Ranged Attack vs Wall bordering same zone

[Halewijn]

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.

[iNano78]

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).

[C Savy]

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...

[sIKE]

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.

[Kharhaz]

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

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"

[Zuberi]

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.

[C Savy]

I don't see a problem with how walls work with a range >1. Just chatting.

[Schwenkgott]

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.

[sIKE]

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.

[DaveW]

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.

[Zuberi]

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?

[wtcannonjr]

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.

[iNano78]

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.

[Kharhaz]

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

[Kharhaz]

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 ).

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)