If I understand correctly it is not possible to hide behind wall. In situation.

[w][w][w][w]

[_][_] [ A ] [w][w][w][w][w][w][w][w]

[_][_][_][_][_] [_][_][_][_][_] [ B ]

[_][_][_][_][_] [_][_][_][ D ][_] [_]

[_][_] [ C ] [w][w][w][w][w][w][w][w]

[w][w][w][w]

I undestand D can see A and C and fire on them ??

D can fire form left up to both A (down left + right) and C (up left + right) ??

...

.

True.

To hide behind a corner you need to shoot and then move away so the enemy cant draw line of sight to you.

I thought the rules stated you can't use a wall corner to draw line of sight? so A and C can shoot round the corner but are out of los of the others, at least that's how we've been playing it. would swear the rules have a red cross on the wall corner on the diagram

True.

To hide behind a corner you need to shoot and then move away so the enemy cant draw line of sight to you.

NOT true. Just look in the appendix of the RRG page 26-7

I thought the rules stated you can't use a wall corner to draw line of sight? so A and C can shoot round the corner but are out of los of the others, at least that's how we've been playing it. would swear the rules have a red cross on the wall corner on the diagram

"

Line of sight cannot be traced through a corner where any

combination of walls and blocking terrain intersect. It can be

traced through the combination of one figure and a diagonally

positioned wall, blocking terrain, or other figure.

•

Figures have line of sight to adjacent figures.

•

It is possible for a figure to have line of sight to another figure

that does not have line of sight back to itself. This most often

happens when a figure is behind a wall or figure. Thematically,

this represents a figure leaning out of cover to make an attack

and then ducking back behind cover.

The pivotal/crucial point is the phrase "...where any

combination of walls and blocking terrain INTERSECT" Corners are otherwise totally legit points for LoS

And once again I'll refer to the appendix

True.

To hide behind a corner you need to shoot and then move away so the enemy cant draw line of sight to you.

NOT true. Just look in the appendix of the RRG page 26-7

D can trace lines from one of his corners to two adjacent corners of both A and C.

The pivotal/crucial point is the phrase "...where any

combination of walls and blocking terrain INTERSECT" Corners are otherwise totally legit points for LoS

And once again I'll refer to the appendix

The appendix is where I remembered the diagram from! and yeah it is legit to draw los from there but only for person hiding behind the wall (lean out, shoot duck back)

Is just about right theme wise I thought

But there are no walls (or anything else) intersecting the lines of sight drawn from D to C in the Original Post.

Is I was controlling players in the corridor bit where D and B are I'd expect to not be able to shoot them because of the wall on the corner and they're tucked in behind it (thematically)

Thematically it would make sense that you can't shoot them. However, rule as written, B and D do have LOS to A and C.

True.

To hide behind a corner you need to shoot and then move away so the enemy cant draw line of sight to you.

NOT true. Just look in the appendix of the RRG page 26-7

You might want to reread Veldrin's post and the OP. Veldrin is agreeing with what the OP thinks is correct. You then disagreed with Veldrin, but your next post you give an example that is showing he is right.

If it helps a wall can block depending on where the shooter is.



In this example:

A has LOS to B and C
B has LOS to A and C
C does not have LOS to A but does have LOS to B

Soontirbeblownup,

I struggled with the written LOS rules too. I understood the examples but I could not see how the examples are an application of the written rules.

Here's what I came up with to help me with corners :

1. By default a corner does not block.

2. Going through a corner blocks LOS if the line splits walls and/or blocking terrain edges that meet at that corner so that the walls and/or blocking terrain edges are on both sides of that line.

3. A line to a corner is considered blocked if, when you draw a line from that corner into the target space, the full path goes through a meeting point of two or more wall and/or blocking edges.

I asked FFG about this and they said they will get back to me.

The idea is more about forgetting what the 'blocking corner' is attached to (ie. blocking wall, figure, impassable terrain) and go back to the basic idea as to whether the target could actually 'see' (read: trace line of sight back to) the target.

In the OP example and usgrandprix's example, picture yourself actually standing in those positions.

In OP's example, B can actually see around the corner, to a point. Think of standing in that spot, looking down the corridor. Because you're not lined up right against the wall, you can see a bit of that space occupied by "A's square" adjacent to the corner.

Consider usgrandprix's example, same applies to B, however C does not work. The only rule here that BREAKS the otherwise ironclad idea, is the notion of A - while rules-wise, making perfect sense drawing LOS from one corner to two adjacent corners of a target - appearing to shoot THROUGH the wall. The designers provide a decent 'idea' to rationalize the exception, as the character shooting and ducking behind the wall on their turn.

If it helps a wall can block depending on where the shooter is.

In this example:

A has LOS to B and C

B has LOS to A and C

C does not have LOS to A but does have LOS to B

Soontirbeblownup,

I struggled with the written LOS rules too. I understood the examples but I could not see how the examples are an application of the written rules.

Here's what I came up with to help me with corners :

1. By default a corner does not block.

2. Going through a corner blocks LOS if the line splits walls and/or blocking terrain edges that meet at that corner so that the walls and/or blocking terrain edges are on both sides of that line.

3. A line to a corner is considered blocked if the target and the attacker do not share the same quadrant and two or more wall and/or blocking edges of the target's space meet at that corner.

I asked FFG about this and they said they will get back to me.

it's the B to A I would say isn't, because of the flat to the wall when being shot at thing, although can understand what you're saying too. Course the Trick shot upgrade card totally counters that!

If it helps a wall can block depending on where the shooter is.

In this example:

A has LOS to B and C

B has LOS to A and C

C does not have LOS to A but does have LOS to B

Soontirbeblownup,

I struggled with the written LOS rules too. I understood the examples but I could not see how the examples are an application of the written rules.

Here's what I came up with to help me with corners :

1. By default a corner does not block.

2. Going through a corner blocks LOS if the line splits walls and/or blocking terrain edges that meet at that corner so that the walls and/or blocking terrain edges are on both sides of that line.

3. A line to a corner is considered blocked if the target and the attacker do not share the same quadrant and two or more wall and/or blocking edges of the target's space meet at that corner.

I asked FFG about this and they said they will get back to me.

it's the B to A I would say isn't, because of the flat to the wall when being shot at thing, although can understand what you're saying too. Course the Trick shot upgrade card totally counters that!

This:

This:

Yep totally got that, does that not strike anyone else as odd that you could potentially do damage with only a fraction of that square visible, like a "ooh I nicked him" when all that space to hide behind? unless the fluff is that they're leaning out to shoot and get hit, then am totally fine with it!

Thinking along lines of Malifaux, for los you need both sides of bases otherwise get cover modifier.

I'm fine with that example, if somebody is shooting at you, then you must be able to get a shot back. Does strike me strange that there are no cover bonuses in the game though, may be there should be a flat 1 armour or a die roll this would then give that bonus for the model shooting behind over at one not in a fire-fight.

The problem with cover, in my opinion, is that it highly favors the Imperial player. The Rebels can't just sit behind walls and snipe Imperials; they need to be actively going out and accomplishing mission objectives. When Rebels do attack, I feel there is an incentive to stay put and shoot twice so they can overcome the hordes of Imperials bearing down on them. The Imperials, on the other hand, are more than happy to hole up somewhere and gun down the Rebels. Since they only get one attack, they have an incentive to move to advantageous cover and fire.

Yep totally got that, does that not strike anyone else as odd that you could potentially do damage with only a fraction of that square visible, like a "ooh I nicked him" when all that space to hide behind? unless the fluff is that they're leaning out to shoot and get hit, then am totally fine with it!

Thinking along lines of Malifaux, for los you need both sides of bases otherwise get cover modifier.

Yeah it gets absurd on the margins. For example here A has LOS to B but B does not to A. This really frustrated my Rebels one game.

Yep totally got that, does that not strike anyone else as odd that you could potentially do damage with only a fraction of that square visible, like a "ooh I nicked him" when all that space to hide behind? unless the fluff is that they're leaning out to shoot and get hit, then am totally fine with it!

Thinking along lines of Malifaux, for los you need both sides of bases otherwise get cover modifier.

Yeah it gets absurd on the margins. For example here A has LOS to B but B does not to A. This really frustrated my Rebels one game.

Yeah I can see that! but is kinda how it should be. Agree with

Budgernaut that it favours the imps, but don't most the missions anyway?

How can one have LOS and the other not, is the layout not a mirror image?

Yep totally got that, does that not strike anyone else as odd that you could potentially do damage with only a fraction of that square visible, like a "ooh I nicked him" when all that space to hide behind? unless the fluff is that they're leaning out to shoot and get hit, then am totally fine with it!

Thinking along lines of Malifaux, for los you need both sides of bases otherwise get cover modifier.

Yeah it gets absurd on the margins. For example here A has LOS to B but B does not to A. This really frustrated my Rebels one game.

Actually... That is incorrect, unless you deliberately 'overdrew' the line next to 'B' 1/4 to 1/3 into the next square.

If the line is supposed to line-up with B's square, they would actually be able to shoot at each other, 'ducking' around oppostite sides of the wall.