Author Topic: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official  (Read 18111 times)

ZiNOS

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 596
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #15 on: March 23, 2011, 03:44:18 AM »
Sorry to interrupt.

@Uvula Bob what fonts and size did you use for the document?

Thnx.
DON'T PANIC <-------In Large Friendly Letters

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #16 on: March 23, 2011, 11:39:31 AM »
On Impossible Path, would saying the Shortest Path can't cross and must go around impassable terrain be enough?

Well, that would be the Current Fastest Path, then, wouldn't it?  ;)

But if there really is a difference between what you just described and the Current Fastest Path, then we can definitely make that modification.

Quote
On the general wording of the movements section, I think either way would work.  If we put the movement definitions first, I think we should at least put a quick two sentences before that saying these are the two ways your units will move under a Standing Order.  I like my version better (but I'm biased! :D ) because 1) it's shorter, 2) it clearly explains the choice players can make with how their units under Standing Orders move (making the choice every round is functionally the same as making it only when the paths are different but easier to explain), and 3) I think the movement paths are self-explanatory enough that people have an easier time if we explain their choice every round then go into the definitions.  Whichever order we choose, I think we can cut down the length of this section dramatically, and improve the clarity of the rules in the process.

Also, I think we should change the title "Unusual Movement".  Units will be following these two paths every turn!  Maybe change it to "Movement under Standing Orders"?

After thinking about it, I'm pretty sure I agree with you on all counts. I'll work on it and post my update later today.

ALSO: Fonts! I use Book Antiqua. The main font size is 9-point, with varying sizes for the headers.

Zelc

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #17 on: March 23, 2011, 12:41:00 PM »
Well, that would be the Current Fastest Path, then, wouldn't it?  ;)
From what I understand, the Shortest Path measures distance and can cross over friendly units.  The Current Fastest Path measures turns and cannot cross over friendly units.

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #18 on: March 23, 2011, 01:01:37 PM »
Well, that would be the Current Fastest Path, then, wouldn't it?  ;)
From what I understand, the Shortest Path measures distance and can cross over friendly units.  The Current Fastest Path measures turns and cannot cross over friendly units.

Let's take a step back. The intent of the Impossible Path rule is to make sure that a unit doesn't follow the Shortest Path toward its objective to the point where it displays dumb video game logic and butts up against a giant rock for turn after turn. It does this by requiring that a unit which has its Shortest Path to an objective blocked by impassible terrain must instead follow the Shortest Clear Path. The problem is that "Shortest Clear Path" isn't defined in the rulebook. What is a "clear path"?

Let's assume that a clear path is one that is free of movement-reducing terrain and friendly units. Enemy units, from my understanding of the spirit of the rules, should never come into play when deciding what path to follow. The Shortest Clear Path would then be one that reduces the distance between the unit and its objective by the greatest amount without contacting movement-reducing terrain or friendly units. If that's the case, then Shortest Clear Path and Current Fastest Path are, in fact, two different things. It would then be the case that a unit will have one type of alternate route to follow for the Indirect Path Rule and a different type of alternate route for the Impossible Path rule. Specifically, if I'm trying to get around a friendly unit, I would be allowed to go through a swamp if it's the Current Fastest Path. If that friendly unit were a cliff face, though, I'd have to go all the way around that same swamp. That seems... weird.

If the Shortest Clear Path does allow for contacting movement-reducing terrain, then it's now functionally no different than the Current Fastest Path, isn't it? In that case, there's no reason so keep the term "Shortest Clear Path" in the game, which is why I've removed it from my version of the rulebook.


Zelc

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #19 on: March 23, 2011, 02:25:36 PM »
IMO, it should go like this:

Shortest path: path that reduces distance the most, i.e. goes directly towards the closest enemy unit.  Must be clear of impassable terrain, but does not consider (or does not have to be clear of) movement-reducing terrain or friendly units.

Current Fastest path: path that gets to the closest enemy unit in the fewest turns.  Must be clear of impassable terrain, and does consider (or must be clear of) movement-reducing terrain or friendly units.

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #20 on: March 23, 2011, 03:04:56 PM »
IMO, it should go like this:

Shortest path: path that reduces distance the most, i.e. goes directly towards the closest enemy unit.  Must be clear of impassable terrain, but does not consider (or does not have to be clear of) movement-reducing terrain or friendly units.

Current Fastest path: path that gets to the closest enemy unit in the fewest turns.  Must be clear of impassable terrain, and does consider (or must be clear of) movement-reducing terrain or friendly units.

So, a couple things. Regardless of whether or not the Shortest Path passes through a giant rock, it's still the Shortest Path. It just happens to pass through a giant rock. If a path has to avoid intersecting that giant rock in order to be considered the Shortest Path, we're now kind of conceptually crossing over into the definition of the Current Fastest Path. When the Shortest Path between a unit and its objective goes through Impassible Terrain, Movement-Reducing Terrain or Friendly Units, then either the Impossible Path or Indirect Path rule kick in.

As for the Current Fastest Path, it's entirely possible that moving through terrain is the fastest way to reach an objective. If two units are on opposite sides of a horizontally long swamp, it'd be faster for my unit to trudge through it than go all the way around it.


Zelc

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #21 on: March 23, 2011, 04:46:29 PM »
I guess at the end of the day, we need to decide how the rules should work.  Currently, the rules say that if there's impassable terrain, units lined up in that "column" with the terrain can't use the Shortest Path rule.  They can't stop behind a friendly unit and instead must run on ahead if possible.  This occurs even if the impassable terrain is pretty far away and wouldn't affect movement for several turns.

I found that to be a bit counter-intuitive and fiddly.  My personal thought on the rules is we don't want units to stupidly run into impassable terrain, but I'd also like to preserve a unit's ability to remain behind the line.  The 3.0 rules would support this if "Shortest clear path" is exactly like "Shortest Path" but can't cross over impassable terrain (but can still cross over friendly units and movement-affecting terrain).

Now that I think about it like this, I have a thought on another potential way to reword the movement rules that might be even clearer.

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #22 on: March 23, 2011, 05:13:38 PM »
Currently, the rules say that if there's impassable terrain, units lined up in that "column" with the terrain can't use the Shortest Path rule.  They can't stop behind a friendly unit and instead must run on ahead if possible.  This occurs even if the impassable terrain is pretty far away and wouldn't affect movement for several turns.

I found that to be a bit counter-intuitive and fiddly.  My personal thought on the rules is we don't want units to stupidly run into impassable terrain, but I'd also like to preserve a unit's ability to remain behind the line.  The 3.0 rules would support this if "Shortest clear path" is exactly like "Shortest Path" but can't cross over impassable terrain (but can still cross over friendly units and movement-affecting terrain).

Now that I think about it like this, I have a thought on another potential way to reword the movement rules that might be even clearer.

You seem to be conflating the Impossible Path and Indirect Path Rules. In the case of being blocked by a friendly unit, you absolutely can move along the Shortest Path, ending your movement as soon as you come into contact with a friendly unit. That's what enables the back of a line to not have to move around to the front of the battle line like in the picture you linked to earlier. Or, you can choose to follow the Current Fastest Path, going around the side and running on ahead if you want.

When it comes to Impassible Terrain, you don't have a choice. It's pretty clear in the current rulebook that units definitely won't smack themselves up against a giant rock that falls along the Shortest Path to their objective, but they will instead begin the act of going around that giant rock as soon as possible. What path they end up taking around that rock is still unclear, though, because of the previously mentioned "Shortest Clear Path" and "Current Fastest Path" confusion.

Zelc

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1072
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #23 on: March 23, 2011, 06:00:57 PM »
Quote
What path they end up taking around that rock is still unclear, though, because of the previously mentioned "Shortest Clear Path" and "Current Fastest Path" confusion.
I think this is what I'm trying to clarify.  Does a unit with an objective on the other side of impassable terrain have to path around only the impassable terrain, or both impassable terrain and his teammates and possibly movement-slowing terrain as well?

By your wording, The Flash must begin using the Current Fastest Path rule immediately and begin pathing around both the giant rock AND his teammates in front of him, even if otherwise they wouldn't contact the giant rock for another 5 turns.  Nor does he get the option of remaining behind his teammate, who will be pathing around the giant rock.

Quote
IMPOSSIBLE PATH
If the shortest path for a unit to follow under its current standing order is permanently impossible (usually due to impassable terrain) that unit must use the current fastest path.
The consequence of taking the Current Fastest path is not only do you have to path around the impassable terrain, you also have to path around friendly units.
« Last Edit: March 23, 2011, 06:06:34 PM by Zelc »

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #24 on: March 23, 2011, 06:24:08 PM »
With the approval of the actual designers, I think the intent of the rules is that the first thing my unit would encounter along the Shortest Path to my objective determines how the unit acts. So if there is a giant rock between my unit and its objective, and a friendly unit between my unit and that giant rock, then the fact that the friendly unit is closer to my unit than the giant rock is what allows my unit to go with the Indirect Path rule.

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #25 on: March 24, 2011, 01:47:00 PM »
Also, I think it's time to think about putting in some examples. I'd like to cite the Warmachine and Warhammer Fantasy rulebooks for their excellently liberal use of examples, and I think the Battleground rules could benefit from the same treatment. Any suggestions as to which rules would most benefit would be great. I'll try to make them in the same style as the ones in the current rulebook.

lazyj

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 839
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #26 on: March 24, 2011, 02:35:55 PM »
Pinching pinching pinching. The more examples we give, perhaps the faster new players will figure out how critical it is.

Specifically what happens when one of the units pinching the enemy get "pinched" themselves. I played this situation wrong for over a year.

And maybe some of the more common movement situations:
 - this unit on close kills it's target and no one else is in the front arc, what happens next?
 - how do I switch this Ranged unit attacks to a different target?
 - why you should "move" a unit on Hold and then change it's Standing Order (ugh, the memory of me not doing that in a battle from last year is still painful)

UvulaBob

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 113
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #27 on: March 24, 2011, 02:58:32 PM »
Pinching pinching pinching. The more examples we give, perhaps the faster new players will figure out how critical it is.

Specifically what happens when one of the units pinching the enemy get "pinched" themselves. I played this situation wrong for over a year.

If a pinching unit gets pinched themselves, then they lose the pinching bonus, since the rules say that the pinching bonus is only given to units that are engaged solely with the unit being pinched. Am I right?

Niko White

  • Celestial Guard
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2406
  • A tíro nin, Fanuilos!
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #28 on: March 24, 2011, 03:05:41 PM »
Pinching pinching pinching. The more examples we give, perhaps the faster new players will figure out how critical it is.

Specifically what happens when one of the units pinching the enemy get "pinched" themselves. I played this situation wrong for over a year.

If a pinching unit gets pinched themselves, then they lose the pinching bonus, since the rules say that the pinching bonus is only given to units that are engaged solely with the unit being pinched. Am I right?

Indeed.  Similarly, the unit they're pinching won't get a pinch bonus if it swings at them, since it is also pinched.  The "wing" units both continue to get the bonus.

lazyj

  • Playtester
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 839
Re: Proofreading/editing UvulaBob's rules rewrite so it can become official
« Reply #29 on: March 24, 2011, 03:18:39 PM »
Yeah, read those last two posts and pretend you're playing Battleground for the first time.   :)  There's only so often you can use pinch, pinched, and pinching in a sentence before you get completely over most people's heads.

I think it's absolutely critical to have an example of this being played out in picture form.