Note to anyone playing the 2nd edition. The new rules state that characters only take fire damage if they are in a fire tile during the End of Round phase. So while the large creature would still take damage in the last example, it would only be after she completed all her actions, not during her movement, and presumably on whatever hit die was on the hex occupying the fire tile hex at the End of Round.
This felt like these are the trickiest movement rules to get my head around... I may end up playing this wrong but thanks for explaining as I may be back to watch this again, and again.
Thanks for these videos. Unsurprising I suppose but I feel like in Gloomhaven the targeting and movement rules here are going to be very easy to mess up. While they are algorithmically sound they are non intuitive when mapped to real world intuition which is always a recipe for mistakes. To me it makes a lot more sense for an enemy to move in the most direct path, not these looping ‘straight northwest, then straight southwest triangles. Also it would make a lot more sense for the enemy to turn to face the direction of their travel rather than ‘running sidewise/backwards’ and only at the end turning to face the ‘right’ direction. For example my ‘intuitive, model reality’ interpretation would have her move 1 step north west, then 1 step south west, repeating until she ended 1 hex down from where the rules say she should. She’d be ok base contact with both Oathsworn and would not have passed through the water. I feel like a lot of people will get these things ‘wrong’ though I suppose the real question will be if it spoils the game much if you do play then wrong or if you just end up with differently positioned enemies but essentially the same puzzle and experience to solve.
Is there an important reason the enemies turn to face their movement direction after movement and not before? Because I think it's quite unthematic for f. e. the Broodmother to walk backwards bum first into the fire. If there is not an important reason for this rule I'll probably houserule it otherwise, facing the enemy before/during movement, so that they actually walk forward. Also, don't exactly love the rule that enemies don't consider hazards at all. I totally get why you would do it this way, it cuts a bunch of "if...thens" from the determination of enemy movement and makes it consideribly less of a task, but still, having the enemies just run into a fire willingly and unnecesserily, in the case of the giant rats even killing themselves in the process, when there would be another path, even an equally as long one in some cases, just makes the enemies seem somewhere between really damn stupid and suicidal. This rule might be exploited, too, I feel, but I guess you have tested for this during the playtests. I'll try it, but I don't know if I'll like the enemies moving up a conveyer belt straight into their own grave... ;D The better immersion might be worth the upped fiddliness in this case.
Yeah the hazard stuff is clearly leaning into: 1: simplify movement rules and don't add a bunch of "if/then/else" logic to figuring them out, and 2: let people play the game of 'puzzle out how enemies are likely to move and be able to drop traps in their way.' I agree that it ticks the immersion / reality of the game down, while ticking the 'solve abstract puzzle' aspect up.
I have a question, in your third example, what if the boss had less movement an ended up not reaching the ursus, but ended up being adjecent to another character, does she switch target and attack what is available, or stay on target and do nothing because she didnt account for water?
Kind of weird that the large monsters sort of shimmy sideways moon walk style around the board - why was this method used, rather than keeping facing consistent with movement?
Note to anyone playing the 2nd edition. The new rules state that characters only take fire damage if they are in a fire tile during the End of Round phase. So while the large creature would still take damage in the last example, it would only be after she completed all her actions, not during her movement, and presumably on whatever hit die was on the hex occupying the fire tile hex at the End of Round.
Would mulple fire hexes hit different dice?
This felt like these are the trickiest movement rules to get my head around... I may end up playing this wrong but thanks for explaining as I may be back to watch this again, and again.
Its right as long as you are constantly wrong the same way and have fun
Thanks for these videos. Unsurprising I suppose but I feel like in Gloomhaven the targeting and movement rules here are going to be very easy to mess up. While they are algorithmically sound they are non intuitive when mapped to real world intuition which is always a recipe for mistakes.
To me it makes a lot more sense for an enemy to move in the most direct path, not these looping ‘straight northwest, then straight southwest triangles. Also it would make a lot more sense for the enemy to turn to face the direction of their travel rather than ‘running sidewise/backwards’ and only at the end turning to face the ‘right’ direction.
For example my ‘intuitive, model reality’ interpretation would have her move 1 step north west, then 1 step south west, repeating until she ended 1 hex down from where the rules say she should. She’d be ok base contact with both Oathsworn and would not have passed through the water.
I feel like a lot of people will get these things ‘wrong’ though I suppose the real question will be if it spoils the game much if you do play then wrong or if you just end up with differently positioned enemies but essentially the same puzzle and experience to solve.
Is there an important reason the enemies turn to face their movement direction after movement and not before? Because I think it's quite unthematic for f. e. the Broodmother to walk backwards bum first into the fire. If there is not an important reason for this rule I'll probably houserule it otherwise, facing the enemy before/during movement, so that they actually walk forward.
Also, don't exactly love the rule that enemies don't consider hazards at all. I totally get why you would do it this way, it cuts a bunch of "if...thens" from the determination of enemy movement and makes it consideribly less of a task, but still, having the enemies just run into a fire willingly and unnecesserily, in the case of the giant rats even killing themselves in the process, when there would be another path, even an equally as long one in some cases, just makes the enemies seem somewhere between really damn stupid and suicidal.
This rule might be exploited, too, I feel, but I guess you have tested for this during the playtests.
I'll try it, but I don't know if I'll like the enemies moving up a conveyer belt straight into their own grave... ;D The better immersion might be worth the upped fiddliness in this case.
Yeah the hazard stuff is clearly leaning into: 1: simplify movement rules and don't add a bunch of "if/then/else" logic to figuring them out, and 2: let people play the game of 'puzzle out how enemies are likely to move and be able to drop traps in their way.'
I agree that it ticks the immersion / reality of the game down, while ticking the 'solve abstract puzzle' aspect up.
There seems to be some controversy work water tiles and monster focus. Are these the same for Ed 1 and 2?
I have a question, in your third example, what if the boss had less movement an ended up not reaching the ursus, but ended up being adjecent to another character, does she switch target and attack what is available, or stay on target and do nothing because she didnt account for water?
Kind of weird that the large monsters sort of shimmy sideways moon walk style around the board - why was this method used, rather than keeping facing consistent with movement?
Watching it again before finally playing after painting and still find this and the Los rules incredibly unintuitive.