According to the rules, because the wall on the bottom doesn't extend through the whole square, it is ignored beyond that last corner. So yes, Major Mishap is right. In the picture as illustrated, both actually have LoS to each other.

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.

I don't think this is correct. I think both A and B have LOS to each other. On p. 16 of the RRG (second bullet under LOS) it says, "If a wall does not cover an entire edge, then line of sight may be traced to, from, and through that edge."

So, since the line below B does not run the entire length of the square below B, B can shoot at A from that corner.

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.

I don't think this is correct. I think both A and B have LOS to each other. On p. 16 of the RRG (second bullet under LOS) it says, "If a wall does not cover an entire edge, then line of sight may be traced to, from, and through that edge."

So, since the line below B does not run the entire length of the square below B, B can shoot at A from that corner.

You are right. I corrected the diagram. I meant for it to extend. Thanks Major Mishap, powda, Budgernaut, and El_Tonio for pointing that out.

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.

IMO too many people are "overthinking" the whole thing. I saw/read/heard the "corner" mechanics "explained" by someone as follows: the figure standing at the corner (A in the example above) is able to peek around the corner and fire a round/shot and then "immediately" pulling the head back behind the wall section. In the OP example one could imagine that, even though there is a corner, there's simply not enough room/space to completely hide, and thus the other figure(s) will also have LoS.

Thank god/FFG for making a very simple and straight forward "no-need-to-discuss-if-24-or-25-%-of-my-figure-is-in-LoS" mechanics

If you just apply the general rule that to have line of sight you need to be able to trace an uninterrupted line from one corner to two corners, then it's simple and you won't have many situations where you are in doubt. But can you shoot through a corner when you're boxed in by other models for instanc? In the example below C could fire at A, B and perhaps D but not E. And if he was one square further away from B, then it's obvious he wouldn't be able to shoot at D (If he was where X is). The line can go along the edge, but lines may not overlap. He can trade a line from the corner between A and B to the left corner at D, plus along the edge on the right... so he can trace to the two front corners of D - is that right?

_DE_

__B_

_AC_

__X_

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.

Yes, but isn't that also a "free terrain" movement game?? Whereas IA is a "grid" movement game. And as I've mentioned above: this mechanic/definition of LoS is SOOOO much easier to use, there are close no NO grounds for getting into any "typical Warhammer LoS debate in-game. It is just measure/look and move on

If you just apply the general rule that to have line of sight you need to be able to trace an uninterrupted line from one corner to two corners, then it's simple and you won't have many situations where you are in doubt. But can you shoot through a corner when you're boxed in by other models for instanc? In the example below C could fire at A, B and perhaps D but not E. And if he was one square further away from B, then it's obvious he wouldn't be able to shoot at D (If he was where X is). The line can go along the edge, but lines may not overlap. He can trade a line from the corner between A and B to the left corner at D, plus along the edge on the right... so he can trace to the two front corners of D - is that right?

_DE_

__B_

_AC_

__X_

Assuming there are no walls in your example and A and B are figs then I'd say C can draw LOS to D. And D cannot draw LOS to C.

If you just apply the general rule that to have line of sight you need to be able to trace an uninterrupted line from one corner to two corners, then it's simple and you won't have many situations where you are in doubt. But can you shoot through a corner when you're boxed in by other models for instanc? In the example below C could fire at A, B and perhaps D but not E. And if he was one square further away from B, then it's obvious he wouldn't be able to shoot at D (If he was where X is). The line can go along the edge, but lines may not overlap. He can trade a line from the corner between A and B to the left corner at D, plus along the edge on the right... so he can trace to the two front corners of D - is that right?

_DE_

__B_

_AC_

__X_

Sure C can shoot at D

Thank god were not the only ones having trouble with this Corner horse s***. Thanks for talking this one out.

Here are people's issues with the LoS rules. They are coming into it with preconceived notions from other games and not just reading and applying the rules for this game.

just think of the slight LOS advantage as implicit cover bonus, just offensive not defensive - at least that is my interpretation.

If you just apply the general rule that to have line of sight you need to be able to trace an uninterrupted line from one corner to two corners, then it's simple and you won't have many situations where you are in doubt. But can you shoot through a corner when you're boxed in by other models for instanc? In the example below C could fire at A, B and perhaps D but not E. And if he was one square further away from B, then it's obvious he wouldn't be able to shoot at D (If he was where X is). The line can go along the edge, but lines may not overlap. He can trade a line from the corner between A and B to the left corner at D, plus along the edge on the right... so he can trace to the two front corners of D - is that right?

_DE_

__B_

_AC_

__X_

Sure C can shoot at D

Ok, so you're also allowed to trace through the figure you're shooting at. That makes it even easier, when looking at your fine example. Cheers.

If you just apply the general rule that to have line of sight you need to be able to trace an uninterrupted line from one corner to two corners, then it's simple and you won't have many situations where you are in doubt. But can you shoot through a corner when you're boxed in by other models for instanc? In the example below C could fire at A, B and perhaps D but not E. And if he was one square further away from B, then it's obvious he wouldn't be able to shoot at D (If he was where X is). The line can go along the edge, but lines may not overlap. He can trade a line from the corner between A and B to the left corner at D, plus along the edge on the right... so he can trace to the two front corners of D - is that right?

_DE_

__B_

_AC_

__X_

Sure C can shoot at D

Ok, so you're also allowed to trace through the figure you're shooting at. That makes it even easier, when looking at your fine example. Cheers.

"These lines cannot overlap and cannot be traced through walls (thick black lines), blocked terrain (red lines), or spaces containing figures. "

You cannot trace a line through a figure according to page 6 of the "Learn to Play" book, so that diagram shouldn't work.

you can trace a line through the target

If you just apply the general rule that to have line of sight you need to be able to trace an uninterrupted line from one corner to two corners, then it's simple and you won't have many situations where you are in doubt. But can you shoot through a corner when you're boxed in by other models for instanc? In the example below C could fire at A, B and perhaps D but not E. And if he was one square further away from B, then it's obvious he wouldn't be able to shoot at D (If he was where X is). The line can go along the edge, but lines may not overlap. He can trade a line from the corner between A and B to the left corner at D, plus along the edge on the right... so he can trace to the two front corners of D - is that right?

_DE_

__B_

_AC_

__X_

Sure C can shoot at D

Ok, so you're also allowed to trace through the figure you're shooting at. That makes it even easier, when looking at your fine example. Cheers.

"These lines cannot overlap and cannot be traced through walls (thick black lines), blocked terrain (red lines), or spaces containing figures. "

You cannot trace a line through a figure according to page 6 of the "Learn to Play" book, so that diagram shouldn't work.

You are unfortunately wrong, and I will direct you to

RRG page 16 "Line of Sight" second to last paragraph:

A figure does not block line of sight to itself. The target figure also does not block line of sight

And also to examples 5-6 in the Appendix I in page 26

So yes, my example and diagram is solid

you can trace a line through the target

Indeed you can. See "Line of Sight" in the Rules Reference Guide, page 16

A figure does not block line of sight to itself. The target figure also does not block line of sight.

And even if it did C would have Line of Sight to D tracing a line along the left side of the space B is in to the front right corner for Ds Space, and the second one to the front left corner.

The bottom right example in Appendix I in the Rules Reference Guide is basically a mirror version of the situation above.

Another weird situation is when counting distance.

[_] [T]

# #[_]

[_]#[_]

[_]#[_]

[A]#[_]

[_]

A would have a distance of 6 to target T where B have a distance of 5.

No? Don't they both use the same starting corner and end up targeting at least one corner in common?

RRG says that it's the number of movement points it would take the figure from one space to the other.

Where do you find it's from the adjacent space that shares the corner that you start counting and not from the space the figure is in?

Another weird situation is when counting distance.

______T

IIII__

__I___

__I___

_AI___

_B_____

A would have a distance of 6 to target T where B have a distance of 5.

It's very difficult to read your diagram. The edit was an improvement but still find it difficult. However I do believe you're correct on the "how to count spaces" but I'm ok with the apparent "handicap" it gives the figure who's shoot from behind the wall. To me (fluff wise) it makes sense that the shot is more difficult than if he was standing out in the open or if the wall wasn't there. He is peeping around the corner and ducking back in asap

I've tried to improve the diagram. (Tablets are not made for typing!)

[_] = empty space

# = wall - only border of spaces

[T] = space of target

[A] = space of attacker A

= space of attacker B

I've tried to improve the diagram. (Tablets are not made for typing!)

[_] = empty space

# = wall - only border of spaces

[T] = space of target

[A] = space of attacker A

= space of attacker B

I think using a spreadsheet makes it easier to decipher:

Annotation:

Black line = wall

Figure A

Figure B

Figure T

A _x /B _x = Range (or Accuracy) count for figure A/B Ranged attack against T

A will have a longer range due to the rule for counting spaces which says:

Counting Spaces

Many effects require players to measure the distance between two

spaces. To determine this number, the player counts the number

of movement points it would take for a figure to move from one

space to the other.

Impassible terrain, figures, and difficult terrain can be moved into

and through without costing additional movement point for this

measurement. This measurement cannot go through walls, doors,

or blocking terrain.

And A would have to spend 1 extra movement point in order to pass around the corner. And I feel that this is appropriate and "reflects" that A is taking a quick pot shot and immediately diving back for cover.

Edit: So just to make it clear: In my example above A will need Accuracy 6 and B will need 5 since I haven't included the square in which T is standing in the Range annotation count

I find it interesting that many posters within the IA forum, across many different threads, allow themselves to get all tied up into finding a way for the rules to make "thematic sense" or "fluff sense".

It is the rules of the game. Period. If it doesn't make sense to you, if it somehow violates your sense of thematic play, etc., then just make a home rule and play by that.

It really isn't that tough to understand the rules of this game, and play by them accordingly. Stop trying to outguess the designers of the game, or read more into it then there actually is.

I find it interesting that many posters within the IA forum, across many different threads, allow themselves to get all tied up into finding a way for the rules to make "thematic sense" or "fluff sense".

It is the rules of the game. Period. If it doesn't make sense to you, if it somehow violates your sense of thematic play, etc., then just make a home rule and play by that.

It really isn't that tough to understand the rules of this game, and play by them accordingly. Stop trying to outguess the designers of the game, or read more into it then there actually is.

Basically go **** yourself. I have no issues with this or the other rules, and when I make an example or alternative way to "explain" or illustrate a rule in these threads it meant to be an aid to either myself/the person asking for help/others.

It is in no way meant as an attempt to outguess or belittle the amount of gametesting and general abilities of the designers. Don't see how/why you would read that into what I am posting. Actually I believe I mentioned in another LoS thread that I am SOOOO grateful for these straight forward rules for LoS, counting etc.

Keep up the good spirit