# Line of Sight Verification

## Recommended Posts

Is this a valid line of sight?

Edited by robertpolson

##### Share on other sites

No, the corners you trace to have to be adjacent to each other. A little stipulation that's easily missed in the rules.

##### Share on other sites

“To determine line of sight, the player draws two imaginary, non- intersecting lines from one corner of the attacking figure’s space to two adjacent corners of the target’s space."

Can you provide further explanation? How are the two corner in front of a figure adjacent to each other and two corners diagonally from each other are not adjacent?

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, robertpolson said:

“To determine line of sight, the player draws two imaginary, non- intersecting lines from one corner of the attacking figure’s space to two adjacent corners of the target’s space."

Can you provide further explanation? How are the two corner in front of a figure adjacent to each other and two corners diagonally from each other are not adjacent?

Doesn't have to be in front... You can draw to any two corners, even the ones on the other side of the figure. The two corners just need to be next to each other.  Diagonal corners aren't adjacent to each other.

##### Share on other sites

adjacent corners is a definition from geometry.

##### Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, a1bert said:

adjacent corners is a definition from geometry.

Your geometry example might confuse some readers.  Can you clarify if that supports or refutes the Line of Sight example above?  Its uh...for a friend...

##### Share on other sites

Corners (vertices) are adjacent when they are connected by an edge/side.

i.e. Adjacent - (of a pair of vertices in a graph) joined by a common edge.

The corners in the example are diagonal/opposing corners, they are not adjacent corners, so they do not satisfy the requirement for LoS.

##### Share on other sites

How would one explain a melee attack from a diagonal?

Melee attacks can target a hostile figure or object adjacent to or in the same space as the attacker

Edited by NeverBetTheFett

##### Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, a1bert said:

Corners (vertices) are adjacent when they are connected by an edge/side.

i.e. Adjacent - (of a pair of vertices in a graph) joined by a common edge.

The corners in the example are diagonal/opposing corners, they are not adjacent corners, so they do not satisfy the requirement for LoS.

I'm not trolling here, just to be upfront about it, but can you cite something within the rules for Imperial Assault that supports this?  I'm asking specifically because I've witnessed this go both ways with tournament rulings.  I don't have a position on the legitimate outcome either way, I just want us all, broadly, to be playing the game accurately, especially in competitive events.

##### Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NeverBetTheFett said:

How would one explain a melee attack from a diagonal?

You may need to explain what you mean in some more detail.

##### Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cleardave said:

You may need to explain what you mean in some more detail.

So can you attack a figure of which you only share the diagonal point? Is that adjacent? Like in the picture above, are the two rangers at the bottom adjacent to eachother according to the definition of adjacent given above? They share the same vertex, but do not share any sides.

I think we're over-interpreting. I think the word "adjacent' is put in to avoid issues with large figures. Adjacent is also defined as next to or adjoining.

Edited by NeverBetTheFett

##### Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, cleardave said:

I'm not trolling here, just to be upfront about it, but can you cite something within the rules for Imperial Assault that supports this?  I'm asking specifically because I've witnessed this go both ways with tournament rulings.  I don't have a position on the legitimate outcome either way, I just want us all, broadly, to be playing the game accurately, especially in competitive events.

I would agree. FFG should say that the points must connect. I started playing the game with the notion that two diagonal corners were not considered adjacent, in that the two target points must be joined. Then I was taught over the last 2 years or so that it's not the case, that as long as you can draw two imaginary lines that do not intersect, you're good. I've seen many games won this way, so I do think maybe it should be clearer for us non-math types.

##### Share on other sites

For melee: Adjacent figures always have line of sight to each other by definition.

Melee attacks with reach require within 2 spaces and in line of sight, it is analogous to ranged attack.

No, the rules do not define that "adjacent corners" uses the geometric definition of adjacent corners, but it doesn't define any words used in everyday communication either.

The confusion is possibly because the Learn to Play omits the "adjacent" word, while it is included in the entry for Line of Sight in the RRG. RRG explicitly overrides conflicting rules though.

Line of Sight said:

To determine line of sight, the player draws two imaginary, non-
intersecting lines from one corner of the attacking figure's space
to two adjacent corners of the target's space. If either of these lines
passes through a wall, figure, or blocking terrain, then the figure
does not have line of sight to the target.

Edited by a1bert

##### Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, a1bert said:

No, the rules do not define that "adjacent corners" uses the geometric definition of adjacent corners, but it doesn't define any words used in everyday communication either.

The confusion is possibly because the Learn to Play omits the "adjacent" word, while it is included in the entry for Line of Sight in the RRG. RRG explicitly overrides conflicting rules though.

I'm not trying to pick a fight and make the presupposition that because the RRG didn't redefine all language that all language doesn't apply.  In the rules of games though, sometimes our common language is specifically overridden to mean something very specific to the game, to streamline or clarify something in the game mechanics.

My query was to see if we had a clear cut example somewhere in there, and I was suggesting a diagram on this subject would probably not be a bad idea in a future update.  Usually you pull a quote out with page references and everything so I was looking forward to another classic rules schooling in that regard.

This takes me back to a lovely X-Wing debate over whether using other external tools (like your hands/arms) to pre-measure your and your opponent's potential moves was legal or not, since nothing on the subject was ever (as far as when I was still playing in 2016) published on the subject in either the rules or the FAQ.

##### Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cleardave said:

Usually you pull a quote out with page references and everything so I was looking forward to another classic rules schooling in that regard.

And so I did. The RRG defines line of sight with "adjacent corners", and none of the line of sight examples shows that you could use opposing corners. If the rules on the RRG are not enough to convince people, then fire off a rules question e-mail. I don't expect that this would get an entry on the FAQ just because people ignore words in the rules. (A year or two back "adjacent corners" in Google search gave the answer, I don't think I got the same search results now, but a dictionary search also gave the the definition of "adjacent corners" just fine.)

##### Share on other sites

I meant a reference to a specific mention of not using opposing corners.  Again, I'm not disputing your evidence, just wondering if an official clarification wouldn't be a bad thing.

Also, I found your answer on the top search result for Google, clumsily using "what counts as adjacent corners on a square"as a search;

So I think as far as the issue goes, we've shown our work both in our common language and supported it with references in the rules to adjacent corners, and I think it's safe to say that opposing corners are NOT adjacent and would not provide line of sight in the example in the original post.

##### Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NeverBetTheFett said:

So can you attack a figure of which you only share the diagonal point? Is that adjacent? Like in the picture above, are the two rangers at the bottom adjacent to eachother according to the definition of adjacent given above? They share the same vertex, but do not share any sides.

I think we're over-interpreting. I think the word "adjacent' is put in to avoid issues with large figures. Adjacent is also defined as next to or adjoining.

This is confusing the rule about adjacent corners of a target square when determining line of sight and the rule about what counts as adjacent squares.

For determining line of sight, the RRG is explicitly clear that the corners have to be adjacent. This means they have to be joined by a single side.

When talking about adjacency in terms of adjacent squares or adjacent figures, this is handled by the Adjacency rules, which is laid out in more detail because of complexity like blocking terrain, walls, doors, etc...  But without all that, it refers to every square next to the target square in both orthogonal and diagonal directions.

##### Share on other sites

Along these same lines, in the RRG, Appendix 1, the example called (5) specifically says you can trace LOS through a character. Now, this example is different than the original picture in that there is a range greater than 1. Is that the only difference? Characters that share a wall can trace LOS through the opposing character?

##### Share on other sites

You can draw line of sight through both the attacker and target, but not through other figures (14). You need to draw line of sight to two adjacent corners of the target space, so the line of sight in the picture in the original post is not valid, because it draws lines to opposing corners of the target space.

Edited by a1bert

##### Share on other sites

Interesting. Didn't know/notice this little detail.

##### Share on other sites

1. None of the rules override adjacency term, they just define what adjacent spaces and adjacent figures are, which is something different (and follow different rules).

2. Interpretation, that diagonal edges are adjacent would lead to situation, where the rulling about adjacency of  corners is unnecessary, because all of the corners are either connected by edge or diagonal. In this situation, the rulling would be just "To determine line of sight, the player draws two imaginary, nonintersecting lines from one corner of the attacking figure’s space to two corners of the target’s space."

To clarify: The base principle of interpreting rules (and all other regulations, legal acts etc.) is, that all of the used words serve a purpose. It's not novel, where you put some words just to make the text look better. If something is written down, it usually means, that  there is a reason for that.

Edited by Szycha

##### Share on other sites
On 2/11/2018 at 12:15 PM, NeverBetTheFett said:

I think the word "adjacent' is put in to avoid issues with large figures.

Could you expand on this?  I don't understand why there would be an issue here.  The rules are clear that when attacking large figures you select a single space that the figure occupies.

##### Share on other sites

The adjacent corner rule blew my mind when that was explained to me. I read the rule several times, but the adjacent word just never triggered in my brain.

In my head (which is a special place full of it's own nonsense) it makes sense thematically that you need to be able to see a complete side of a figure to be able to actually see what you're shooting at. If you put yourself in the perspective of the attacking figure in the example; you can see something, maybe a flash of color, but you really can't make out what you want to attack.

##### Share on other sites

Is one of those rules that's tough to get your head round. I always thought you couldn't draw los to a corner with a black line on it, to replicate the "tuck back behind the wall" effect.

Turned out that was wrong. Still you do get used to it fairly quickly

##### Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fightwookies said:

In my head (which is a special place full of it's own nonsense)

Kind of like Camelot?