Hazard Spaces

Through these forums, things have been cleared up mostly about how they work: A unit moving into a space gets hit by it, if they are there at the end of their turn (assumedly during the To Be Continued... Phase), they are hit again. But I don't think that's the end to the clarifications. 

For instance, is a character hit by EACH hex they have to move through to get somewhere, or just once for the full effect of it?

Do hazard effects only attack other characters on their own turns? It seems that hazards only attack during movement (or ending the turn), but that seems to be a little unhelpful to people that generate them. Surely, they must attack once when they 'enter play' then again on other players' turns...

Targets are immune to their own attacks, but what about Allies? Is there friendly fire from hazards that you create (like if an ally were close to Ra when he becomes a Living Pyre? (actually...is there friendly fire for everything?)

Thanks, y'all! Still loving the game, but I need to be able to clarify it all for my gaming group, haha.

For every hazard space a character moves thorugh, the suffer the attack.

Hazard spaces trigger whenever a target moves through them, no matter who's turn it is. The only time it matters who's turn it is, is when it's the To Be Continued phase, which the current player gets hit by any Hazard Space they may be standing on.

Allies are not immune to attacks made by another ally. If an ally walks through Ra's Living Pyre, that ally will be attacks. If Absolute Zero uses Thermal Shockwave with an ally in the radius, that ally will be hit.

Each hex is a hazard space, so it triggers once per space.
They do not trigger on creation; that idea was brought up during playtesting, but it wouldn’t have been balanced.
Allies are not immune to your attacks. Don’t put hazard spaces where your friends will have to walk through them (unless that is your intent (Baron Blade’s Redistributor, for instance.)

Just to clarify what McBehrer said, they do not trigger on creation.

Ecch that’s what I meant. Autocorrect…

I thought auto-correct was when a moderator [edited, arenson9] edits a post.

what  if i move turrent  bot into somebodies space? does that mean the hazard will activate although they technically didnt move into turrents bots radius?

The Hazard Space would not trigger, as the target didn't move into the Hazard Space.

Yeah, the target has to move onto the space, not the space onto the target.

Wait! So you mean if I have a radius 1 hazard in play (let's say a glorious fiery tornado of doom) and there's a character who ended their turn in it (and got hit already), if the next character has to move through it, that means that they trigger the whole effect going off again, thus hitting both characters? I guess I just assumed that only the character moving through is targeted, but they are, in essence, attacking the other character by moving through?

No, they only hit the target walking through them.

I can support that this is official.

…

I just quoted myself, does the world blow up or something?

I think you just created a hazard space.

EDIT:OW! Yep.

You should have moved to a different thread before you ended your post.

I'm assumming hazard spaces work like this:

1) a character moves, (or is pushed)

2) that character enters a hazard space,

3) that hazard space's effect is resolved completely,

4) the character continues his or her movement (or push)

Then it seems a little wonky that each nearby hex to a hazard space with radius would trigger individually when entered. I'm talking about the Impulsion Turret. Suppose a hero gets hit by the impulsion turret, the villian can move the hero adjacent to the turret which would trigger the impusion turret's hazard attack space again. If the surface is level adjacent to the turret and the hero has 4 or less defense, then this process can be repeated infinitely (lauching said hero into the sun, or triggering infinite other hazard attacks). 

It seems likely that there is some implicate, limit one hazard attack per action/go time/to be continued..., rule out there to prevent this single card combo. Any ideas? 

So far Luther, the designer of the game, has suggested that the impulsion beam only be triggered once each per turn. The rest work as intended, once per space per hazard.

Perhaps if there were two keywords, "push" and "displace".  Displace would mean to move a target in any direction.  Push would specifically move a target away.  Then, push could be used for an impulsion turret to prevent infinite hazard attacks, while displace would be used by almost everything else.  It could still potentially happen with two turrets placed correctly, but heroes would play more carefully to avoid that.

Secret behind-the-scenes design notes: In the very beginning, all pushing was directly away! But it turns out that defining what exactly counts as "away" on a hexagonal grid, between two arbitrary hexes, is not as simple as would be ideal. If we're adjacent, obviously the hex on the other side of you is "away", but what about the hexes adjacent to that one? Any answer to that question is going to feel wrong to some players, and that's the simplest case. Now we're talking about characters 3 hexes away in a non-orthagonal line getting pushed 4 hexes each and all the pushing has to be within these simple 20 pages of rules explaining what's away and what isn't because my tournament life depends on it!

Rather than trying to re-write the hazard rules, I would just re-write the Impulsion Turret.

"If this attack hits, it deals no damage.  Instead, the target is pushed to the nearest unoccupied hex outside of the hazard spaces of this device.  The target cannot move into (or be pushed into) a hazard space of this device for the rest of the turn.  If two unoccupied hexes are equally close, Baron Blade's player chooses which one the target is pushed to."

There you go - the impulsion turret does its job (protecting the area around it) while avoiding infinite loops and other crazy stuff.  What do you think?

I have a weird question, and I think I already know the answer...but...do hazard spaces stack on eachother in a hex?

My assumption would be yes. Example: Operative with Hidden Blade Strike standing next to the volcano. Being pulled by kursurigama (spelling I know) into that lava would trigger both HBS and the Lava hazard spaces. (I actually forget if Kursurigama can trigger HBS with the "pull" thats not a true "pull", but I guess the core question remains)

But what about the case of Impaling Structures? If I create an "ice bride" across the volcano, trying to move over that bridge, even with the raised elevation, would still cause ABZero to trigger lava hazards right? And other targets moving through them would get hit with Impaling hazard and lava hazard?

Yes, that's correct.

You're a beautiful man

Thanks for the replys. Another solution to the impulsion turret loop problem would be to modify pushing. Adding something like "you are immune to other push effects while being pushed" to the push rules could help. It removes the possibility of the two impulsion turrets bouncing off each other but allows for other pushing hazards to exist without creating crazy loops. 

Another question on hazard spaces:

Does it count as "entering" a hazard space when Unity summons one of her bots?  I played a game this week with scenario 3 where BB cornered Unity and then surrounded her with Powered Auto-Turrets and Blade Battalions.  Everytime she summoned a new bot we decided that it was considered as "entering" the square it was on, and therefore triggered all relevant hazard attacks.  At least once her bot was destroyed the second it showed up.  My opponent thought this was broken. (All squares had LOS cause it was one of the single dot corners of the board - though at first we missed the rule that the generator of the hazard spaces had to have LOS to the target in order to make a hazard attack against it.)

You enter a hex if you weren't in that hex and now you are. Bots, turrets, Ambuscade, etc. all trigger Hazard Spaces when they enter the board. Sounds like Baron Blade did a good job corraling Unity.

Ah! I was playing Proletariet wrong last night then!

I thought so.  The downside was that I left Beacon alone to pretty much do whatever she wanted to the Pylons in the center of the board.  My opponent managed to get 2 full pylons knocked down and the other two to 1/2 health before my repeated beatings of Unity ran out the clock on the Freedom tower falling down.  Thankfully, he kept manuevering Beacon in to try and beat back the Baron instead of concentrating on the Pylons, so I managed to knock her out a time or two and therefore win the scenario.

It also helped that all the pylons had turrets on them - 1 impulsion and 3 auto-cannons by the end - and he was too afraid of just running in there and bashing things to risk punching them like Beacon/Legacy should, IMO.

After the initial placement of Pylons you can't put a turret on a pylon, they are a target, they occupy the space.

Oh, I didn't - he just never attacked the turrets that were there from the previous scenario.  Partly it was because I had them well-positioned (The three hexes at the very tippy-top of the Freedom Tower as well as three other spots.)  And partly because he was too afraid of getting incapped by the guns to run up to them with Beacon and just punch them to death. 

I mean, yeah, if you approach one of the turrets, you're going to take about 5 shots of 3 dice each in order to get adjacent to the first one, but if you put her defense card in play (which he kept taking out of rotation because I still had Baron Blade's One-Shot available that removes all +Atk and +Def tokens from the  other team) you can A) have a +1 Defense every turn, and B) reroll one failed defense die every time you get attacked.  That combined with her 6hp means you don't have to worry about getting knocked down before you can destroy some turrets.  And even if you do, you get right back up again next turn and punch it in the face!

Gods, that was such a frustrating game.  It was about 50/50 on who was going to win through the whole game, but he kept complaining the whole time how "The hazard spaces are broken" and "No other miniatures game out there does line of sight that way, so it's stupid" and "Unity might as well not even be playing becuase she keeps getting KO'ed every other turn".  Yeah, I get that it's frustrating that she keeps getting KO'ed - but you aren't trying any different tactics.  Each time I knock her out, you just stand back up and summon a damn bot to attack me again.  No Dodging to try and avoid getting killed by the turrets/battalions/Baron, no straight up running away as fast as possible when you get a 6 movement and can sprint to avoid elevation issues, no even summoning a damn Stealth Bot so you can get cover maybe and avoid a turn of damage.  If you keep trying the same thing over and over, you shouldn't expect different results.

And, furthermore, you keep attacking Baron Blade as though incapping me is going to do something to help you win.  If you get lucky and manage to knock me out once every two rounds, but I knock out Unity or Beacon once on those two rounds, that's a net gain towards victory for Baron Blade (two rounds + 1 hero incap = -3 to the stack, 1 incap of BB = +2 to the stack, totaling to -1 to the stack.)  And if I manage to knock both heroes out in one of those two rounds, or one twice, it becomes a -2 to the stack.  Either way, the more actions you waste attacking me, the better I like it because you are NOT attacking the pylons.  The pylons are the key in that scenario - not hitting Baron Blade.  Ignore him, boijeezum!  Just send your bots to attack the pylons/turrets.  Have Beacon run up and punch the pylons in the face. Do something TO THE PYLONS, DANGIT!  Killing Baron Blade is NOT the goal of the scenario!  The goal is to kill 4 pylons!  Stop attacking Baron Blade and then complaining when all it does is put you in reach of his Slash and Burn attack with his Sabre Battlesuit in play, therefore rolling 5 dice, of which you can block 3 at best because you aren't putting out Beacon's "Fortitude" card.  That means you take 2 hits, even if I roll 5 1s on the dice!!

...........

Sorry about my little rant there.  I was just so frustrated the whole game.  My buddy kept complaining that the game was broken and unfairly balanced in my favor, but he failed to change his tactics, wasn't concentrating on the goal of the scenario, and was complaining that the rules of the game were written the way they were written.  If you don't like the rules - tough.  That's the way the rules are written.  Stop complaining, because it isn't going to change the fact that I can still see you from across the board, and teleport over to Slash and Burn.  Deal with it.

Also, THE BIG PICTURE!  YOU AREN'T TRYING TO KILL BARON BLADE!  YOU'RE TRYING TO KILL 4 PYLONS!  STOP WHINING THAT BARON BLADE GETS BACK UP SO FAST AND CAN DO STUFF AGAIN QUICKLY, AND START KILLING PYLONS!!

Ugh.  I am still frustrated because I wanted to tell him how to win - KILL PYLONS!!!!!!!! - but I also wanted to win myself, so I can't tell my opponent how to beat me.  At least I got to walk away from the table in the end with the victory.

And remember kids - if you're playing the Baron Blade scenario with Beacon, in the third round, just fly up to the Pylons as quickly as possible and PUNCH THEM IN THE FACE!!!!!!!!!!!  (You know, in the crystal face...where they reflect things....that they....see......)

> Ugh.  I am still frustrated because I wanted to tell him how to win - KILL PYLONS!!!!!!!! - but I also wanted to win myself, so I can't tell my opponent how to beat me.  At least I got to walk away from the table in the end with the victory.

Sometimes you have to take one for the team and do something tha may make it harder for you to win this specific game in order to ensure that your opponent is willing to play the game again next time. Especially when learning a game, share that knowledge! Being super competitive can wait until everyone is competent at the game. :p

You are so right. There are a few people I need to let win the first time they play a game, otherwise they will never play the game again. Of course, it isn't because they played poorly (it was their first time), but it's because it's a poorly designed game. (I have a strange feeling this might be split soon.)

cough My boyfriend is this way. It's part of why I can't get him to play two player games with me. I've usually played the game before, when I'm teaching it to him, and I tend to win. Sadly, I think I've ruined two player games for the long haul by being so darn amazing.

How does he think LOS should work instead?

The line of sight in this game is quite different then other games, I always make sure to explain it and point out the major situation that causes the most trouble.

Which is the whole I'm at elevation 4 shooting at someone 4 hexes away at elevation 2 but that elevation three right next to me prevents Line of Sght, when it wouldn't in reality.

I love the simplified rules, but anytime you simplify things you are going to run into situations that don't fit.  Like I've said before I'm an old Battletech player, and the advanced line of sight ruels for that game are insane, they cover 60 pages in multiple rulebooks, and you still run into circumstances that don't work.

I'm toying with a simple LoS house rule:

If there's elevation between the attacker and target that is higher than both, it completely blocks line of sight.

If there's elevation between the attacker and target that is higher than one or the other, it increases the effective range by 1 for every elevation level increase intervening. (I may need to work on the wording. The idea is that if the attacker is at e1, the target is at e4, and there's an e3 in the way, that increases the range by 2.)

It's not that much more complicated, and I think it fits most people's understanding of how LoS should work better than the core rules. But I'm worried about what it would do for balance, especially with people like Wraith or Bunker with Reach +6 or (up to) +7. Would they be able to pretty much ignore intervening terrain?

If you play with someone who complains that the scenario is not well-balanced, offer to switch sides. Then your friend is managing Baron Blade and the “broken” hazard spaces while you punch the pylons in the face.

At one point I suggested one wrinkle to the LOS rules which might make it feel more "right" while not being a whole lot more complicated - LOS is blocked if there's a hex of terrain that's higher than either end point, but only if it's halfway or closer to the lower of the two end points.  That way, if one end point is on a 4 and the other is a 1, and there's a 3 next to the 4, it doesn't block LOS, but if that 3 is next to the 1 it would.

Spiff's rule is simple.  Here's a much more complicated one, which is basically just using slopes in geometry.

1)  Divide the distance between the two hexes by the elevation difference to get a hex-per-rise value.

Example:  Wraith is making a nasty shot from the top of the Freedom Tower to the street, seven hexes away from a 4 elevation to a 1 (so range 10).  We divide 7 / 3 = 2 1/3.

2)  Starting at the lower hex, count hexes towards the higher hex.  Each time you hit the hex-per-rise value (round up), a hex of the next higher value no longer blocks line of sight.
Example cont'd: a hex of elevation 2 does not block as long as it is 3 (that's 2 1/3, round up) or more spaces from Wraith's target on the street.  A hex of elevation 3 does not block as long as it is 5 (that's 4 2/3, round up) or more spaces from Wraith's target on the street.

LoS isn't that difficult if you look at it the right way.  The problem my group had was that they assumed they were looking up/down a perfectly straight incline from one hex to another, but that isn't the case.  In Megalopolis for example there are buildings with streets and alleyways between them.  If I'm standing on an elevation 4 building and you're on an elevation 1 street 3 hexes away, I can't see you.  That 2 elevation building you're standing next to is providing cover.  Same the other direction.  That 2 elevation building you're cowering behind is blocking your LoS to me.

This is pretty solid, and I've used it (or variations) a lot.  Once I'm done with guides I will probably start using rules like that.

Spiff's rule solves the 4(A)-3-1-1-1-1(D) dilemna, but the reverse becomes problematic.  If the elevation goes 4-3-1, you shouldn't have line of sight to the 1.

This is a really good point.  I don't have the tiles to look at, but isn't the street as wide as the buildings?  That's usually not the case, and even if it were, if you were in the street, you could be ANYWHERE in the street.  So, the tiles had to be simplified and so did the LOS rules.  If you're going for "realistic" LOS rules, the best you can probably do is to say that more than 2 hexes away and they're too far away to aim accurately.  Where's the fun in that?

Yet another reason why I hate when people try to make rules "more thematic".  It usually just means that they are getting rid of a rule that they don't like for some reason.

I think the LoS rules as written are fine

/shrug

Stopping the action to calculate (and argue about) LOS when we could apply a simple rule and get on with the punching? Not for me.

Also, the tiles are presumably balanced around the current LOS rules.  Changing the rule could unbalance some of the scenarios.

Very true. Broadening the spaces in people's line of site completely changes how good Drone Deployment is for example. If this were a video game implimentation, complex line of sight rules would be fine as the calculations could take a while by hand but be done instantly on a computer. The game already takes a long time if there's even one beginner trying to learn the rules in the game, and line of sight is already a bit much to explain to some new players right of the bat. Making it more complicated is not a good idea, even if it solves some general situations where it looks like a character should be able to see another character.

Krayden's point makes a lot of sense - the LoS rules could basically be reflecting the use of cover by intelligent targets.

I’ve just checked the thread and see no mention of hazard removal. Once placed hazards are there for the remainder of the game?

Once the card that is generating the Hazard Spaces leaves play, the Hazard Spaces are no longer there. Also when a card is removed from play, all tokens on the field that were put into play thanks to that card are put into the supply.

Hazard spaces aren't created, they are generated.

What I mean is Turret Bot doesn't change the map, he generates hazard in those spaces, the hazard is from him, and those spaces are the area in which he is creating the hazard.

If turret bot moves he generates hazard in his new location, the old hazard spaces are no longer hazardous, because they are outside of Turret Bot's reach.  If Turret Bot leaves play he no longer is generating hazard at all.

Same with the Volcano or Structures or living Pyre, etc.  Every hazard space has some visible object on the map that is generating the hazard.

Hazard spaces aren't created, they are generated.

What I mean is Turret Bot doesn't change the map, he generates hazard in those spaces, the hazard is from him, and those spaces are the area in which he is creating the hazard.

If turret bot moves he generates hazard there, the old hazard spaces are no longer hazardous, because they are outside of Turret Bot's reach.  If Turret Bot leaves play he no longer is generating hazard at all.

Same with the Volcano or Structures or living Pyre, etc.  Every hazard space has some visible object on the map that is generating the hazard.

Sorry for the late response. But…

Do multiple versions of the same hazard source stack?

If I'm surrounded by six Impaling Structures at the end of my turn, am I attacked six times?

All the examples I've seen so far refer to different sources (such as Spiff's FAQ), but don't give an example with 2 or more of the same source.

Thanks!

Yes.  They are all different sources of hazard spaces, so you are affected by each.  Overlapping hazard spaces are EVIL!!!

Impaling structures only attack a target on the space they occupy.

You would have to stand on a stack of Structures.

Or get pushed onto them.  Pushes ignore elevation change. >:D