A line of sight question came up in the last game I played.

This is my understanding of the line of sight rules from page 9, Attacking, Step 2:

1. "The attacking figure must be able to trace an uninterrupted straight line from the center of its space to the center of the space it is targeting."

2. "Line of sight is blocked by walls, closed doors, other figures, and blocking obstacles."

In the following example the hero cannot trace line of sight to monster 1, because the rubble is blocking line of sight. And, the hero cannot trace line of sight to monster 2, because monster 1 is blocking line of sight. Now, if monster 1 was not there, then the hero could trace line of sight to monster 2.

H=hero
R=rubble
1=monster1
2=monster2
-=empty space

H
-R
-1
-2

So, the hero can't shoot monster 2 because monster 1 is in the way, and the hero can't shoot monster 1 because the rubble is in the way. But, if monster 1 is blocking monster 2, then why can't the hero shoot monster 1. Oh right, the rubble. What the heck? Is this some mystical alignment of figures that opens some kind of extra-dimensional hiding place?

But wouldn't the rubble block LoS to monster 2 if monster 1 was absent?

Slev said:

No. The LOS from the Hero to the target passes exactly through the corner of the rubble space, and does not enter the rubble space at all.

The original question is resolved in the GLoAQ.
Q) In the instance where you have a figure blocking the Line of Sight of another figure, is that Figure targetable, no matter the circumstance?
A) For purposes of determining LoS for an attack, ignore figures that are not in LoS themselves.

From what I can tell (had to draw it out on paper), if Monster 1 is not there, you can shoot Monster 2.

In order to shoot monster 2, the aim is adjusted slightly to one side, which will bypass the rubble but passes through the corner of Monster 1's square. If Monster 1 is not there, then Monster 2 is a viable target via LoS

There is a really cool file on boardgamegeek.com that has an LoS diagram that shows which squares to consider when determining LoS. Sorry, I don't have a link handy.

Something appears to have happened to your little diagram in the OP, and it looks like the hero, rubble and monsters are all standing in a straight line. This is the cause of the confusing replies you're getting.

However, the situation I believe you are describing is one that has been raised before, and should be in the GLOAQ sticky topic, if not in the new FAQ. The answer is that, in this particular situation, monster 1 does not block LOS to monster 2.

So, in this situation, you are saying that Monster 2 can be targeted without making any changes, because the ruling is that a figure that is not in LoS itself, will not block LoS to another figure?

OK, I get that... I guess I misunderstood what the OP was asking.

ronin3338 said:

Yes, I'm pretty sure that's how it works (I haven't looked at the GLOAQ in a long time, but that's the ruling I recall.)

Is it also true that if Hero 1 can see Monster 2, then Monster 2 can see Hero 1? If you trace line of sight in the other direction, Monster 1 blocks Monster 2's LoS, because Monster 2 can actually see Monster 1.

Hammerdal said:

No. The modified LoS rules created for this situation are not reciprocal.

Also the LoS rules for pits were never reciprocal.