Line of sight

23 replies to this topic

#21 Lord_Nikon

Lord_Nikon

Member

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 08:51 AM

exy said:

--hopefully FFG will toss this into a FAQ.

This has been address in the FAQ:

"Q. When tracing line of sight to the corner of a space containing a figure, does the figure occupying the target space block line of sight?

A.  Yes, if the line passes through any blocked space (a space containing a figure or obstacle) the target space is not in line of sight.  This includes the target space itself."

(emphasis mine)

So apparently if you are targeting a figure in a given space, and the only way to get LOS to him is to trace to a corner of his space that the figure blocks, you don't have LOS.

I personally feel they made a mistake on this one.  It makes absolutely no sense that a figure can block LOS to itself.  If I can't shoot an arrow at you, because you are in between me and you, and the arrow would end up hitting you before it got to you, well that's just dumb!  It's so dumb, it's hard to even explain how dumb it is.

#22 Rico

Rico

Member

• Members
• 169 posts

Posted 21 January 2013 - 02:34 PM

Lord_Nikon said:

exy said:

--hopefully FFG will toss this into a FAQ.

This has been address in the FAQ:

"Q. When tracing line of sight to the corner of a space containing a figure, does the figure occupying the target space block line of sight?

A.  Yes, if the line passes through any blocked space (a space containing a figure or obstacle) the target space is not in line of sight.  This includes the target space itself."

(emphasis mine)

So apparently if you are targeting a figure in a given space, and the only way to get LOS to him is to trace to a corner of his space that the figure blocks, you don't have LOS.

I personally feel they made a mistake on this one.  It makes absolutely no sense that a figure can block LOS to itself.  If I can't shoot an arrow at you, because you are in between me and you, and the arrow would end up hitting you before it got to you, well that's just dumb!  It's so dumb, it's hard to even explain how dumb it is.

It really isn't so dumb when you consider that you are playing a board game consisting of a grid of squares. This isn't a three dimensional, real world simulation. The game world lives on a grid and as such the rules are designed around the limitations of this. I agree that it does read like something nonsensical, but the designers didn't just throw the rules together - You don't think they play tested center-to-center LoS? Perhaps if they went with a hex grid  that would have tested  better, but they went with squares. So, this is how it plays. It is not dumb. It is how the game was designed to be played.

#23 Lord_Nikon

Lord_Nikon

Member

• Members
• 6 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 02:08 AM

Rico said:

Lord_Nikon said:

exy said:

--hopefully FFG will toss this into a FAQ.

This has been address in the FAQ:

"Q. When tracing line of sight to the corner of a space containing a figure, does the figure occupying the target space block line of sight?

A.  Yes, if the line passes through any blocked space (a space containing a figure or obstacle) the target space is not in line of sight.  This includes the target space itself."

(emphasis mine)

So apparently if you are targeting a figure in a given space, and the only way to get LOS to him is to trace to a corner of his space that the figure blocks, you don't have LOS.

I personally feel they made a mistake on this one.  It makes absolutely no sense that a figure can block LOS to itself.  If I can't shoot an arrow at you, because you are in between me and you, and the arrow would end up hitting you before it got to you, well that's just dumb!  It's so dumb, it's hard to even explain how dumb it is.

It really isn't so dumb when you consider that you are playing a board game consisting of a grid of squares. This isn't a three dimensional, real world simulation. The game world lives on a grid and as such the rules are designed around the limitations of this. I agree that it does read like something nonsensical, but the designers didn't just throw the rules together - You don't think they play tested center-to-center LoS? Perhaps if they went with a hex grid  that would have tested  better, but they went with squares. So, this is how it plays. It is not dumb. It is how the game was designed to be played.

I agree it's a board game and it needs a simple board game rule.  However, trace a line from any corner to any corner and check for obstacles between the target squares, is no more difficult than, trace a line from any corner to any corner and check for obstacles between the squares including the target squares.  I actually think the form is easier because it's intuitive and makes sense, and quite honestly thought that's what the rules meant prior to the FAQ (due to their emphasis on ANY CORNER in the original rulebook).

I just don't see a point in using a wonky rule when there's a non wonky version that works just as easy and is almost identical.  Especially given the original rule was unclear so it would have been a clarification of the original rules, not an outright rules change.

#24 Robin

Robin

Member

• Members
• 663 posts

Posted 22 January 2013 - 04:13 AM

Center to center LOS would ask for a dot to be printed in the center of each square.

It would be less appealing, graphically.

And I seem to have read that 1st edition used center to center LOS and that the rule generated quite a lot of debates - and the LOS was more difficult to obtain, thus quite a long time spent by players to place their figures in the best cover or firing position.

An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.