Timeline for How to solve problems with the Invisibility power
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 19, 2011 at 15:28 | comment | added | Guss | Thanks for the edit - that was very detailed and covered some stuff I didn't remember from the rules. Regarding becoming visible - if something like that ever happens (which I don't think it will - it was more of a theoretical discussion), then we will probably do option 2. Thanks again, that was awesome. | |
| Oct 19, 2011 at 15:26 | vote | accept | Guss | ||
| Oct 18, 2011 at 17:16 | history | edited | EvilAmarant7x | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 2348 characters in body
|
| Oct 18, 2011 at 16:32 | comment | added | EvilAmarant7x | The top right column on page four states 'In the rare case where two warriors occupy the same square, they do not block each other from ranged strikes.' | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 15:34 | comment | added | Guss | your points are interesting. Regarding moving over real obstacles, the card has no mention of this, but as Intangibility specifically allows that, I guess it could be argued that you can't do that because it is not specifically allowed. Regarding attacks on the location of the invisible character - that is indeed the major question here: Obviously this is allowed and can hit the character when the attacker specifically tries to hit an invisible character - as it says so on the card. But if an attacker tries to hit a visible character that shares its location with the invisible one, what then? | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 15:00 | comment | added | EvilAmarant7x | And do you allow the Invisible Character to be specifically targeted by single square attacks, or only by area effects? Because then we'd have a Character that can ignore all obstacles on the board and do any sort of attack they want and only be affected by area effects. Which makes Invisibility significantly more powerful than Intangibility, because there is no reason to not stay Invisible forever as there are no drawbacks. | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 14:34 | comment | added | EvilAmarant7x | Well, if you allow other characters to occupy the same space as Invisible characters and move through Invisible characters, there's no reason not to allow the Invisible Character to willingly move through them. And if you allow them to take that action, then why can they occupy the same space as a character, but not a stationary obstacle? They're both 'obstacles'. | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 6:13 | comment | added | Guss | One problem I have with this solution is that it takes a very narrow look at "not an obstacle", and I don't see how reading "not an obstacle" as "people can move through the square occupied by the character" is wrong. Also, I think comparing this power to Intangible is warranted, as they have similar effects and as I believe the game to have been developed with power balance in mind, one should read the powers as having about the same functionality. Taking your interpretation removes a lot of functionality out of invisibility, making it only useful for a long-range sniping character. comments? | |
| Oct 17, 2011 at 13:52 | history | answered | EvilAmarant7x | CC BY-SA 3.0 |