I haven't seen any topic that adressed this specific issue, so here we go :

Imagine we have a ranged attacker with blast, represented by M, trees (t) and a monster in a tree (x). We all know that trees block line of sight, and that they give shadowcloak to any figure standing in their space. My basic question is, can you take a tree's space as the target of a ranged (not point blank) attack, and more specifically, use it as the originating square of a blast in order to affect monsters behind the first row of trees.

M----(t)(x)

My problem is that, while trees prevent you from tracing line of sight through them (to a square behind them), it does not prevent you from attacking monsters on their square. The shadowcloak ability it grants to figures on its square is what forces you to be adjacent in order to attack. So if there is no figure on a tree, does anything prevent you from attacking its square?

You can center a Blast on a tree (whether you are adjacent to it or not, and whether there is a monster in it or not). A Blast attack can hit figures that don't have LOS to the attacker, as long as they have LOS to the blast point. So it is possible to hit a figure behind a tree by Blasting in the tree.

However, Shadowcloak doesn't protect you from Blast attacks that are centered more than 1 space away from you, it protects you from attacks where the attacker is more than 1 space away from you. So if the attacker is far away (and you have Shadowcloak), a Blast attack won't hurt you even if it's centered in an adjacent space (or even your own space), but a Blast attack can hurt you if the attacker is adjacent to you, even if the center of the Blast is not.

Actually I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that the origin of the blast is considered as the attacker for the purpose of shadowcloak, but I can't find the source right now. I'm guessing it's more of a line of sight issue, whether the tree can be targeted in the first place. It seems strange that it blocks line of sight beyond it, but not to its own square, although that's precisely how monsters work for los. I guess I'm considering the tree as being in the same vein as a rubble token, which you can't target, while it is more in the vein of mud squares.

You can definitely target a tree. It won't let you hit a creature with Shadowcloak unless you're also adjacent to that creature.

I can find nothing in the rules or FAQ that would prevent targeting a rubble space.

Rubble blocks LOS, which I believe would include the LOS of the square the Rubble is currently occupying...

-shnar

Figures also block line of sight, but you can target them.

You can clearly attack a figure while it is in a tree space , and that means that you can target a tree space ( all attacks target spaces, not figures). Whether rubble works the same way or not is unclear (the LOS diagram in the JitD rules doesn't shade the rubble space, but that diagram has at least one other error, and the rules aren't specific), but you can definitely attack into a tree space.

And I've never heard anything about treating the center of a Blast as the origin space for purposes of Shadowcloak. It's conceivable that there could have been an official word to that effect that I somehow missed, but it's unlikely, and that's definitely not what the AoD rulebook says.

Step 2: Confirm Line of Sight (JitD, p.9)
In order to attack a space, the attacker must have line of
sight to it. In other words, 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. If
attacking with a large monster, the overlord player need
only trace line of sight from the center of one of the spaces
it occupies to the center of the space it is targeting.
Line of sight is blocked by walls, closed doors, other figures ,
and blocking obstacles . Thus you cannot, for
instance, shoot directly through one monster to hit another
monster behind it.

Rubble
Rubble markers represent a type of obstacle
that blocks both figure movement and line of
sight. (JitD, under Obstacles, p. 17)

The problem comes from the term blocking obstacle . It's not clearly defined anywhere. Neither is what props are obstacles for that matter. We can assume they meant an obstacle that blocks both los and movement, but it's not raw. The ''Tree'' is classified as an obstacle in the faq, and it blocks los. It's all a big mess. At least I found the entry about blast and shadowcloak in the faq while trying to answer the question about rubble. It turns out Antistone was right and I had misread it. Nothing seems to prevent one from attacking a tree's square, but the attack won't do any damage unless you're adjacent to your target due to shadowcloak.

Q: How does Shadowcloak interact with Blast? Is the origin of the attack considered to be the attacker or the space from which the Blast originates?
A: The origin of the attack is still considered to be the attacker. If a hero with a Blast attack wishes to hit a Shadowcloaked monster without hitting himself, he should move adjacent to the monster and target the attack in a (potentially empty) square such that the monster, and not the hero, is hit. (FAQ, p.8)

Mystery solved. Thanks for your input!

_Loki_ said:

You have utterly missed the point.
There is no need to define the term blocking obstacle. It is simply an obstacle that blocks, with reference to whatever the subject under discussion (movement vs LOS for example).

The point that you have missed is that all LOS blocking is a 'blocking through ' effect, rather than a 'blocking into' effect. That is, if something blocks LOS it blocks you from seeing through it to the other side , not from seeing it itself .
This is different from movement blocking, which blocks movement into a space - both for figures and obstacles.

This is quite obvious because if LOS was to block into the space of the blocker, then you would never be allowed to attack any figure as the figure would block LOS to itself!
There is no reason or reference anywhere that makes the LOS rules for LOS blocking obstacles different to the LOS rules for blocking figures.

Thus you can definitely target a rubble space with an attack, assuming you have LOS to the rubble space.

I'm not so sure about that, though I have no "rules" to back my gut feeling up. I'm pretty sure that non models that block LOS are supposed to block the square they occupy as well. So you would not be able to target a rubble square. Maybe it's just how I interpret the big-a rock in the middle of the room.

I'd be very curious what Kevin thinks of this...

-shnar

We've had this debate before. Both sides have some minor rules support, but nothing definitive (the figure/obstacle equivalent language Corbon noted vs. the LOS diagram and the fog rules from AoD). It's probable the designers didn't even think to check.

honestly, the only time it matters is when flying monsters or trees are involved (Fog LoS rules are explicit). If Trees (and thus, LoS-blocking terrain) block LoS going into them, then it basically breaks outdoor encounters (invincible heroes) ; I think any decision on the subject should stem from there.

shnar said:

Despite what Antistone says (and his opinion is always worth listening to), I think it is quite definitive enough.

The rules don't clearly define how it works with literal words. But the implications are very, very clear and there is absolutely no possibility that LOS blocks 'into' as space (as opposed to 'through' a space).

1. The LOS rules for figures are relatively clear. Quite obviously, figures do not block LOS into their own space because, if they did, no figure could ever (almost) be attacked as one of the requirements for almost all attacks is LOS to the target space.

2. Further, the LOS rules for trees (a LOS blocking obstacle) must also follow the same rules as figures or else shadowcloak from trees is mostly unnecessary and all outdoor encounters with trees are utterly broken as any figure inside a tree would become unattackable as the tree would block LOS to that figure (and the shadowcloak would block attacks that don't require LOS such as breath).

3. The LOS rules for blocking by obstacles and blocking by figures have no differentiation - they come from the same sentence in fact. So logically and grammatically they should be the same.

In order for rubble to block LOS into the rubble space you have to invent new rules, or apply the exact same rule differently to different props/figures based on... nothing at all.
The only tiniest whisker of a leg to stand on for that view is the diagram on page10 of the basic rules which is already known to be flawed (Sir Validor should be able to see the space SE of the hellhound for example).

Even the 'big rock in the middle of the room' interpretation is ... (sorry Shnar) silly. If there is a big rock, then whatever is in the space is obviously on top of the rock and should be more visible rather than less (unless it is a big donut shaped rock!)

Unless said rock is all the way to the ceiling.

I think it's just never come up in our games since we figure that something that blocks movement and los simply can't be targeted, or even damaged for that matter, except models. Walls, rubble, etc. Since fire flows around rubble and not into the first rubble space, we just play that way, you can't target that space.

Rather ambiguous IMHO. I'd *really* like to know what Kevin thinks of it...

-shnar

shnar said:

Then you couldn't fly over it but you can (well, if you can fly). As regards breath then I've have assumed that it looks like a cloud that stays close to ground (thus rubble blocks it). That said, there are plenty of rules that don't make much sense, bloodsquids anyone?

What are you talking about? Massive bloodquids haunting every little pond makes perfect sense to me

I interpret it as being read: the difference in this situation is that Trees can be walked into as a space, and rubble cannot. The only time Rubble is passable is by flying, Earth Pact, knockback, or some similarly rare situation. Trees however can be walked through on any number of occasions, thus making sense that a square with tree can be targeted with an attack (and one with rubble is less likely to be able to, and in my opinion, not at all),

While I am loathe to trace success or failure of an argument back towards reality (or other RPG types), here goes...

When I watch any other RPG, movie, or snowball fight, how often does someone hiding behind a tree get away from an explosion? But the guy behind a pile of rocks, or heck, even a big couch, tends to get away unscathed, because it's hard to target the front of a line of sandbags and expect the damage to carry through them, but around a tree, that's a fairly easy stretch to make in my imagination.

You cannot walk through or see through an enemy figure, but you can definitely target their space, even when there are multiple figures occupying it.

Question to those who feel you cannot target rubble: would you allow a guard action to target a figure moving through a rubble-filled space?

Like I said, it just seemed... weird. Counter-intuitive. But, this isn't the first Descent rule that seemed counter-intuitive

So I'm not really arguing against it as I'm just not sure I really like it, and would love to hear the designers interpretation of this situation.

-shnar

Breath attacks can go into and through rubble. As per the FAQ, they reach every space that a 1x1 flying figure could reach while staying within the Breath template. The diagram on page 3 of the FAQ even shades in the rubble space as being affected.

But they also don't require LOS, so that doesn't imply anything about how rubble interacts with LOS.

Kard said:

In other words you are using the movement definitions to define LOS? So by your reasoning you can't target a water space. Sorry, not good enough.

It is really very simple. The only excuses for not being able to target rubble are vague 'it doesn't feel right' claims that haven't actually bothered to follow through how the rules work.

At least you have a reasonable thematic excuse! The problem with thematic reasons though is that there is always a better (or at least, equally good but completely different) thematic reason that uses the same situation but completely different ideas.
In fact, your thematic reason is the exact reason I would use in a different situation! - blast attacks do not affect figures 'behind' rubble.
However, I see rubble taking up pretty much the whole space (which is why you can't enter the space normally) so to be in the rubble space you have to be on the rubble, rather than behind it. Trees on the other hand have smaller trunks, branches etc, so you can be 'behind' the tree in the same space. Thats just my thematic reasoning designed to match how the rules work...

Corbon said:

And the LOS diagram that shows it as not being in LOS. Yes, that diagram contains at least one error, but if we considered proximity to a known error to be cause for ignoring something, we'd have to throw out almost the entire rulebook.

And the fog rules, which are written in a way that makes no sense if "blocks LOS" would by default only block LOS through the space and not in or out. (We're told that fog blocks LOS, and then told that it doesn't block LOS in or out of its own space in certain special cases; if you're correct about rubble, it should say that it also blocks LOS in and out of the space except in certain special cases.)

Both of which I have brought up previously in this thread and in previous threads.

The fact is, the LOS rules are woefully underspecified across the board. They're a major, central mechanic with lots of nuances and special cases that affects almost every part of the game, and they should have their own section in the rules. Instead, we get one sentence in the attack rules defining what LOS even means, and then a bunch of reference and exceptions scattered throughout the book.

We've been over this before and I don't really want to argue it again, but you really shouldn't keep saying that there are "no arguments" against seeing into rubble spaces.

Antistone said:

<shrug>
The LOS diagram was already mentioned as being a tiny whisker of a reason, the only reasonable one. Yet a flawed diagram that could be (is) making exactly the kind of error you would expect to be overseengiven the abominable proof reading is really pathetic evidence compared to how fundamentally the game breaks down with that interpretation.

Fog I discounted because it has its own specific LOS rules so isn't really part of the subject. You are right though - having looked at the fog rules, they are (badly) written in such a way that seems to assume that LOS being blocked blocks LOS into the space as a default. Never mind that such an assumption breaks the game and is clearly wrong.

What I was talking about though, are the reasons people are giving for sticking with the clearly faulty LOS interpretation which utterly breaks down are uniformly... well, its real hard to describe them without sounding rude.

It is exactly as I posted earlier. "The rules don't clearly define how it works with literal words. But the implications are very, very clear and there is absolutely no possibility that LOS blocks 'into' as space (as opposed to 'through' a space)."

No one is arguing that figures should block LOS into their own space and thus be effectively immune to most attacks. Not even hypothetically. The question is whether obstacles are really supposed to use exactly the same rules for LOS-blocking as figures do.

Corbon said:

OR the vague text could be (or is) making exactly the kind of error you would expect to be overseen, given the abominable proof reading, by implying (subtly, in one place) that obstacles and figures might use the same rules when they actually don't. It's really pathetic evidence on both sides. One is a huge generalization from one subtle feature of one diagram that could easily be in error; the other is a huge generalization from one subtle turn of phrase in one sentence that could easily be in error (or that could easily be read as simply not saying anything one way or the other on this specific issue).

If there were actually a clear rule specifically saying how this worked anywhere, no one would rate either that sentence or that diagram as remotely credible evidence to the contrary, no matter what the clear rule said.

Corbon said:

That assumption breaks no official material created up to that point if it only applies to obstacles and not figures. It doesn't even break anything published after that, either, until you get to the FAQ ruling that says that trees count as obstacles for purposes of Acrobat "and others", which would obviously have to be a (incredibly subtle) mistake if that would mean that you can't see in or out of a tree space...and that's at least as plausible an error as anything else suggested in this thread.

I'm not convinced either way about rubble.

Antistone said:

bollocks.

The case for the prosecution m'lud, is based on how the game works, not on a vague bit of text. The fact that the vague supporting text treats all LOS blockers the same is supporting evidence, not case foundation.
If 'obstacles' block LOS differently than figures then the game breaks down (unless different obstacles work differently to each other - in which case we have an enormously ridiculous mess as there are absolutely no instructions (well, Fog apart) for how each individual obstacle works).

Trees are obstacles, and do not have any 'special' rules for LOS. It does not matter that they are a 'recent' addition - we are playing the game now and get to use all the current resources available to figure out how the rules work.