When a monster/player is in a pit, do it block line of sight of someone what is outside the pit?

Thank you

When a monster/player is in a pit, do it block line of sight of someone what is outside the pit?

Thank you

There is no indication to the contrary, so yes. If the object blocks LOS while out of a pit, it still blocks LOS while in a pit. You can't just "see over it".

Note that LOS to the specific object in the pit is changed (it only has LOS to/from adjacent spaces while in a pit).

That is another one of these completely counter-intuitive things that make it difficult for me to assume both the roles of the overlord and rulesmaster :-/

A figure in a pit should really not block LOS to figures standing outside it. I´m not a huge defender of game thematics normally, but a figure in a pit is by definition below ground level, so two figures standing on each side of the pit should absolutely be able to shoot at each other, alternatively reach out to each other in melee.

Obviously it can be house-ruled the way I described. Doesn't look like it would break balance much to implement such a rule, feels like it would allow to avoid a potential argument to be honest. I don't see how players would just accept that rule without having the rulesmaster check in the rulesbook.

A figure in a pit should really not block LOS to figures standing outside it.

Oh, so it's not the case? Did you mean that if a hero is in a pit HE DOES BLOCK LOS?!?!? What the hell with this rule?!?!?

Man, I need to take some pills.

Yeah this cannot be intentional from FFG. I´m pretty sure their response will come back telling you that these rules only cover the case as for whether the figure in the pit has LoS or not, but that figures outside the pit can ignore figures in the pit for LoS purpose. Any other type of response would really surprise me, it's beyond common sense really.

But sure, the same question could be asked for elevation spaces as well. E.g. one could say that the figure on that elevation space would be in LoS for all figures standing on non-elevated spaces and that only figures on elevated spaces may block LoS in that case. This example may not be as flashy as the pit one, but it's kind of the same discussion really.

But sure, the same question could be asked for elevation spaces as well. E.g. one could say that the figure on that elevation space would be in LoS for all figures standing on non-elevated spaces and that only figures on elevated spaces may block LoS in that case. This example may not be as flashy as the pit one, but it's kind of the same discussion really.

As for elevation lines, I'm certain that LOS is not affected. This is partially because there isn't always a clear "high" or "low" side to an elevation line. It's just a ridge of some kind (look at tile 36A, for example). It wouldn't make sense to ignore anyone on either side of that line for LOS. Since it's sort of case-by-case, I can very much understand why there is no interaction with the LOS rules.

Pits, on the other hand, have a definite "in" the pit and "out" of the pit. So who knows.

As for elevation lines, I'm certain that LOS is not affected. This is partially because there isn't always a clear "high" or "low" side to an elevation line. It's just a ridge of some kind (look at tile 36A, for example). It wouldn't make sense to ignore anyone on either side of that line for LOS. Since it's sort of case-by-case, I can very much understand why there is no interaction with the LOS rules.

I agree that elevation spaces are more of a grey zone with regards to LoS from a thematic perspective, hence it may not be that surprising to find out that there aren no specific LoS rules to them. Plus I was thinking about a large monster standing across elevation lines. The monster is both on ground and elevation spaces. He gets the defense bonus or not depending on whether the attacker is on the ridge or not and which space occupied by the monster is being "attacked". However regarding LoS I´m no longer very sure wat would make sense or not if the rule I suggested earlier was implemented, as the monster would effectively block LoS for all figures on the map, which is in fact the current regulation

In spanish forum of game, we have argued with similares outcomes. If you are estricted, figures in pit blocks line of sight, but this aspect aren't clear in rules. We have the same problem with line of sigth of a figure is on elevation.

New rule in a new actualizacion? If

Yeah this cannot be intentional from FFG. I´m pretty sure their response will come back telling you that these rules only cover the case as for whether the figure in the pit has LoS or not, but that figures outside the pit can ignore figures in the pit for LoS purpose. Any other type of response would really surprise me, it's beyond common sense really.

Common Sense and Descent have a long and sordid history of not getting along. Have you seen the image that illustrates the official way LoS works around corners, according to clarified Q&A from FFG? I wouldn't put anything past them. I also wouldn't be shy about house ruling it, if you feel this strongly about it.

I'm just finishing up a LOS aid document (soon to be published) and I agree- it isn't about "realism" or "common sense". It's about simplified game mechanics. If you can distance yourself from the realism, it becomes a lot easier.

I mostly agree playing RAW, and not struggling with "common sense" or realism in Descent, as Zaltyre and Steve-O claimed, but honestly, when rewriting pits for the errata, they could perfectly have added "figures in pits do not block LoS" or something along those lines without affecting the new ruling or balance of any kind. It isn't even something complicated to apply or understand. I think this will be the first time I'll house rule something (if my co-players agree)

Yeah this cannot be intentional from FFG. I´m pretty sure their response will come back telling you that these rules only cover the case as for whether the figure in the pit has LoS or not, but that figures outside the pit can ignore figures in the pit for LoS purpose. Any other type of response would really surprise me, it's beyond common sense really.

Common Sense and Descent have a long and sordid history of not getting along. Have you seen the image that illustrates the official way LoS works around corners, according to clarified Q&A from FFG? I wouldn't put anything past them. I also wouldn't be shy about house ruling it, if you feel this strongly about it.

Uhm.. I see no reason why I wouldn't have seen the way LoS works across corners, especially given that my rulebook appears to be errata'd. Maybe I'm just so used to the LoS rules that I'm not seeing it, or maybe I'm just plain not seeing it, but it sounds like there's some heinous strangeness or crime against common sense in how the LoS rules work. Would you care to enlighten me on the subject?

As far as I'm aware, it's basically corner-to-corner and it can pass diagonally between obstacles/walls/etc. While sometimes giving some results that may not be immediately obvious, I think as a rule it works very well.

Would you care to enlighten me on the subject?

Sometime this week I'll post my LOS guide. I think it will be clear there.

Uhm.. I see no reason why I wouldn't have seen the way LoS works across corners, especially given that my rulebook appears to be errata'd.

I'm not referring to any image in the rulebook. I'm referring to the images generated by fans in this thread, based on FAQ and errata rulings that came from FFG (specifically the image in post #2):

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/85994-line-of-sight-question/

FFG was shown this image at one point, and they confirmed that all examples are correct.

(Please note: I don't agree with this image either. It has long since been house ruled away at our table. My point is simply that I wouldn't put anything past FFG in terms of "official answers," no matter how ridiculous.)

Personally, I think FFG's rules responders long since got fed up trying to appease Descent fans of these rules debates. Descent is especially good at generating ridiculous questions in heated moments. "What's that they're asking? Well, what's the most direct and literal interpretation of the rules that Sadler wrote five years ago, before he left the company? Go with that."

I'm not referring to any image in the rulebook. I'm referring to the images generated by fans in this thread, based on FAQ and errata rulings that came from FFG (specifically the image in post #2):

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/85994-line-of-sight-question/

FFG was shown this image at one point, and they confirmed that all examples are correct.

I've done my own checking into that diagram, and verified that it was (to my disappointment) 100% correct, RAW. We've house ruled it away as well, but I was finally able to make sense of that diagram (Descent rules sense, not real sight sense).

In any case, I don't share the view that FFG rules responses are haphazard (I ask enough of them to see a trend ), rather, though I haven't always agreed with the way some of the more ambiguous rulings have gone, I've (obligatory "almost") always been satisfied with why the ruling was made the way it was. That is, even after a few years of steady poking and prodding, I believe that careful consideration goes into the responses that come back.

That being said,

Descent is especially good at generating ridiculous questions in heated moments

Uhm.. I see no reason why I wouldn't have seen the way LoS works across corners, especially given that my rulebook appears to be errata'd.

I'm not referring to any image in the rulebook. I'm referring to the images generated by fans in this thread, based on FAQ and errata rulings that came from FFG (specifically the image in post #2):

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/85994-line-of-sight-question/

FFG was shown this image at one point, and they confirmed that all examples are correct.

(Please note: I don't agree with this image either. It has long since been house ruled away at our table. My point is simply that I wouldn't put anything past FFG in terms of "official answers," no matter how ridiculous.)

Personally, I think FFG's rules responders long since got fed up trying to appease Descent fans of these rules debates. Descent is especially good at generating ridiculous questions in heated moments. "What's that they're asking? Well, what's the most direct and literal interpretation of the rules that Sadler wrote five years ago, before he left the company? Go with that."

If I'm reading the image correctly, examples 1-6 does not have LoS, while 7-9 does. Not really seeing the issue. Other than the small oddity of B having LoS to A in example #7, and #6 just being weird (I'm not sure I understand why #6 doesn't have LoS while #8 does, though; at first I thought #6 counted as running along a wall, but that would've been true for #8 too).

I end up chalking it up to the game being a boardgame and not a roleplaying game. Not sure how you'd errata it nicely, especially when so minor.

The really weird cases with LoS happen so seldom in my games, so that we are globally happy with the rules. That's also because I´m not trying to dig out minor flaws and make a huge deal of them if they´re not even revealing themselves as we play. I know there are flaws but I´m deliberately ignoring them for this particular area. The main thing is, the rules are the same for all parts, therefore no matter how much they make sense, at least they are balanced. Not the same can be said about things like rumor quests etc which is my primary subject of discussing/reaction in this game. But that's also another topic.

LoS rules do not always make sense, but it's also just a game system, so we simply adapt to them. I disagree on principle with the people saying the IA rules are "plain better", because it's just another system and is as such as valid as the D2E one, so inevitably people will prefer one over the other. I´ll use the IA rules if I play IA, period. On the other hand I have full respect for the people house ruling LoS because it feels counter intuitive to them. Whatever enriches your game experience is fine to me. I personally think LoS is always achievable one way or another because you can almost always draw a line between two distant squares. There's very rarely a need to trace that line. I´ve seen players spend an extra move point just to make sure we wouldn't have any doubt as for tracing a line along an edge or an obstacle. People actually prefer to position themselves in a way so that no controversy can arise. That's as far as my players would go.

The pit space issue is different. It's just ridiculous, so yeah I was willing to take that conflict.

But I mean, the X on the attack dice was also controversial when I first started with Descent. How can you miss an attack? It took some time explaining to my players that your blow would be blocked by the defender, or that you misjudged balance in your attack etc. For some people it did not make sense. they wanted to house rule a 0 damage instead (on that dice). The same can be said about almost everything in that game. How can you open a door from the space excentered from it (since it is adjacent)? How come large monsters are not auto-killed when a door closes on to them? How come a monster can steal a search token (Skulduggery) and then that token reveals to be a secret passage? How come a figure can suffer a Burn condition while it occupies a water space? How come Shadow Dragons do not fly? Etc etc.

We´re not after something realistic either (define "realistic") and nobody is trying to "snipe" behind an edged wall or anything. These situations simply never occur in any or our games.

Uhm.. I see no reason why I wouldn't have seen the way LoS works across corners, especially given that my rulebook appears to be errata'd.

I'm not referring to any image in the rulebook. I'm referring to the images generated by fans in this thread, based on FAQ and errata rulings that came from FFG (specifically the image in post #2):

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/85994-line-of-sight-question/

FFG was shown this image at one point, and they confirmed that all examples are correct.

(Please note: I don't agree with this image either. It has long since been house ruled away at our table. My point is simply that I wouldn't put anything past FFG in terms of "official answers," no matter how ridiculous.)

Personally, I think FFG's rules responders long since got fed up trying to appease Descent fans of these rules debates. Descent is especially good at generating ridiculous questions in heated moments. "What's that they're asking? Well, what's the most direct and literal interpretation of the rules that Sadler wrote five years ago, before he left the company? Go with that."

These examples are very similar to Imperial Assault's examples of LOS. i think Descent needs a reference "guide of rules" (I directly translate from spansih) like Imperial Assault

This examples are very similar to Imperial Assault's examples of LOS. i think Descent needs an reference "guide of rules" (I directly translate from spansih) like Imperial Assault

I agree, and I'm in the process of putting one together.

From Nathan Hajek:

A great new!!!!

Speaking of line of sight i am truying to find a thread were someone posted a picture with all different patterns dealing with adjacency and line of sight. Better than explainig things i found it very usefull for beginners. I think it came from BGG.

I would be grateful

This one?

Speaking of line of sight i am truying to find a thread were someone posted a picture with all different patterns dealing with adjacency and line of sight. Better than explainig things i found it very usefull for beginners. I think it came from BGG.I would be grateful