Wall bordering her zone is either at range 0 (if it counts a part of the same zone) or it is somewhat 0,5 (if you consider a wall inbetween two zones)
In both cases, the minimum range of 1 is preventing an attack.
3 sentences to summon up how this should work in my eyes. There is no way to put more logic into this.
No. A wall bordering her zone is not at any range at all. N/A: Not Applicable. NaN:Not a Number. You cannot measure the distance to a wall with range. Range is always zones. No zone = no range. You can only measure distance to the zones adjacent to a wall.
The only reason you can attack a wall at all is that there are special wall rules that let you:
1. Make melee attacks against walls that border your zone
2. Make ranged attacks against walls for which you have LoS and one of the two adjacent zones in range.
Any discussion of range to the wall is counter to the rules.
Now, if we want to make things more complicated, measuring range FROM a wall (e.g. Chain Lightning) is something that we must do sometimes, and the rule seems to be that either of the zones adjacent to a wall are at range 1.
This is entirely accurate and might be a better explanation than anything I attempted. Also, you are correct that the zones adjacent to the wall are considered range 1 when measuring from the wall. They follow the normal rules for measuring distance, where the zones adjacent to the source of the attack are considered range 1. It doesn't matter if the attacker is from an adjacent zone or an adjacent zone border.
-
Yes, and why not always using the shortest range for this issue? using the longest range would mean the arrow is flying over the wall, turns around and hit the wall from the other side.
I hope, we see a change of rules here in the future.
That is not at all what this is representing. You are incapable of measuring distances outside of zones within the framework of the game. Since walls exist outside of zones, we have rules for approximating the range, and both possible approximations are equally acceptable. Neither is more valid than the other, so you can choose which you prefer and they both represent the same thing. Hitting the wall in a straight line from the source of the attack.
-
For clarity, a ranged attack with minimum range of 1 could target a wall on the border of its zone as the other zone would be within range.
-
Hey guys! I've been following this for awhile. Just wondering if Laddin's last post settles this. Would really like to know for certain that a range 1 can hit a wall in front of its face.
-
Yes, Laddinfance is an official Arcane Wonders response and settles the debate. I actually discussed this with him at GenCon. The official answer is that both distances are equally valid and you can choose either zone when measuring. The result is that a range 1 attack can hit a wall bordering the attacker's zone.
Also, in case it needs said, it is official that distance is a separate measurement from Line of Sight. So the fact that you don't have line of sight to the zone on the far side of the wall, does not prevent you from measuring distance to that zone. You still have Line of Sight to the Wall itself, and your choice of zones for approximating distance to the wall is valid.
-
Cool! Thanks for the quick reply
-
My post should settle this, for now.
-
My post should settle this, for now.
A sad day for using walls as a strategy against minimum range 1 archers. :(
That would mean that Akiros Hammer can also hit a wall just one zone away but not adjacent to the hammers zone using the same rule. Does that sound right?
-
That would mean that Akiros Hammer can also hit a wall just one zone away but not adjacent to the hammers zone using the same rule. Does that sound right?
Yes.
-
My post should settle this, for now.
A sad day for using walls as a strategy against minimum range 1 archers. :(
There is always another way! It does mess up some of my strategies as well.
-
Interesting discussion - continue please ;D
*munches popcorn*
-
It's the most logical solution. (And how we house ruled it for a very long time)
-
Yes, Laddinfance is an official Arcane Wonders response and settles the debate. I actually discussed this with him at GenCon. The official answer is that both distances are equally valid and you can choose either zone when measuring. The result is that a range 1 attack can hit a wall bordering the attacker's zone.
Also, in case it needs said, it is official that distance is a separate measurement from Line of Sight. So the fact that you don't have line of sight to the zone on the far side of the wall, does not prevent you from measuring distance to that zone. You still have Line of Sight to the Wall itself, and your choice of zones for approximating distance to the wall is valid.
We have a new case since this ruling was handed down that I discovered in recent play this weekend. I wanted to check our interpretation of the Attack spell Luminous Blast. It is a Holy, Light Ranged Attack with Min-Max range of 0-0.
We played that this 5 dice spell could attack Walls in the adjacent zone border, which proved a very effective method to help take down walls. However, on reflection after the game I discovered this discussion folder and the following statement on p.14 of the Rules Supplement.
"Zone borders are not considered to be inside the zones they border, so a Zone attack will not affect walls."
Before Luminous Blast was released the only Ranged Attacks that had a range of 0-0 were Zone attacks that targeted a Zone. So the question is does the quoted statement above apply to ANY Ranged Attack with a 0-0 range or just to Ranged Attacks that Target a Zone and use the Zone Attack icon?
Did we play Luminous Blast correctly?
-
Luminous Blast can absolutely be used to attack walls bordering your zone. While walls are NOT in your zone, they also are not 1 zone away. The situation is exactly the same as it has been described earlier in the thread, that walls exist in a nebulous in-between state where counting them as range 0 is equally as valid as range 1, which is to say neither is actually correct but we don't have another way of measuring range. So you still pick one of the zones bordering the wall, even if the one you choose happens to be the one you're standing in. That's fine.
-
Luminous Blast can absolutely be used to attack walls bordering your zone. While walls are NOT in your zone, they also are not 1 zone away. The situation is exactly the same as it has been described earlier in the thread, that walls exist in a nebulous in-between state where counting them as range 0 is equally as valid as range 1, which is to say neither is actually correct but we don't have another way of measuring range. So you still pick one of the zones bordering the wall, even if the one you choose happens to be the one you're standing in. That's fine.
So while the ranged zone attack does target an adjacent zone bordering a wall it does not attack the wall because of the rule that states zone attacks only attack objects within a zone. Understood.
I wonder why the need for the zone attack exception for walls? Seems like a candidate for rules simplification that would not impact game balance. If zone attacks could attack all objects within or adjacent to a targeted zone it seems more consistent with the range to zone to wall discussion in this folder.
Thanks!