Newbie's Knock back path question 2

[catosal]

sorry, another newbie's question goes..

http://pds18.egloos.com/pds/201006/29/05/e0096505_4c29696d33853.jpg


in that pics, which knock back path or pathes right?

Blue one is possible ? and how about yellow one ?

[Harpua]

sorry, another newbie's question goes..

http://pds18.egloos.com/pds/201006/29/05/e0096505_4c29696d33853.jpg


in that pics, which knock back path or pathes right?

Blue one is possible ? and how about yellow one ?
Blue or Red is fine as those are the first two squares through which a line drawn from HB to W (and continuing) will pass.

[catosal]

Blue or Red is fine as those are the first two squares through which a line drawn from HB to W (and continuing) will pass.
thank u for answer. but still wonder. how do you draw a line from HB to W to determine knock back path?

is it the same way of LOF ?

[Questions]

Blue or Red is fine as those are the first two squares through which a line drawn from HB to W (and continuing) will pass.

I totally agree with your answer, but the rule as written doesn't really tell you that.

If the knock back path is not a straight line, the attacker may choose either of the first two squares the line of fire intersects if extended beyond the target to establish the knock back path.

In this example, the first two squares the line of fire intersects if extended beyond the target are both marked with the red line. The LOF never intersects a square marked by the blue arrow.

[Harpua]

I totally agree with your answer, but the rule as written doesn't really tell you that.



In this example, the first two squares the line of fire intersects if extended beyond the target are both marked with the red line. The LOF never intersects a square marked by the blue arrow.

Good call...interesting.

[mountaindood]

I hope with the new rule, there will only be one possible path, ever.
Halo Actionclix had a knockback rule like that, IIRC.
It's been awhile since I played it.

*The Haloclix wording used "If two squares are equally close to
the line of fire, the attacker’s player chooses how the target
will be knocked back."

Like I always say, "Everything's a puzzle." :)
Rep to you all for working this out.

[Questions]

I hope with the new rule, there will only be one possible path, ever.
Halo Actionclix had a knockback rule like that, IIRC.
It's been awhile since I played it.

*The Haloclix wording used "If two squares are equally close to
the line of fire, the attacker’s player chooses how the target
will be knocked back."

Like I always say, "Everything's a puzzle." :)
Rep to you all for working this out.

That doesn't sound like it only has one possible path...that said a one possible path rule might be a good rule. And it could work with a slight change to the current wording:

If the characters are not adjacent, the knock back path is the first square the line of fire intersects if extended beyond the target, even if on a diagonal.

This is pretty easy to understand, not too difficult to figure out, and only allows one knock back path.

[mountaindood]

In a nutshell, I like the changes that have been made.
There has been a tremendous effort to simplify the rules overall, and
it's muchly appreciated.

[necrodog]

I like the rule as written, although I can't think off-hand of where you'll ever get a diagonal path unless the shot is on a straight diagonal.

[theavengerthor]

Good call...interesting.

So, Harpua, does this mean that your initial answer may be wrong, based on the new Knockback wording? Looking at which 2 squares the path extends to does seem to indicate that there is only one choice in this case. Which makes perfect sense to me. What's the word, my good man?

[Harpua]

I like the rule as written, although I can't think off-hand of where you'll ever get a diagonal path unless the shot is on a straight diagonal.
Well, try explaining what you do here:
. . . . .
. 2 . . .
. . 1 . .
. . T . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . A .
. . . . .
The first square is 1, the second square is 2.
So, Harpua, does this mean that your initial answer may be wrong, based on the new Knockback wording? Looking at which 2 squares the path extends to does seem to indicate that there is only one choice in this case. Which makes perfect sense to me. What's the word, my good man?
The intention of the rewrite was to eliminate the third choice but still leave an option of two. Apparently the mathematics of it all got a little out of wack.

But, yeah, I'd say that you get one choice.

[vlad3theimpaler]

Blue or Red is fine as those are the first two squares through which a line drawn from HB to W (and continuing) will pass.

That reminds me, where did that line of fire chart come from that you have in your binder? Not the chart in the back of the rulebook, but the series of diagrams showing what squares a line will pass through to get from point a to point b.

[Harpua]

That reminds me, where did that line of fire chart come from that you have in your binder? Not the chart in the back of the rulebook, but the series of diagrams showing what squares a line will pass through to get from point a to point b.

I'll have to check. It was created by MadWuher. I got it as a stand-alone document, but I couldn't find it that way last time I looked.

It is available inside SuperGENE's compendium.

[necrodog]

Well, try explaining what you do here:
. . . . .
. 2 . . .
. . 1 . .
. . T . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . A .
. . . . .
The first square is 1, the second square is 2.


On my map at least that gives a very wierd option: am I seeing that right?
This is good, but I heard a suggestion somewhere;) that you could use only the first square the extended line crosses, which would only ever give you one path option. Could the PTB be convinced to consider that? Why have an option, really?

[Harpua]

On my map at least that gives a very wierd option: am I seeing that right?
This is good, but I heard a suggestion somewhere;) that you could use only the first square the extended line crosses, which would only ever give you one path option. Could the PTB be convinced to consider that? Why have an option, really?

I think TPTB want simple...AND intuitive.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 2 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 2 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 2 . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 2 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 2 . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Path 2 seems more intuitive here, but path 1 would be the result.
Also, with the exception of a hit on a direct diagonal, you'd never have the first square be the one on the diagonal.

[mountaindood]

I'm inclined to believe that p.9 wording jives with the "intuitive" option, considering that the character is still moved one square back for each damage taken, and that the choice is only in determining the knockback path.

In the OP's scenario, the blue line would not be an option because it doesn't actually pass through a square that the character could legally be moved to... the second square that LOF passes through is more than one square away.

I'm thinking and hoping this wording will endure as is.

[vlad3theimpaler]

I'll have to check. It was created by MadWuher. I got it as a stand-alone document, but I couldn't find it that way last time I looked.

It is available inside SuperGENE's compendium.

Thanks. I just went to SuperGENE's site and downloaded it. I'll have to print that out later.

[necrodog]

I think TPTB want simple...AND intuitive.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. 2 . . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . 2 . . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . 2 . . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . 2 . . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . 2 . . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . 2 . . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . 2 . . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . 2 . . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . 2 . . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . 2 . 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . T . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Path 2 seems more intuitive here, but path 1 would be the result.
Also, with the exception of a hit on a direct diagonal, you'd never have the first square be the one on the diagonal.

It's true that you would not always get the most intuitive path, but the rule would be very clear and easy to follow wouldn't it? It's also true that only a directly diagonal hit would result in a diagonal path, but I'm not seeing why that's a bad thing.

[Questions]

I think TPTB want simple...AND intuitive.

But to be fair, this game is not all that intuitive. We're talking about a game where attack and action are two very different things. Whether a character can use or possess a power has completely different ramifcations. And you cannot always draw a LOF to an adjacent character. Intuitive left this game years ago.

I'm inclined to believe that p.9 wording jives with the "intuitive" option, considering that the character is still moved one square back for each damage taken, and that the choice is only in determining the knockback path.

In the OP's scenario, the blue line would not be an option because it doesn't actually pass through a square that the character could legally be moved to... the second square that LOF passes through is more than one square away.

I'm thinking and hoping this wording will endure as is.

The problem with the current wording is Harpua's first example. What do you do when the character isn't even adjacent to square 2?

It's true that you would not always get the most intuitive path, but the rule would be very clear and easy to follow wouldn't it? It's also true that only a directly diagonal hit would result in a diagonal path, but I'm not seeing why that's a bad thing.

I've got to agree with necrodog on this one. A clear and easy to follow rule is preferable to a confusing one that's more intuitive. And I'm not sure it's a bad thing that a hit only results in a diagonal path when hit directly on a diagonal. It's certainly not the weirdest thing in the game.