Updated Rulebook Questions (ALL)

I thought I'd start a single thread for all new DDM Rulebook Questions.  So please feel free to post all of your questions here so that we have a single thread to cover all questions.  Thanks. 

I'll start off with one:

Is the change to Area Attack rules now requiring LOS to the target a requirement in the D&D 4.0 rules? 

Thanks. 

Cool

I think topic per q is better.
Sort of.

There is no perception check in DDM, but a passed perception check allows attacking an unseen target.  Of course,  perception checks get worse with distance.

In DDM itself, area attacks remain the top of the heap by a long shot, and this prevents alternative approaches and strategies from evolving.

One could design several strategies to address this.  We don't always open a window to the design process, but this could be interesting to discuss.

Option [1] All area attacks could require line of sight to a creature within the area (ie., a creature to be targeted. 
Analysis: This is a clean rule, but doesn't allow one to 'throw a grenade around a corner.'

Option [2]  Pick an arbitrary range.  All area attacks greater than [x] squares away require los, and reflects an arbitrary distance at which perception tests are assumed to succeed or fail. 
Analysis: Also a clean rule, but also adds a new layer to the rules that was not there before, and has curious interactions right at the range chosen as the limit.     
 
Option [3]  Use the language of the attack.  Attacks with a range that say 'sight' would require sight to the target.  So, 'sight,' or 'range 10 within sight' will require sight to a target. 
Analysis:
  positive: It already  says this on the card.  Every card that lists sight, well, requires you to see an opponent/target in the attack area.  (Other  "Range 10" or "range 6" do not list sight, so they don't require it. )  No errata needed to any cards.
  positive: It balances a rather arbitrary and capricious difference between range 10 and range sight artillery pieces.  This is pleasing to organized play, and pulls more pieces back into the metagame.
  negative: It may have players asking if ranged attacks could/should use the same rules.





*The nearest rules don't change and still require sight (because the nearest creature is a determinant of sight).

Sort of.

Option [3]  Use the language of the attack.  Attacks with a range that say 'sight' would require sight to the target.  So, 'sight,' or 'range 10 within sight' will require sight to a target. 
Analysis:
  positive: It already  says this on the card.  Every card that lists sight, well, requires you to see an opponent/target in the attack area.  (Other  "Range 10" or "range 6" do not list sight, so they don't require it. )  No errata needed to any cards.
  positive: It balances a rather arbitrary and capricious difference between range 10 and range sight artillery pieces.  This is pleasing to organized play, and pulls more pieces back into the metagame.
  negative: It may have players asking if ranged attacks could/should use the same rules.




This is perfectly clear to me.  Easy to understand and easy to explain.  Laughing

Cool

I prefer option 2, but I can understand how option 3 is cleaner.

Interesting change to be certain.
3. Totally.
What is funny is that by a rule misunderstanding we were playing "Area Attacks"this way till the beginning of 2.0. (Except for the Range 10)
I only noticed our mistake a few weeks ago !!!
...And I can tell you this new rule (For you, very old for us) is very better.

Thanks Guilders for the job

What'S next ???
I also like the way the area attack rules are now written, whether it is closer to 4th edt or not. I always felt artillery pieces were far too strong in DDM2
Sign In to post comments