My gaming group ran into a situation which we felt needed clarification for future occurrences...

In this situation, could the HERO shoot (make a Ranged Attack) against the IMPERIAL OFFICER?

Could the IMPERIAL OFFICER shoot the HERO?

They are adjacent , but that doesn't really matter in the case of a Ranged Attack...

Technically , because they are corner-to-corner, it would appear that they could trace Line-of-Sight across "shared" borders and hence both be able to (Ranged) Attack one-another.

In this (second) example, could the HERO shoot (make a Ranged Attack) against the IMPERIAL OFFICER?

Could the IMPERIAL OFFICER shoot the HERO?

It appears pretty-obvious that the IMPERIAL OFFICER could trace two uninterrupted Lines-of-Sight to two faces/sides of the HERO.

On the converse, it seems pretty-obvious that the HERO could not draw Line-of-Sight to the IMPERIAL OFFICER.

What are your thoughts?

Adjacent figures always have line of sight to each other.

In the second one, Imperial Officer has LoS to Fenn, but Fenn does not have LoS to the Imperial Officer.

See the line of sight examples from the back of the rules reference guide. (And the Line of Sight chapter.)

RRG, Line of Sight said:

· Figures have line of sight to adjacent figures.

And it seems it is repeated to make it absolutely clear.

· Adjacent figures always have line of sight to each other.

In your first scenario yes both the Hero and the Imperial Officer can shoot each other since they have a corner that can trace 2 points to each other.

In your second scenario the Imperial Office can shoot the Hero since his 1 corner is able to draw 2 lines to the Hero but the Hero cannot shoot the Officer since he is unable to see a second corner of the office from that angle.

I thought that a figure you are targeting does not block his own line of sight, so you could trace it to the first corner and a second to the opposite diagonal corner of the Imperial Officer.

You can draw line of sight through both the attacker and the target. But you need to draw to two adjacent corners of the target space. Opposing corners won't do.

And in the second example you can't draw line of sight through a corner where any combination of figures (other than the target), wall, door, or blocking terrain meet. And now you have two royal guards which satisfy the condition. You can't draw a line between them.

At that point you are just drawing a straight line. You have to be able to draw to 2 adjacent corners forming an angle.

I should clarify that I think you can use opposite corners as long as you are forming an angle and not just a straight line.

1 hour ago, AntonPhibes said:

At that point you are just drawing a straight line. You have to be able to draw to 2 adjacent corners forming an angle.

I should clarify that I think you can use opposite corners as long as you are forming an angle and not just a straight line.

Rules reference guide under Line of Sight specifies the corners have to be adjacent.

But also they mustn't overlap.

6 minutes ago, neosmagus said:

Rules reference guide under Line of Sight specifies the corners have to be adjacent .

But also they mustn't overlap.

So it does! You learn something new every day, since before now I've always been playing with AntonPhibes' interpretation.

2 hours ago, ManateeX said:

So it does! You learn something new every day, since before now I've always been playing with AntonPhibes' interpretation.

I know, right? I was about to agree with him and then thought, let me make sure and check the rule book and there it was... I never knew that before now..

34 minutes ago, neosmagus said:

I know, right? I was about to agree with him and then thought, let me make sure and check the rule book and there it was... I never knew that before now..

That's how this game goes. There's always one little thing you miss or forget. You almost have to be constantly re-reading everything to keep it all in.

The more you learn the more you don't know.

(Really, getting most things correct once will retain them for a very long time. Or maybe it's just me.)