A few more. All the thick blue lines are specifically walls:

I'm not saying this is sufficient, I'm just giving it as another point of view.

I think we're getting there and thanks for all your points.

I feel like I'm jumping the gun a bit and some of these might not come up. And in the end I can invoke "common sense" but we know that sometimes goes out the window when your opponent is about to roll a nasty attack on you...

I've posted a few specific examples to try to get the conversation away from "theory" and onto the game board. Once I hear what the final word is on these I'm satisfied.

I've been following this post for days now.

I have to admit, it seems like one of the biggest flaws once I've actually thought some scenarios.

On the otherhand, most of the scenarios on these pages have come across to me as common sense. Each one I've been able to quickly rattle off yes or no for LOS on each one.

But upon closer inspection and some rules lawyering, there have been a few that seem odd.

For home games, for the campaign, I don't think my friends/family would have any issues with my rulings.

But for the skirmish game, there's going to be a competitive scene where this stuff will matter and will cause issues if they aren't resolved.

I'd almost want to contruct a laminated guide with various answers from the Devs to take to venues if I was still doing that sort of thing.

I don't really get this thread

It seems the LoS rules are identical with the D2E LoS rules apart from the fact that you now can trace LoS along the edge of a blocked space (and of course that you now need 2 LoS).

If so, there really shouldn't be many problems. Or is this because of thematic sense?

I don't see the problems in all your examples, as all seem to be easily explainable.

I don't really get this thread

It seems the LoS rules are identical with the D2E LoS rules apart from the fact that you now can trace LoS along the edge of a blocked space (and of course that you now need 2 LoS).

If so, there really shouldn't be many problems. Or is this because of thematic sense?

I don't see the problems in all your examples, as all seem to be easily explainable.

Yeah, I thought that all of the examples were clear. The only semi-difficult part was in the very first post, where it wasn't clear that one of the squares was a wall (and after that was explained, the whole thing was easy to understand). Other than that, I think it's a wonderfully simple LOS system. A line can run along a wall, as long as it's not the only line from the attacker's square to the defender. And obviously your character cannot be shot when he is standing behind a 1-square wall, where the only points of access to his square are covered by that wall.

It seems to me like we're trying to make this LOS system more complex than it is.

I've been thinking about it lately and it's best to think of the squares as separate from each other.

That's what I started thinking too, but it doesn't quite work.

It's interesting because under the adjacent heading it states:

"Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall or blocking

terrain are not adjacent."

But ya, my theory goes down the drain because Luke shouldn't be able to have a LOS on that white diagonal line below if that was the case (if you imagine a space between Luke and the space directly to the right of him, the line is passing though a wall).

The only thing that is clearly differentiating the image below and the OP's original image is the intersection of walls.

Why shouldn't he have LoS? Spaces don't need to be adjacant to draw LoS.

As the wall ends on the corner of Luke's space it doesn't count as disabling the corner (unlike an interception would) for LoS purposes, again adjacancy has nothing to do with that.

To those saying there is no point to this thread, I think you're missing the point (as I did, at first). It's really easy to look at the game state and rule on whether you have line of sight or not. However, the point of this thread is to find exactly where in the rules you can support those gut-based decisions. So if you don't see the point and everything seems clear as day to you, please cite the rules that that explain the problem situations.

I've been thinking about it lately and it's best to think of the squares as separate from each other.

That's what I started thinking too, but it doesn't quite work.

It's interesting because under the adjacent heading it states:

"Two spaces that share only an edge that is a wall or blocking

terrain are not adjacent."

But ya, my theory goes down the drain because Luke shouldn't be able to have a LOS on that white diagonal line below if that was the case (if you imagine a space between Luke and the space directly to the right of him, the line is passing though a wall).

The only thing that is clearly differentiating the image below and the OP's original image is the intersection of walls.

Why shouldn't he have LoS? Spaces don't need to be adjacant to draw LoS.

As the wall ends on the corner of Luke's space it doesn't count as disabling the corner (unlike an interception would) for LoS purposes, again adjacancy has nothing to do with that.

He isn't saying he doesn't have LoS, he's saying that if the rules changed to where adjacent squares didn't share a line (in other words, the lines were empty spaces) drawing from the corner of Luke's square would be going through the wall. Since this is not how the game rules, it is a non issue.

They do define Blocked Terrain (p. 8, Learn to Play) specifically as a space with red lines around it. That's how I read that part, though it does say blocked space and not terrain. Also note that 11 is a space of Blocked Terrain.

Here are a few more I'd like to see what people think about.

T: Target

A: Attacker

Red lines are LOS lines

Based on the appendix, these both seem perfectly reasonable to me. I cite section 17 and 2.

A few more. All the thick blue lines are specifically walls:

1) You can trace line of sight from any corner to two adjacent corners of another figure's space. These lines can follow a wall. They are not overlapping. I see no issue.

2) The right-most line is fine. The left-most one is what we would call problematic. I don't believe that corner of wall is what constitutes intersecting walls (they meet, but do not intersect), and as the appendix (11) illustrates, corners do not block line of sight if you trace along them.

3) Same as for 2.

To me, understanding that drawing a line to a corner is irrelevant since you must consider the target space is what has given me more confidence in my gut-rulings. But who knows. Maybe I'll second-guess myself tomorrow.

*was stupid, found it*

I've just been looking at it logically. Using the one corner to 2 corners rule, and in a case where it looks like there shouldn't be, my opponent and I just agree if it is or isn't. Very understanding group though, so I can see this not working for all groups.

EDIT:

I also kind of look at if there's obstructing figures or walls or whatever in between the 2 lines I draw from corner to corner.

This is always a tricky one. We were talking about it earlier this year.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/188354-adjacent-question/