In the diagrams below:

H = hero, ABCD = spaces covered by large monster, + = empty space, X = some other LoS obstruction (rubble, wall, another hero, etc.)

In the example from p.10 of the JitD rules, the hero has line of sight to the closer half (AB) of the monster (an ogre, in the rulebook example) but does not have LoS to the far half. The hero can attack the monster but could not target a blast on the far half (CD) of the monster.

H+

AB

CD

However, if we change the scenario a bit, it gets more interesting:

+++H

ABX+

LoS from H to B is blocked by the obstruction in X.

LoS from H to A is blocked by the figure in B.

RaW, H does not appear to have LoS to space B or space A. But is that really the intent? Does the monster completely block LoS to itself?

1. Can the hero attack a large monster in AB?

2. Can the hero target space A or space B? (probably only matters with a blast weapon)

3. Can the monster make a ranged (non-breath, etc) attack against the hero?

4. If A and B are different small monsters, can the hero target either?

RaW, I believe the answers are 1-no, 2-n/a, 3-no, 4-no. However, it seems odd that you cannot attack a hellhound because the hellhound itself is in the way of your shot.

Nope, a figure's fields that are not in LoS due to an intervening obstacle do not block LoS to other figures. Now if I'd only remember where this was officially answered...

1) Yes, 2) he can only target field A, 3) Yes, from field A, 4) Only the monster in field A (because the one in B is definitely not in LoS).

I'm quite certain about this, but haven't found the source anymore

Wasn't there some inane discussion about this not long ago?

If so, I apologize for repeating it. Unfortunately, the forum search isn't much better than the formatting features.

mahkra said:

Oh no problem, I wasn't trying to come down on you. I was trying to remember the outcome of that argument cause there were people trying to argue that the front half of the monster was actually still blocking LOS to the back half.

It's actually in the GLoAQ sticky. The visual aid is gone, but the text remains.

LOS
A) In the instance where you have a figure blocking the Line of Sight of another figure, is that Figure targetable, no matter the circumstance?
eg. Can the Skeleton hit any of these Beastmen?

B) Can LoS be retraced during an attack? Such as with Sweep, above. If the targets can be killed in front of him during the sweep attack, is the target at the rear of the group open to be attacked by the same Sweep attack?

A) For purposes of determining LoS for an attack, ignore figures that are not in LoS themselves.
B) Yes, remembering the ruling on Reach/Sweep from earlier.

I know this does not cover large monsters specifically. however the rules for large figures in the JitD rulebook does address this. Page 15

• Large monsters occupy all of the spaces they fill. Line
of sight can be traced to or from the center of any of
those spaces. Large monsters are not affected by pits
unless they move entirely into one. In addition, large
monsters cannot climb up or down staircases.
• Large monsters can only be targeted once by a single
attack, even if a Blast or Sweep attack covers multiple
spaces occupied by the figure.

I'd say the first entry there is stating you can trace LOS to any space of the figure. The GLoAQ entry would let you ignore the part of the figure you can't see anyways. Even without the GLoAQ entry I think the JitD rules meant for you to ignore any part of the figure except the square you are targeting. I know this is not necessarily spelled out in black in white. Still I think this is the correct intent of the rules.

There is, indeed, an entry in the GLoAQ saying that you should ignore figures not in LOS when tracing LOS. In my opinion, this is a bad ruling and should be totally ignored, which makes all of the OP's answers correct.

The ruling is bad because:

• It has no clear rigorous meaning, so you're forced to make guesses to use it at all. Technically, you trace LOS to spaces, not figures, so you have to guess what that means; it's not clear how it interacts with large figures; it's not clear how it interacts with abilities that enhance LOS coverage such as Precision or Crack Shot.
• It makes calculating LOS more complicated, by adding an additional step and requiring a distinction between figures that block LOS and other things that block LOS (since rubble that is not in LOS apparently still blocks LOS).
• Under this rule, LOS-enhancing abilities can prevent a user from tracing LOS to a figure they could otherwise see (possibly, depending on how you resolve the numerous ambiguities).
• It allows you to trace LOS to figures in some circumstances even where you cannot trace an uninterrupted line to any part of the figure you're targeting (not just when you can't see the center). For example, the southernmost monster in this diagram becomes visible, even though every line from any part of the attacker to any part of the target is blocked.
• It specifies a result instead of an algorithm. Therefore, it is prone to paradoxes where there is no assignment of in/out of LOS you can give to all figures that is consistent with all established rules, or where there are multiple assignments you can give that are consistent with all established rules and you have no way to choose between them. There's also no completely general algorithm for determining that other than exhaustive search. Even if you resolve all the possible problem cases with the existing rules, it's a time bomb waiting to explode as soon as FFG writes a new LOS-modifying ability of some kind.

And the only positive reason to even consider the ruling is that it gives a slightly more intuitive result in one rare special case. Even when that special case comes up, the inconvenienced figure can almost always get a clear shot by moving one space over...given that monsters get free movement every turn whether they want it or not, and heroes have fatigue, that's rarely a serious problem. Plus, since diagonals only cost 1, you can often slide one or two spaces to the side as part of movement you were already doing at no additonal cost.

This is a giant bundle of trouble designed to solve an extremely minor issue. It is not worth it.

And yes, we've had this discussion before. I don't think we've had it in the past month or two, though, and I don't have a link handy.

I agree that the GLoAQ ruling is confusing. I also think I know why the ruling was made though. Why should a figure you can't see block you from attacking a figure that would not have any cover otherwise? (On a side note I'm imagining the OL's minoins cowering behind each other in some silly conga line, safe from the heroes. )

Also I just can't see how the intent of the rules for large creatures is that you can't draw LOS to it because it is being blocked by itself. This just doesn't feel like it was something the designer intended to happen.

I do have to admit the ruling does mess up what should be a consistent situation. Anti may be on to something, as weird as the idea feels to me.

If it makes you feel better thematically: the monster behind the rubble isn't totally invisible, it's got an arm or something sticking out around the corner, but you can't get a reliable shot--it's not a big enough target area, and besides, the monster can duck behind cover if you try (just like a monster hiding in a tree to get Shadowcloak can avoid a blast attack that hits figures on all sides).

But it's still sticking out enough that you can't get a clear view of the monster behind it. If you tried to shoot past, you'd probably get a glancing blow off the front monster (because you're trying not to hit it) or the back monster (because you can't clearly see what you're shooting at, and thus can't choose a good point on its body to aim at). So it's a waste of time to try.

Antistone said:

So what's your explanation for larger figures?

A) For purposes of determining LoS for an attack, ignore figures that are not in LoS themselves.

If you ignore all figures that are not in LoS, then this is a meaningless statement. There's no way you could ever trace LoS to a partially-obstructed figure, because you're already ignoring that figure due to it being out of LoS.

And if you ignore just one at a time in order to try to find a way to trace LoS to one specific figure, this is potentially game-breaking. It creates crazy scenarios like the ones Antistone mentioned above, and you could implement it recursively to ignore any number of figures.

I'm with Antistone on this one - this is too broken a statement to play by. I think I'll be pushing for my group to stick with the conclusions in the OP at our next gaming session.

Our gaming group is a strange bunch with RPG roots. We usually agree on a reading of the rules that looks reasonable to everybody, in cases like this, or go with an authoritative ruling of the Overlord, him being a bit of a game master for us. This would make it still impossible to hit the southmost monster in that Doom example. But yes, the rules with that answer are a bit confusing, and it's very possible to play without and avoid a potential Pandora's box of problems.

If you ignore the GLoAQ ruling then you can and will create other insane situations like the one that triggered that answer in the first place (the pic didn´t survive the forum transfer):

Imagine a long row of monsters behind a rubble, with a hero trying to shoot some of them. He can target about every third monster in that row, depending on his actual position. Thematic elaboration, please?

mahkra said:

Just realized I was wrong on this one. You're not trying to trace LoS to an obstructed figure, you're trying to trace LoS to the space it is standing on. Since attacks target spaces, not figures, the statement isn't self-contradictory in that way.

Parathion said:

Imagine a long row of monsters behind a rubble, with a hero trying to shoot some of them. He can target about every third monster in that row, depending on his actual position. Thematic elaboration, please?

I actually don't really have a problem with this. What seems more odd to me is the fact that you can't target the easternmost monster in the Doom example.

The Hell Knight? Well that's because none of the center squares are in LOS of the marine. If you notice the line goes through the Hell Knight and the next square that the marine could have seen would be on space East of the South Eastern corner of the Hell Knight. Like this:

The X's are where the Marine figure can trace LOS to. Setup like Tibs great LOS diagram, the marine cannot see the Hell Knight because of the odd obscuration of LOS between the corners of those two obstacles. If the Hell Knight were one space East, he could see the tail end of the Hell Knight (assuming a large monster does not block LOS to it's back quarters, which I'm not sure is correct).

As for the other example, can a figure block LOS to another figure if first figure cannot be seen? It stems from this example:

The marine can obviously not see the Red fatty, the obstacle blocking LOS to it, but can he see the Green fatty? If the Red zombie wasn't there, he could see the Green zombie. If the obstacle wasn't there, then the Red zombie would be blocking the Green zombie. But this is an odd case, since the marine cannot see the Red zombie, should he be included when calculating LOS to the Green Zombie? This is amplified by the following example:

So, can the marine see *any* of the fatties here? If you rule that their space is blocked by LOS, then the marine cannot see any of the fatties. That seems a little odd to someone trying to apply "common sense" or "logic" to this board game

So the FAQ is trying to say that if LOS cannot be traced to a creature, ignore that space when determining LOS for another creature. This would mean that the Green zombies are visible to the marine in the above example (the 1st red is blocked by the obstacle, the next Red is blocked by the green marine). Seems to make sense until you get another weird situation like this:

If that Demon wasn't there, the marine could see the green Zombie. If those obstacles weren't there the marine could see the Demon. But since those obstacles are there, the Demon is not in LOS. Since the Demon is not in LOS, according to the FAQ he shouldn't be included in tracing LOS to the Fatty, so the marine could "see" the fatty. Confusing, huh?

So what the FAQ is trying to do is fix one confusing situation, but it introduces other confusing situations. IMHO, both situations are relatively rare, just go with what makes most sense to you and your group and try not to think too hard about the rules

-shanr

I should add one more weird case to the FAQ ruling:

If we go by the FAQ ruling, the Marine could see the Imp, since the Zombie is outside of LOS and thus does not obscure the Imp. However, can the Imp see the marine? The Zombie should be blocking LOS to the Marine, so normally "no", it cannot see the Marine, however, how can the marine see the imp if the imp can't see the marine?

-shnar

P.S. Sorry for using Doom images to explain Descent LOS, it just happened to be the tileset currently loaded in my TileSystem application

-shnar

For the record, "monsters do not block LOS to themselves" is a rule from DOOM, but is not a rule in Descent; the LOS diagram in the Descent rules specifically points out that large figures DO block LOS to themselves.

Parathion said:

No, you can see some weird fraction of the monsters if you DO use the GLoAQ ruling (see shnar's diagram with the red and green). It's probably a more complicated pattern than every third one, though; something like skip 1, see 1, skip 2, see 1, skip 3, see 1, etc.

If you don't use the GLoAQ ruling, then you can't see any of them at all, which may be weird, but is at least consistent and easy to adjudicate. And my explanation for why you can't target the 2nd monster, while perhaps not very good, is at least applicable to all the monsters behind him, as well. There's no reason the 3rd monster would be easier to hit than the 2nd.

I have some trouble understanding why the 5th monster ought to be easier to hit than the 4th, though. So you can feel free to provide the thematic explanation for seeing every Xth monster (or whatever) in the row, along with the thematic explanation for seeing through the middle of a multi-space monster to target a monster completely behind it, if you're rejecting the alternative position on thematic grounds.

shnar said:

The Hell Knight? Well that's because none of the center squares are in LOS of the marine.

Yeah, I understand the reasoning. Just saying that it seems non-intuitive.

shnar said:

So, can the marine see *any* of the fatties here? If you rule that their space is blocked by LOS, then the marine cannot see any of the fatties. That seems a little odd to someone trying to apply "common sense" or "logic" to this board game

This doesn't bother me for the reasons Antistone mentioned - you can tell that there's a group of enemies, but you can't really see enough of any individual to target it. Maybe you need to have a torso in your sights to get a shot that will actually do any meaningful damage, but all you can see is arms.

shnar said:

So the FAQ is trying to say that if LOS cannot be traced to a creature, ignore that space when determining LOS for another creature. This would mean that the Green zombies are visible to the marine in the above example (the 1st red is blocked by the obstacle, the next Red is blocked by the green marine).

With the FAQ ruling, though, you can see more than just the green zombies - you can see any of them but the left-most red one, depending on which zombie you test LoS for first. Let's number the zombies 1 to 7, with the green ones being #2 and #5, and look at a few examples:

#1 - Behind obstacle. Cannot be targeted.

#2 - Behind #1, but #1 is out of LoS so is ignored. Now can be targeted.

#3 - Behind #2, but #2 is out of LoS so is ignored. Still blocked by #1, but #1 is out of LoS so is ignored. Now can be targeted.

#7 - Behind #6, but #6 is out of LoS so is ignored. Still blocked by #5, but #5 is out of LoS so is ignored. Still blocked by #4, but #4 is out of LoS so is ignored. Still blocked by #3, but #3 is out of LoS so is ignored. Now can be targeted.

shnar said:

just go with what makes most sense to you and your group and try not to think too hard about the rules

This is certainly good advice. I think many of us probably house-rule things with some regularity without even realizing we're not following RaW. And as long as the game is still fun and interesting & all involved parties agree on the rules, there's really no harm in it.

EDIT: BTW, thanks for the great diagrams. The visual aids really help.

mahkra said:

Not exactly. If you use the FAQ ruling, the only zombies you can see are the Green ones:

- #1 zombie is blocked by the obstacle
- #2 zombie is only blocked by #1, but since there's no LOS to #1, the marine can see #2.
- #3 and #4 are both blocked by #2, since the marine CAN see #2, you include him for checking LOS
- #5 is blocked by #4 and #3, both of which are blocked by #2, so you don't include them when checking LOS
- #6, #7, #8, #9 would all be blocked by #5, etc. etc...

This is all assuming you're using the FAQ ruling of if a space cannot be seen, then it doesn't block LOS to other spaces. I used to think that ruling made a lot of sense, until you start throwing in large monsters. That's where it kind of falls apart, especially if large monsters block LOS to their rear spaces.

-shnar

But where does the FAQ ruling specify in what order the LoS issues have to be resolved? If you work your way left to right, looking at one figure at a time, then your conclusions are correct. But if you decide who you want to target first , and then work your way to the left from that figure, you can target anyone but the left-most figure.

Order of LOS doesn't matter. Either you have it or you don't. If you follow the FAQ ruling, you simple have LOS to that first green zombie, which blocks LOS to the 2 behind it. If you don't follow the FAQ ruling, you have no LOS to any of the monsters.

-shnar

But order does matter. You don't have LoS to the first green zombie until after you ignore the first red one. How do you know which zombie to ignore first? A 'common sense' approach might be to start with the closest figures and work your way to the most distant, but I didn't see that specified anywhere.

No, "order" doesn't matter, because in order for you to determine if you have LOS, you have to look at the surrounding items. For example, if you look at Zombie #2, to determine if you have LOS you *have* to look at Zombie #1 (assuming you're using the FAQ ruling) and then determine if you have LOS to it, which means you have to look at the obstacle. So it's not an "order of LOS" question, it's just simply what do you have LOS to.

So, to determine if you have LOS to Zombie #5, you look at Zombie #4. To determine if you have LOS to Zombie #4 you have to look at #3. To determine if you have LOS to #3 you have to look at #2. To determine if you have LOS to #2 you have to look at #1. To determine if you have LOS to #1 you have to look at the Obstacle. This then cascades back the chain to say no LOS to #1, but yes LOS to #2, which means no LOS to #3 and #4, which means yes LOS to #5.

There is no "order" going on, it's just a matter of what the source space has LOS to. If you interpret it any other way (or "order") then you're ignoring the fact that the other spaces have LOS or not.

-shnar

Okay, I see your reasoning. I agree that's a valid interpretation of the FAQ ruling, but I'm not sure yet it's the only valid interpretation. I think it depends on how much of this recursive LoS nonsense is considered part of determining LoS for an attack .

Another way to look at the FAQ ruling is that if you're attacking #7, you're not trying to trace LOS to #2 for the purposes of determining LoS for an attack. By this reasoning, you'd only have LoS to #2 if you're trying to attack #2, because then you can ignore #1. Otherwise, you're not determining LoS to #2 for an attack, so the special FAQ ruling doesn't apply, and by normal LoS rules, #2 is obstructed. By normal LoS rules, #1 through #6 are all obstructed, so they can all be ignored for the purposes of determining LoS (to #7) for an attack .

I'm going to stick with the original LoS rules, because those are at least well-defined, even if they do sometimes create non-intuitive situations. And as for my original "can't target a hellhound because the hellhound itself is in the way" issue, I've decided to interpret the lack of LoS as the hero being at too sharp an angle to make a damaging shot.