9 replies [Last post]
Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017

I'm trying to think of better names for two types of "adjacent".

Let's say I have a battle game, and all unit's have two ranges. How should I name them? Something short and easy, that can be put on a card as a key word to avoid confusion. "Orthogonal adjacent" and "diagonally adjacent" is way to bulky.

Example of what I'm looking for: "Deal damage to all /near/ units"

Close range/Long range
Range 1/Range 2
Cross/Plus
Box/Square

Can't remember any game that uses two ranges to check...

Juzek
Offline
Joined: 06/19/2017
There is a lot of the

There is a lot of the population that doesn't know the word "orthogonal". In my instructions, I defined a new term for "group" and that it was "connected squares (not diagonal)" and it seemed to work well enough. It remains my most difficult to understand concept in my game.

I would almost rather use hexes and count steps rather than have to explain it again.

I am an interested party of someone else has a good solution to this.

pelle
Offline
Joined: 08/11/2008
I think a rulebook I read

I think a rulebook I read recently used "adjacent" and "near" and it had me confused at first before reading the fine-print and realizing it was actually defined quite clearly. It is just easy to accidentally skip over definitions like that when you have played many games and think you already know everything (heh).

I think ideally the game only need one kind of "adjacent", or can just use ranges instead in a uniform and simple to remember way (e.g. that ranges are Manhattan distance, no diagonals used when counting, meaning that the orthogonal adjacent squares are at range 1, the diagonal adjacent at range 2). Makes everything simpler to understand, explain, and remember.

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017
Ha, it seems this question is

Ha, it seems this question is not as easy as I hoped :)
While I see that range 1 and range 2 is a easy solution, I feel that it just doesn't sound as good when you have only...2 ranges. Hmm.., am I wrong?

At the present I'm using adjacent and near. So I'm glad I'm not the only one :)
Looking for more answers with variants!

X3M
Offline
Joined: 10/28/2013
What do you see?

I see a Cross/Plus and a Box/Square.

questccg
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011

The Plus "+" could be "NEXT TO", Diagonals "x" could be "ADJACENT" and if you want ALL around it could be "MELEE" (as opposed to RANGE). I am using something similar in my own "Crystal Heroes" (CH) but I am also using the cards themselves to indicate what attacks are permissible. Here's a sample (I know I've shared it before -- just to explain):

On the bottom left-hand corner is the "Attack Pattern". That's how my Game Tiles are designed to allow the players to SEE what kind of attacks are permissible. This is just an example, the TERMS I cited before may be more appropriate even though I too "struggle" with defining the "positions". The table is easier to visualize and comprehend versus verbose language.

lewpuls
Offline
Joined: 04/04/2009
Sufficient for me to say

Sufficient for me to say "orthogonal" (up, down, and sideways) and "diagonal" (kitty-corner). Most people don't know orthogonal, most know diagonal.

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017
X3M wrote:I see a Cross/Plus

X3M wrote:
I see a Cross/Plus and a Box/Square.

Probably the easiest for understanding. But... doesn't sound sexy :)
"Deal damage to all units in Box range" yikes

questccg wrote:
The Plus "+" could be "NEXT TO", Diagonals "x" could be "ADJACENT" and if you want ALL around it could be "MELEE" (as opposed to RANGE). I am using something similar in my own "Crystal Heroes" (CH) but I am also using the cards themselves to indicate what attacks are permissible. Here's a sample (I know I've shared it before -- just to explain):

On the bottom left-hand corner is the "Attack Pattern". That's how my Game Tiles are designed to allow the players to SEE what kind of attacks are permissible. This is just an example, the TERMS I cited before may be more appropriate even though I too "struggle" with defining the "positions". The table is easier to visualize and comprehend versus verbose language.

I agree, having an "Attack Pattern" is the best way. But it's doesn't make sense in my situation, when I only need 2 patterns (and an actual keyword for it).

lewpuls wrote:
Sufficient for me to say "orthogonal" (up, down, and sideways) and "diagonal" (kitty-corner). Most people don't know orthogonal, most know diagonal.

Yes, but I need a word for orthogonal+diagonal combined.

Templar-kun
Offline
Joined: 12/05/2017
I included all suggestions in

I included all suggestions in the main post. But please post more ideas.

questccg
Online
Joined: 04/16/2011
Actually you only need ONE "keyword"

Templar-kun wrote:
... But it's doesn't make sense in my situation, when I only need 2 patterns (and an actual keyword for it).

In the case of "around" the player, you don't really need a keyword. Something like "Target Any" (makes a lot of sense, no?) since this means any position around the center... (Hear me out -- the idea is ALL versus some)

And then you NEED a Keyword for "plus" ("+") ... I'm not solving the problem just re-defining it so you can get BETTER suggestions!

So "Target Any" is all around. And "Plus" someone has to come up with something clever... IDK. This is 50% of the problem solved. You only need ONE (1) Keyword that relates to the "Plus" positions.

Update #1: "Target Next to" could be the "Plus" positions. And so my suggestion would be "Target Any" or "Target Next to". This sounds logical to me... IF you need to actually "write it down" somewhere.