# LOS and Impassable Terrain Corners

18 replies to this topic

### #1 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

Member

• Members
• 207 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:44 AM

Okay, here's what should be a pretty simple question, but it's been confusing me.

In the picture above, do the Pounder and the Ludwig have Line of Sight to one another?

At first I thought it was pretty clear that they didn't based on pg. 10 of the Revised Core Rules.  There it says:

"If a unit is adjacent to impassable terrain, it can target a unit who is also adjacent to impassable terrain when both units receive corner cover from the same side. If a unit is adjacent to impassable terrain, it cannot target a unit who is also adjacent to impassable terrain when the units receive corner cover from different sides."

But then I realized that they are talking about units adjacent to impassable terrain.  In the above example, neither unit is adjacent to the terrain, so now I'm not sure whether they can target each other or not.

What do you folks think?

Also, would it make a difference if one (or both) of the units involved were a squad?

Also, what if the Ludwig and Pounder each moved forward one diagonal square.  Then they would both be adjacent to impassable terrain.  However, walkers don't benefit from corner cover.  So, could they target each other or no?

### #2 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

Member

• Members
• 207 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:46 AM

If you're having trouble seeing the full picture, try to "Quote" the original post.

### #3 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

Member

• Members
• 958 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 06:55 AM

Kriegschatten said:

If you're having trouble seeing the full picture, try to "Quote" the original post.

always bring your width to around 600 if I remember right

### #4 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

Member

• Members
• 958 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:37 AM

To my understanding, any kind of opposite corner on a direct diagonal, like on the above doesn't have los.  Doesn't make any difference whether unit or vehicle unit.

### #5 golem101

golem101

Member

• Members
• 199 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:30 AM

According to the Revised Rulebook, that's true only if they're adjacent to the impassable terrain square (page 10). So in the situation depicted in the photo, both walkers have LoS. Same would apply if only one of them moved forward (diagonal) towards its opponent, as LoS remains until both of them are adjacent to impassable terrain elements.

If they both moved one square forward (diagonal) toward each other, they'd become adjacent to the terrain elements, and so would lose LoS. Corner cover would not matter at all, being vehicles.

If the units were squads, they'd lose LoS (again) if both of them moved forward (diagonal) toward each other; however if only one moved and the other did not, the former would benefit from corner cover, and LoS would remain once again.

### #6 blkdymnd

blkdymnd

Member

• Members
• 958 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 10:53 AM

golem101 said:

According to the Revised Rulebook, that's true only if they're adjacent to the impassable terrain square (page 10). So in the situation depicted in the photo, both walkers have LoS. Same would apply if only one of them moved forward (diagonal) towards its opponent, as LoS remains until both of them are adjacent to impassable terrain elements.

If they both moved one square forward (diagonal) toward each other, they'd become adjacent to the terrain elements, and so would lose LoS. Corner cover would not matter at all, being vehicles.

If the units were squads, they'd lose LoS (again) if both of them moved forward (diagonal) toward each other; however if only one moved and the other did not, the former would benefit from corner cover, and LoS would remain once again.

we've misinterpreted that then, thanks

### #7 SeismicShock

SeismicShock

Member

• Members
• 67 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 03:10 PM

That's kind of dumb, but I don't see anything to contradict it.

I feel like if the actual line that is drawn between the units to determine LOS only gets shorter, and doesn't pass through any more, or any less corners, then it shouldn't change based on whether the units are adjacent to the cover element or not. Determning cover is a different story though

### #8 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

Member

• Members
• 1,727 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 08:33 PM

SeismicShock said:

That's kind of dumb, but I don't see anything to contradict it.

I feel like if the actual line that is drawn between the units to determine LOS only gets shorter, and doesn't pass through any more, or any less corners, then it shouldn't change based on whether the units are adjacent to the cover element or not. Determning cover is a different story though

That's how we have always played it as it does completely block physical LOS in exactly the same way if the obstructing blocks were touching corner to corner and you can't shoot through them.  On the flip side, the first couple of games we played we did not count the corner a unit was using as cover as we assumed that models could shoot round a corner.

### #9 Lska

Lska

Member

• Members
• 487 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:02 PM

Well for me in both situstions there is clearly no LOS between the units. Opposite corners thing.

### #10 Major Mishap

Major Mishap

Member

• Members
• 1,727 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:16 PM

Lska said:

Well for me in both situstions there is clearly no LOS between the units. Opposite corners thing.

Exact0ty, and thats how nearly everybody appears to be playing it, but the rule does say that both units must be using corner cover, which they can't if not adjacent to it.  Think I'll carry on playing as we were and put it down to another rule oversight by FFG

### #11 Lska

Lska

Member

• Members
• 487 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 09:55 PM

Yeach that's the way we played but after  reading the RCS now i'm not so sure about that:D We need Loophole Master!

### #12 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

Member

• Members
• 1,938 posts

Posted 24 November 2012 - 11:51 PM

I've always played that any opposing corners on a diagonal block LOS, no matter the distance. I'd never noticed that the RCS had altered these rules slightly. I think it may have just been an oversight, since this doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not changing how I play the game.

### #13 Lska

Lska

Member

• Members
• 487 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 02:08 AM

Well i looked up in the OCS rules and in fact it's not very clear about that..

### #14 golem101

golem101

Member

• Members
• 199 posts

Posted 25 November 2012 - 04:15 AM

Loophole Master said:

I've always played that any opposing corners on a diagonal block LOS, no matter the distance. I'd never noticed that the RCS had altered these rules slightly. I think it may have just been an oversight, since this doesn't make a lot of sense. I'm not changing how I play the game.

Lska said:

Well i looked up in the OCS rules and in fact it's not very clear about that..

Well, I've always played the OCS way too (two opposing corners block LoS, no matter if units are adjacent or not to relevant impassable terrain), but according to the RCS rulebook, that's a house rule - one that makes more sense, at least.

During tournaments it's a detail that could make a lot of difference.

### #15 SolennelBern

SolennelBern

Member

• Members
• 869 posts

Posted 26 November 2012 - 02:32 AM

All my games, a situation like this is NO LOS and that's how i'll continue playing this rule.

### #16 Poyet

Poyet

Member

• Members
• 176 posts

Posted 29 November 2012 - 07:16 AM

Iam back after wery long time so

Hello fellow dust-ers

1.It seems that opposed corner rule blocking LOS is gone from revised

2.Vehicles does not get cover save so , whole paragrapf :

liNe of Sight ArouNd corNerS
If a unit is adjacent to impassable terrain, it can target a unit who is also adjacent to
impassable terrain when both units receive corner cover from the same side. If a unit is
adjacent to impassable terrain, it cannot target a unit who is also adjacent to impassable
terrain when the units receive corner cover from different sides

Have nothing to do with walkers . So corners does not block LOS to Vehicles….

cheers

### #17 Kriegschatten

Kriegschatten

Member

• Members
• 207 posts

Posted 21 April 2013 - 01:13 PM

Updating this thread so you can actually see the full pic:

### #18 Ralan

Ralan

Member

• Members
• 2 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 12:13 PM

I put the question to Fantasy Flight and got a very prompt reply.  Regarding the necessity of being adjacent to impassable terrain for opposite corners to obscure LOS, they say:

"When a diagonal line of sight between two units would cross two opposite corners of impassable terrain, line of sight is blocked between those units. If any of those units are not adjacent to the impassable terrain that would block line of sight in this way, line of sight is still blocked between those units.

It seems that most folks have been playing this way already.  It is nice to know that that is how they intended it to be played.  Happy Gaming indeed!!

### #19 Loophole Master

Loophole Master

Member

• Members
• 1,938 posts

Posted 22 April 2013 - 05:02 PM

Glad to see it ruled this way. So the wording in the Revised Rulebook is incorrect.

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