can you target a tree square if there is no monster in the tree square, so as to damage a monster in the square behind the tree square?

Yes.

+ some wordage to make the post work

Trees block line of site and grant a figure in the tree square shadowcloak. Does this mean that you can't trace LoS into the tree square, or can't trace LoS to any squares beyond the tree square? Is the same true for squares containing rubble?

I think we have to interpret "blocks LOS" as "blocks LOS through, but not into" otherwise it would already be impossible to shoot a figure in a tree, rendering shadowcloak redundant for the most part. This reading also allows hitting a flying creature as it moves through rubble.

Base game rulebook: page 10;

The rubble space above Silhouette is not shaded red, indicating that she does not have LoS into it. Then again the empty space 3 spaces to the left of the rubble square isn't red either, and my group plays that she would have LoS into it.

My reading was that you could target the tree space but the tree is so big it absorbs the explosion, same as you cant target a rubble space as the rubble is to big and contains the explosion. Would explain LOS as the tree is not actually 1 tree but several in the same space, as a rubble pile is not 1 brick/stone but several.

snacknuts said:

Wow, good catch. That diagram does look wrong. Hadn't noticed that space before.

mordak5 said:

Just to clarify, are you arguing that:

1) You can't trace LOS into a rubble or tree space, meaning that you can't attack it in the first place

2) You can trace LOS into a rubble or tree space, but not out of a rubble or tree space, meaning that while you can center a Blast there, the Blast won't extend beyond the space (by RAW, Blast actually traces LOS backwards, so that would be impossible, but we can probably agree that's an error)

3) You can trace LOS in and out of a rubble or tree space, but there is some additional rule somewhere, unrelated to LOS, that prevents Blast from extending beyond the space

#1 contradicts what you said (in the first part of the first sentence) about being able to target the space and #3 would require you to cite some other rule, so I'm thinking you must mean #2, but that would imply that a figure standing in a tree is unable to attack out of it (except with attacks that don't require LOS, such as Breath and Bolt), and that seems an unlikely conclusion.

Monster Tree Space Space Space Hero

if the hero tragets the (tree square) as above, does the blast still hit the monster, given that you are not able to target an object and a tree is an object, I would say not, and as the tree blocks LOS you could not target the monster as the tree block LOS

As far as I know, you can't attack from spaces you can't enter, so there can't be any discussion about attacking out of Rubble, since it can't come up.

The tree question is interesting. If trees block LoS entirely, then attacks can't go in or out of them, rendering single-space figures immune. That sounds kind of...insane, but it matches the rules for Fog, where there must be a special allowance for tracing LoS into Fog spaces (which may or may not be necessary?).

Have I mentioned that the new RtL categories for props make the game so much harder to understand? Because the only reason for comparing Fog to Trees is that the props system from RtL lumps them into the same category, "Blocks Line of Sight? Yes"

I think that rubble is supposed to completely shut down LoS and that trees only prevent LoS from being traced through them (i.e. blocked if it crosses 2 borders of a square, like a figure blocks). I don't have evidence to back that belief up, however. In my version of the game, if you're standing next to the tree-inhabiting monster you wish to blast, you can target a tree next to it in order to make the hit, but you can't shoot rubble with blast to hit surrounding monsters. I may be wrong about this, it may very well be that LoS is only blocked if you're tracing it through two borders of a blocking square in order to hit the center of the target square.

I wish I had gone to GenCon so I could sit in on a KW game and actually run these scenarios past the man himself.

mordak5 said:

Yes, to the best of my knowledge of the RAW.

This is the RtL description for Blast:

Blast
Attacks with the Blast ability affect every space within X spaces of the target space, where X is equal to the rank of the Blast ability. However, a space is only affected by the attack if it has line of sight to the target space (ignoring figures for this purpose) . Blast attacks cannot pass through walls, closed doors,
or blocking obstacles. The Blast attack deals its full damage to each figure affected by it (friendly and enemy). If a Blast attack is dodged by more than one figure, only one re-roll may be made (the first dodging player to the attacking player’s left decides which dice, if any, are to be re-rolled).

In your example the Hero targets the tree space, which he can legally do. You target the space, not the object. The Blast goes off. The monster most definitely has LOS to that square, so the space he is in would be hit. Depending on which monster it is, it might be hit or it might not (for example, I don't think a Deep Elf in that space would be hit).

mordak5 said:

This is substantially less clear than the prior statement I asked you to clarify. It sounds like maybe you're arguing that you're not allowed to target the tree space because there's no figure there, but that is manifestly false--attacks target spaces, not figures, you are explicitly allowed to target empty spaces, and there's no rule saying that you can't target a space with a tree in it (and the fact that trees grant Shadowcloak to figures in them argues pretty strongly that you can).

Thundercles said:

Not so. Figures with the Fly ability are perfectly capable of entering rubble spaces (though they can't end their turn there), and I can see no reason that they would be unable to make attacks from them, barring LOS issues.

Thundercles said:

This makes sense to me, but I am likewise unable to make a solid case for it.

The fact is, the rules simply do not explicitly address the difference between seeing into a space and seeing through a space. Ever.

And we have conflicting precedents--you can clearly attack the space a figure occupies, despite the fact that figures block LOS and it occupies that space, and you can attack out of your own space, but the LOS diagram (p10) doesn't show the hero having LOS into the rubble space--though as someone recently pointed out in another thread, there's at least one unrelated error in that diagram. I can recall someone suggesting that the key comes in attacks saying that LOS is blocked by " other figures," but the diagram also shows Sir Valadir's LOS to the ogre's rear two spaces being blocked by the front spaces, and besides, attacks target spaces, not figures, so reading "other figures" as excluding anyone but the attacker is already quite a stretch.

This could probably be added to the list of issues that FFG ought to clarify.

Antistone said:

You're right. I think I mistakenly extrapolated the fact that you can't attack while sharing a space with another figure: I believe I've assumed that applies to sharing a space with an obstacle for some time now.

So to summarise:

1. You attack spaces not figures . So you can attack a space that the figure is not in in order to catch the figure in the blast, all other things being ok.

2. LOS is blocked 'through' spaces, not 'into' spaces .
If not, then no 'direct' attacks can ever be made since the figure in the target space blocks LOS 'into' that space.
There is no 'different LOS rule' for trees, rubble, or anything else except Fog and Pits (oh, and staircases) , both (all) of which have explicit LOS rule changes in their descriptions.
There is no type of space that cannot be seen into from adjacent spaces, nor from any other space whose LOS is not blocked to it (even FoG, pits and staircases). Even rubble can be seen into - you can attack a flying figure with a guard attack as it flys through a rubble space for example, and a flying figure can attack you from a rubble space.
So the tree blocking LOS mean that you can still see into it from a distance, just not across it to the other side.

2a. The LOS diagram has a number of issues! Definitely the space 3 to the east should be shaded red - is is in exactly the same relative position as the topmost yellow shaded space. Barring an interpretation that gives some bizzare results, we know that the rubble space should be shaded as well.

3. Blast hits every space within blast range that has LOS to the centre of the blast. So blasting a tree means that all spaces that can see into the tree (specifically exempting figures from blocking LOS in this instance) and are in range will be affected by the blast.

Which means that the original answer is still simply 'yes'.

Lord Foul said:

No, it's not redundant. Shadowcloak is also protecting a figure in a tree from being harmed by a nearby blast. And it still matters for large figures.

As for the rubble, if you're flying over it then it's not giving you any cover, so I can see where you'd be able to hit a figure flying over rubble.

"Other figures" don't block LOS so you don't considering the attacking or defending figure. Otherwise, you could never do it. Large figures are an exception in that you can't trace through one space of a large figure to hit another space of it.

So, no, you can't hit a figure behind a tree by targetting the tree itself. If we take a moment to just apply some common sense, does it make sense that a figure IN a tree can't get blasted, but a figure BEHIND a tree CAN?

In most cases, this is probably academic as you only have to target a space to either side of a tree to catch the figure behind it in the blast radius.

Trump said:

Ummm...yeah you can because you don't target the tree. You target the space the tree happens to be in. Its the way the rules are written, which frequently conflict with common sense. Does it makes sense that a Breath attack gets to hit someone around a corner that has no LOS to the attacker?

If the a monster is in a space that has LOS to the target space for a Blast attack, it is affected by the Blast attack. Its right there in the description of the ability. The fact that there is tree in the target space makes no difference as far as the mechanic for Blast is concerned.

Trump said:

No. If you can't trace LOS into and out of tree spaces, then a nearby Blast wouldn't affect the tree space, Shadowcloak or no Shadowcloak. I don't see much room for misunderstanding there.

Trump said:

There's no basis for that in the rules (at least not vanilla rules; I think there's something in RtL specifically relating to Soar, but that came much later and doesn't apply inside dungeons). Descent is a self-contained board game with explicit rules, not an open-ended storytelling game where you make up whatever rules seem appropriate as you go along.

Trump said:

Apparently, you didn't read my earlier post reply #10 in this thread. The "defending figure" is an "other figure" because attacks don't target figures, they target spaces. There could be zero, one, or more than one figure in the target space. Even if that weren't the case, the preceding paragraph doesn't mention the target figure, only the attacking figure, so in that context, "other figures" would STILL include the target figure.

Furthermore, there's no rule saying that large figures are an exception, so the fact that you can't target the back space of a large figure (according to the diagram) proves either that the rules are contradictory or that you are misunderstanding them. And while a contradiction within the rules wouldn't be terribly surprising, you'd still have to make a case for following one of the contradictory rules over the other, you couldn't simply cite one of them as fact.

Trump said:

Actually, that could very easily make perfect sense, depending on how you choose to narrate events. A person standing right next to a tree only needs to make a small movement to ensure that the tree is between them and the blast point, while someone farther away will have a much harder time identifying and moving into the "safe zone" created in the tree's shadow.

But there are plenty of crystal-clear rules in Descent that don't make sense from any remotely plausible thematic perspective (like the Ghost and Stealth abilities, for example). That doesn't make those rules somehow wrong or contradictory, it just means that this is a board game, not a storytelling game.

Big Remy said:

And that's the key here, isn't it? Can you target the space if you can't trace LOS through the tree? You can't with Fog. There's an explicit exception for Fog that's adjacent to the attacker. Ah, if only FFG could give us some more explicit rules on LOS, perhaps using this particular example.

Antistone said:

I guess it depends on whether they mean to say the figure is actually flying over the rubble or just levitating through it (where they might logically find cover). I'm assuming it's the first and then defaulting to common sense here. I know that's not 100% reliable when it comes to game rules (just look at how you can dance around enemy figures with no penalty, for example), but it works for me. Since you and I will never play in the same game, we can both be happy, but it would be nice to hear an explicit answer from FFG.

Antistone said:

I confess I'm a bit baffled here. Aren't we in agreement? We're just talking about the rules as written and as the example shows. I read what you said, I read what I said, I read the rules, and we all agree. I think maybe my cavalier description of what's happening is what you're disagreeing to, but the end effect is the same.

Trump said:

If you can't target the tree space, then you can't swing an axe or shoot a bow at a figure standing in a tree, either, whether it has Shadowcloak or not. Fog's not much use as a precedent since it's different from both possible default behaviors (either being able to see into it from arbitrary distance, or not being able to see into it even when adjacent).

Trump said:

We are in agreement that the fact that a figure is standing in space X doesn't inherently prevent you from targeting space X with an attack. We are not in agreement about why it does not prevent you, and thus are not in agreement about how this rule is extended to less straightforward situations.

You say that you ignore the targeted figure when tracing LOS, except that sometimes you don't. I say that the "targeted figure" technically doesn't exist (attacks target spaces), and that there's no grounds for ignoring them even if they did exist, so there must be some other reason that figures in the targeted space don't block LOS. Probably , IMO, that figures don't block LOS into their own space, only through it (regardless of how other stuff like Rubble may work).

We are also presumably in agreement that the LOS rules are rather poorly explained.

Trump said:

The rules are clear, and mostly explicit, about the following things. (any number of references but in particular the first sentences of both Step 1 and Step 2 on DJitD Pg9 )

1. You attack spaces not figures. So you can attack a space that the figure is not in in order to catch the figure in the blast, all other things being ok.

2. LOS is blocked 'through' spaces, not 'into' spaces.
Mechanically, neither the originating space nor the target space is included when searching for 'LOS obstructions. In fact the first clear wording in the LOS actually only says that you must have LOS 'to' the space, not 'into' it. The wording from centre to centre is necessary only in order to exactly position the LOS 'line'.
We know this is so, without requiring it to be explicit because without this the entire game breaks down, in several ways.
a) 'other figures', as referred to in what blocks LOS at the beginning of page 10 includes the target figure - for two separate and unrelated reasons. i) because of the english language structure used which sees only the 'seeing' figure in the preceding passage and because the target of the LOS is the space, not the enemy figure in the space, and ii) because as demonstrated in the diagram on pg 10, large monsters block LOS to their 'back' spaces, so must be one of the 'other figures' that block LOS even if they are in the targeted space. Given that 'other figures has been proved in both text and diagram to include the figure in the target space, therefore the figure in the target space blocks LOS to that space if the convention ' into' is used instead of ' through '. Therefore you would never be able to target the space that any figure inhabits and the game breaks down .
b) putting the whole 'figure' question aside, if Obstacles that block LOS block LOS ' into' them instead of 'through' them, then again, any such space cannot be targeted and any figure in such a space is immune to all but AoE attacks (and with shadowcloak, immune specifically to those also). Once more, the game breaks down. Heroes sit in trees and are unattackable. Boss monsters sit in trees and are unattackable, accumulating 1000s of threat then bringing on mass reinforcements all with 5 gold dice. Every encounter with a tree becomes an auto TPK eventually - clearly not what the rules intended (or what they say).
So the tree blocking LOS through itself, means that you can still see into it from a distance (and therefore attack it), just not across it to the other side.

While it is true that this is not a particularly great piece of writing as far as clarity goes, once you follow the clues you have to willfully break the game in order to misinterpret it.

3. Blast hits every space within blast range that has LOS to the centre of the blast . So blasting a tree means that all spaces that can see into the tree (specifically exempting figures from blocking LOS in this instance) and are in range will be affected by the blast. (reference the blast description in any rulebook)

There should be absolutely no question that RAW you can target a tree space with a blast and hit a figure out of your LOS with that blast while doing so.

As a side note you also seem to be misreading Fog.
Figures have line of sight into adjacent fog spaces. A figure in a fog space has line of sight to all adjacent spaces, but not to any other spaces.

This does not say that figures not adjacent to fog cannot see in*. It does re-emphasise that adjacent figures can see in.
The only actual effect Fog has on LOS is to reduce the LOS range of figures in a fog space to 1 - adjacent spaces only and no other spaces.
*It may possibly, even probably, have intended to say that. But that is speculative, subjective, and they have have several opportunities to correct the wording in FAQs if the did intend it to say that non-adjacent figures cannot see into fog. But they have not.

The sentence saying that you can see into adjacent fog spaces has no reason to be there, and is grossly misleading, if it is not intended to cause some change in the ability to see into fog. I submit that, whatever the default treatment for obstacles is, you are obviously not intended to be able to see into fog from more than 1 space away.

I further submit that the wording of Fog, the LOS diagram that doesn't shade rubble, and the general lack of any explicit rules is sufficient to reasonably doubt whether you're supposed to be able to see into all obstructions or only some of them (and they forgot to spell out which ones, probably due to never consciously thinking about it--that wouldn't be terribly surprising even with skilled editors, let alone Descent editors). But I'm less adamant about that.

Antistone said:

I agree with you except for two things which give me pause.
1) it would not surprise me that because Fog is explicitly an obstacle you can move into, yet when it was created other obstacles (or traps) that blocked LOS could not be moved into (without a specific skill), they had not at that time bothered to address looking into impassable obstacles. Sloppy, yes, because of Fly and Acrobat, but it would not surprise me. Thus, when faced with a LOS obscuring obstacle that was explicitly move-into-able (and therefore likely to have 'targets' in frequently) they addressed this point directly.
2) They have had several opportunities to correct this (at least 2 FAQs have gone by since Fog was released) and have not done so.

It does seem a pointless sentence as is, but I can see at least 1 weak reason for it to be there and they have neglected to change it twice, so I'm not convinced that it should be changed. Happily one for the next FAQ.

Antistone said:

It is easier if you think of each space as a hollow square with a dot in the centre. When checking for LOS you must place the ruler from dot to dot but you only actually draw the line from square edge to square edge. If the line crosses a different 'blocking' hollow square (one that contains a figure or blocking obstacle) or a crossline that is a wall/closed door then LOS is blocked.
Some square types (pits, fog, staircases) have specific rules that limit the length of the line either going out or coming in from them.

Corbon said:

1) That's not a reason (not even a weak one) for the particular sentence they wrote. If you can see into fog from any distance, then writing that you can see into it from adjacent spaces may be technically true, but anyone who said that would have to be deliberately misleading us...and no matter how bad the writing may be, I refuse to subscribe to any theory that says the writers are deliberately trying to fool us.

2) They've also failed to correct: the self-contradictory rules for moving non-square figures, the out-of-order attack sequence, the failure to indicate which props in RtL count as obstacles, the contradictory ruling on large monsters and terrain, the non-combinable rules modifying movement costs, and many other things, most of which are older, more important, more obvious, and discussed on forums more frequently than this (not to mention all the things that were only fixed or clarified in the last FAQ that are older than this). Plus, there wouldn't even be a reason for them to possibly correct it unless you are correct about what the default behavior should be and that default was specifically intended, rather than merely being a good fit--both of which are tenuous. Even if you're correct, it would frankly be more surprising if they HAD fixed it by now.

Corbon said:

Well, in the sense that all the other problems with the rules would be things that they never wrote at all, as opposed to things that they wrote badly, I suppose that's true. But that's also true if the alternative hypothesis as well, because that's the only explanation of LOS in the entire book.

The fact that the only definition of LOS in the entire rulebook is a single sentence in the rules for resolving an attack (despite LOS being used for many other things) that begins with "in other words" (as if you should already know what it means) is pretty bad no matter what it says or ought to say.

OK, I've been "researching" the issue and I'm ready to come around to the idea that I can trace LOS into a tree space. This does bring up a couple of things though.

I trace LOS into a space with a tree and a figure in it. It's a blast attack. Everyone in range that can see the tree gets hit. The tree is untouched. The figure IN the tree is also untouched (unless the spellcaster was crazy enough to be standing next to the tree when he cast the spell). This... is very weird. But you're saying that's right?

So many people are talking back and forth it's confusing me on which way people stand on the flying over rubble issue. If I'm on guard and a flyer crosses rubble, I can attack them right then and there, assuming I have LOS, right?

Trump said:

Why is it wierd? The tree grants Shadowcloak, and that's what Shadowcloak does.

Big Remy said:

If you can't see what's weird about that, there's nothing else I can say to help you out.