The Diagonal Rule for the iPad

[Clark]

Romain is continuing to develop LOS for the iPad and his playtest group doesn't seem to like or understand the Diagonal Rule.  That is, when counting distances and ranges, going diagonally count as 2" for the first square, 1" for the second, and 2" for each odd square and 1" for each even square (th 2-1-2 Rule).

There was some discussion of this previously: http://los.turtleshellprod.com/index.php?topic=113.msg1117#msg1117

Romain and I want to canvass your thoughts about whether the rule makes much of a difference, and if so does that difference enhance or detract from the game?

[Romain]

Thanks Clark. I provide some additional info.
We already know our current tutorial does not explain well the movement rules, that’s something we are working on. We also know from the playtests that very few testers (9 out of 11) understood the diagonal rule. For those who got it (the most “wargamers”), the rule seemed unnatural, counterintuitive, or even punishing (one of them said it was too expensive to move diagonally).
Players who like games such as Hunters or Warhammer Quest on tablets would feel at home if we were entirely removing the diagonal rules (although I reckon LoS will be a more complex/realistic game).
Do you guys think the game would suffer from not having the rule implemented?
What do you think about having the rule turned off, and the option to turn it on in the settings?

[Scoutzout]

I always thought that paying the "2" first was way too expensive. 1>2>1 made more sense to me and is used in other game systems. Some game systems have dumped the alternating cost altogether to simplify mechanics.

Would NOT counting diagonals also affect ranges for shooting?

[Clark]

You would have to ask Romain and his playtest group about the movement/firing distinction.  I suspect it is not too difficult to program the game to calculate ranges using the rule, but if movement confuses the players then they would probably not understand why it adds to your range when you fire kitty corner.

I can't wrap my head around what is counter-intuitive about the fact that a square is longer cross-ways; that is basic geometry.
Since the game is computerized, one possible fix is to charge the actual distance covered my moving diagonally (1.4 per square) and calculate ranges exactly using Pythagoras, and then round up (or maybe down). I suspect the latter would actually be easier to program.

[Scoutzout]

I agree that its not confusing to count "2>1>2"

...doesn't the game determine how far you can move? by indicating the limits and paths the player can take?

[wondgamb]

...doesn't the game determine how far you can move? by indicating the limits and paths the player can take?

It actually does. What bothers players is that moving 1 square costs 2. And the next square is only 1. For most of them that just looks awkward and adds unnecessary complexity. 

[Clark]

...doesn't the game determine how far you can move? by indicating the limits and paths the player can take?

It actually does. What bothers players is that moving 1 square costs 2. And the next square is only 1. For most of them that just looks awkward and adds unnecessary complexity.

Ha ha, which says that your average gamer got a C+ or less in geometry.

My sense is to say "**** it" or add it as an optional rule. Where it will make more difference is if we (that is YOU Romain and your team) can bring Planetstorm out.  There the engagement ranges are longer (30"+)

Just as an aside, is "one inch equals two metres" a Canadian thing? Is it at all intelligible on the Continent or  in America?

[smokingwreckage]

I'd make the diagonal movement exactly its actual cost (1.4 or whatever).

One good reason to penalise diagonal movement is to avoid Bloodbowl Teleportation, whereby you can cross the field and tackle someone by moving exactly the same number of squares they did, only they started some distance away and they were moving in a straight line. The further you move and the wider the playing area, the more jarring this gets. It's probably a limited problem in LOS.

For example: you start with an enemy 10 squares away. You run in a straight line, 10 squares. He moves ten squares, too. Yet - miraculously! - at the end of the movement he is bang on top of you... which is physically impossible.

[YojimboUsaka]

Would it be easier to say that every diagonal square moved/counted costs 1.5 squares? That left over .5 square at the end of a move or range just gets dropped off. It would give you the 1 > 2 > 1 cost and be much easier to explain. I think it would be worth keeping in.

[Clark]

Would it be easier to say that every diagonal square moved/counted costs 1.5 squares? That left over .5 square at the end of a move or range just gets dropped off. It would give you the 1 > 2 > 1 cost and be much easier to explain. I think it would be worth keeping in.

Since movment cannot be held over until the next turn, a 2-1-2 or 1-2-1 movment is effectively 1.5 per diagonal and then rounded up or down, respectively. Whether explaining it that way is more comprehensible rather than just explaining why the rule is the way it is, is a slightly different question.