Jump to content


Reaction to FAQ on Blocking LOS

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 Crenshaw13



  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 08:38 AM

From 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.

Waitaminit. A figure blocks LOS to himself? Seriously? SERIOUSLY??

Ummm. Why? In what universe does this make sense?



#2 Robin



  • Members
  • 695 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 08:57 AM

 Why start a NEW thread about a debate which has occured quite a number of times?

Ask yourself the following question: as that situation occurs when you are unable to trace LOS to the figure's front corners, is it not an indication that visibility is already seriously limited to it?

Sure, the LOS rule is an abstraction which can lead to occasional counterintuitive effects. But I revised my first knee-jerk reaction as the hereabove question lowered the level of irrationality that I felt previously.

  • griton likes this
An adventure is only an inconvenience rightly considered. An inconvenience is an adventure wrongly considered.
G. K. Chesterton

#3 Crenshaw13



  • Members
  • 2 posts

Posted 01 September 2012 - 01:37 PM

Mea culpa if the topic has come up. A cursory glance at the recent topics did not indicate so. Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the ruling is ridiculous?

As a matter of fact, yeah, the situation where it matters has come up in our games - several times.

Simple solution = houserule that FAQ away. Which is what we've all agreed to do.

Regardless…idiotic ruling.


#4 Triu



  • Members
  • 204 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 01:42 AM

The FAQ was just confirming what was already in the rulebook -- including an example in the LOS diagram. There has been so much discussion about LOS that it may be hard to pick out this one point. There are long threads with lots of embedded graphics (easier to do there) on BoardGameGeek about this. Shooting around corners & walls, shooting through obstacles on the diagonal, random self-blocking squares, and lots of house rules are all topics of discussion. I have somewhat come to terms with quantum archery, but the debate rages on …

#5 Rico



  • Members
  • 169 posts

Posted 02 September 2012 - 04:56 AM

Yup. I'd agree you're beating a dead horse at this point. The thing is D2e is played on a square grid which has all kinds of nuances in terms of general movement and LoS. My group just plays it as intended even if those bizarre caveats crop up that would never occur in a true 3D space. Surprise! It's a board game. It's really not so terrible and it's not like one side benefits as they both play by the same rules. But I suppose if you're just pulling your hair out because FFG's 2D world isn't conforming with the natural laws of physics, you can always just house rule it and carry on.

© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS