Seeing over water

[Roel]

Were's that guy saying "KISS" all the time when you need him?

[Darth Fool]

It would, in my mind, increase the urgency of adding ambush by terrain types. Merman should not be seen way out at see by a bunch of land-lubbin' soldiers, even if the soldiers can see all the way out to the horizon OVER the sea. So, if you want to go that route with visibility, ok, but then add in the ability for units to get ambush in terrains other than forests

[Neoriceisgood]

I like the idea, although sometimes it's realy scary when you go trough narrow passes of swampland water and stuff and get attacked by diverse warriors that were sent in there long before you.

[AT]

KISS. For now, add the water thing. Mermen are irritating anyway.

[turin]

MAYBE add the water thing, but its not a great idea. Don't do it for any other terrain. I don't want another value for each terrain that i have to remember.

And yeah. Where is KISS-guy?

[Boucman]

yes, seeing over water isn't a good idea I think. I understand why you would want to do it, but it introduces sepcial rules and complicated programming for little to nothing

[Elvish_Pillager]

Do add the water thing. The less terrain that blocks sight there is, the less potential for Gryphon Riders to be the ultimate concealed spies.

[turin]

Do add the water thing. The less terrain that blocks sight there is, the less potential for Gryphon Riders to be the ultimate concealed spies.

Terrain does not 'block sight', it makes it so you can't move onto it. Also, shouldn't a player be able to, if he wants to, shell out 32 GP each to get secret coverage of the board? I don't think its really a problem.

And, IMHO, we should not change the game rules to suit the units, we should change the units to suit the rules.

[Elvish_Pillager]

Terrain does not 'block sight', it makes it so you can't move onto it.

Which blocks sight.

I agree about 32g being a lot.

[turin]

Terrain does not 'block sight', it makes it so you can't move onto it.

Which blocks sight.

I agree about 32g being a lot.

but its not like it 'blocks your sight' and more than grass does. Grass allows you to see as far over it as you could move+1, same with all other terrains. It makes no sense to keep this rule but provide exceptions to it. If you are going to have there be exceptions, just get rid of the whole rule and add a new one: units can see everything in a radius of their movement+1. this means they could see over mountains the same as over grass.
So, if you are implementing exceptions, just lose the whole rule.

[joshbosh321]

why are people always arguing about technicalities like the difference between "blocking sight" and "restricting movement which blocks sight"?

[Elvish_Pillager]

A new rule would also have exceptions made. The current rule works well. The flaw in your other argument is that not all units have the same movement rate on the same terrain, so some units can see through terrain others cannot. (This makes gryphons in deep water very silly.)

[turin]

A new rule would also have exceptions made. The current rule works well. The flaw in your other argument is that not all units have the same movement rate on the same terrain, so some units can see through terrain others cannot. (This makes gryphons in deep water very silly.)

Really? What exceptions would have to be made?

My point is, there should be no exceptions to a rule in a TBS, especially one that claims to be KISS. a TBS is founded on logic, and it is illogical to have a rule that can be broken. a rule that can be broken is not a rule at all.

what was my/other people's other argument? I never said people couldn't see through certain terrains, i just said that wasn't a problem. Are you referring to my saying we shouldn't balance rules around units, but units around rules? I don't see how your 'flaw' is a flaw at all.

[Elvish_Pillager]

My point is, there should be no exceptions to a rule in a TBS, especially one that claims to be KISS. a TBS is founded on logic, and it is illogical to have a rule that can be broken. a rule that can be broken is not a rule at all.

ZoC and hit chance, and probably more, are breakable rules.

[turin]

My point is, there should be no exceptions to a rule in a TBS, especially one that claims to be KISS. a TBS is founded on logic, and it is illogical to have a rule that can be broken. a rule that can be broken is not a rule at all.

ZoC and hit chance, and probably more, are breakable rules.

Somewhat, yes. But i would say they bend the rules more than break them. (not that there's a difference).

However, the point is rules should be changed by units, those with specialties, because thats exactly what a specialty is, something that bends the rules. It makes no sense for a terrain to have a specialty though.