An interesting occurrence happened in my last game that sparked this question.

We had an AT-ST extremely close to a unit of troopers, so much so that if you looked from the AT-ST perspective (over the model's head per the rules), you could not see the troopers. The same thing can occur with a T-47.

That said, would this mean that LOS is blocked? It seems odd because the target is literally right in front of them, but per the True LOS rules, they can't be seen.

We played it out as if they could be seen, and they still got cover from the terrain they were by. Has anyone else experienced this, and if so, how did you play it out?

31 minutes ago, DakDaniels said:

An interesting occurrence happened in my last game that sparked this question.

We had an AT-ST extremely close to a unit of troopers, so much so that if you looked from the AT-ST perspective (over the model's head per the rules), you could not see the troopers. The same thing can occur with a T-47.

That said, would this mean that LOS is blocked? It seems odd because the target is literally right in front of them, but per the True LOS rules, they can't be seen.

We played it out as if they could be seen, and they still got cover from the terrain they were by. Has anyone else experienced this, and if so, how did you play it out?

Page 45 of the RRG. Vehicles can block line of sight.

Did it block LoS for ALL of the attacking minis though? That seems unlikely. Everyone that can see at least one target mini can contribute dice to the attack (though a defending mini can only be wounded if at least one attacker can see it).

You mean the model itself is preventing you from seeing them? I think we have to ignore "self occlusions" of any kind. Otherwise, the AT-ST can see literally nothing on the table (put your eye at exactly the mid point of the top of the model and the only thing you should be able to see is anything above the model). I'd treat it as if the AT-ST can see.

Although, terrain can absolutely create these sorts of blind spots. Hide your troopers under a bridge, for example, and they can shoot the legs without fear of getting hit in return.

1 minute ago, nashjaee said:

You mean the model itself is preventing you from seeing them? I think we have to ignore "self occlusions" of any kind. Otherwise, the AT-ST can see literally nothing on the table (put your eye at exactly the mid point of the top of the model and the only thing you should be able to see anything above the model). I'd treat it as if the AT-ST can see.

Although, terrain can absolutely create these sorts of blind spots. Hide your troopers under a bridge, for example, and they can shoot the legs without fear of getting hit in return.

Right, that's how we played it. But was that correct? Because as @Big Easy stated " Page 45 of the RRG. Vehicles can block line of sight.".

I guess the more concise question is; can vehicles block their own line of sight?

Just now, DakDaniels said:

Right, that's how we played it. But was that correct? Because as @Big Easy stated " Page 45 of the RRG. Vehicles can block line of sight.".

I guess the more concise question is; can vehicles block their own line of sight?

No they should not be able to block their own line of sight. As I said above, that would prevent them from seeing almost literally anything on the table.

4 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

No they should not be able to block their own line of sight. As I said above, that would prevent them from seeing almost literally anything on the table.

10 minutes ago, Big Easy said:

Page 45 of the RRG. Vehicles can block line of sight.

Did it block LoS for ALL of the attacking minis though? That seems unlikely. Everyone that can see at least one target mini can contribute dice to the attack (though a defending mini can only be wounded if at least one attacker can see it).

EDIT : perhaps you meant that the AT-ST was blocking itself, in which case I would ignore the attacker's own model.

Ignoring itself seems fair, and I don't disagree, but is there anywhere in the main rules or RRG that states that models don't block their own line of sight? I wasn't able to find any reference to it.

6 minutes ago, DakDaniels said:

Ignoring itself seems fair, and I don't disagree, but is there anywhere in the main rules or RRG that states that models don't block their own line of sight? I wasn't able to find any reference to it.

I see what you mean, no there is no specific reference in the RRG, so RAW there is no LoS. Page 31 of the RRG:

Quote

A player determines line of sight from the perspective of a mini, using a viewpoint where the center of the mini’s base meets the top of the mini’s sculpt. If a player can see part of an opponent’s mini, which includes that mini’s base, from that viewpoint, that player’s mini has line of sight to that opponent’s mini.

And honestly I can see it being ruled either way. From a simulationist perspective, a blind spot being there for an AT-ST or T-47 makes sense. Until FFG clarifies, that's a rule worth bringing up with your opponent before the game, unfortunately.

Self-occluding would be more immersive, and is that not what Davy & Co. were going for with the change to Cover on release?

9 minutes ago, DakDaniels said:

Ignoring itself seems fair, and I don't disagree, but is there anywhere in the main rules or RRG that states that models don't block their own line of sight? I wasn't able to find any reference to it.

It's not in the RRG, presumably because it's self-evident? Here's a diagram (shamelessly stealing @CaptainRocket 's work as a background) that demonstrates why I think so. The T-47 can see literally nothing that is shorter than itself if the model itself blocks LOS. The red circle is where you draw LOS from.

I don't think anyone is going to actually do that kind of measurement in practice. It's one of those technically correct but practically ludicrous kinds of things.

25 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

It's not in the RRG, presumably because it's self-evident? Here's a diagram (shamelessly stealing @CaptainRocket 's work as a background) that demonstrates why I think so. The T-47 can see literally nothing that is shorter than itself if the model itself blocks LOS. The red circle is where you draw LOS from.

Diagram wise sure. But in practice, if you look over the model, you can still see.

1 minute ago, DakDaniels said:

Diagram wise sure. But in practice, if you look over the model, you can still see.

The diagram is exactly correct, though. If you're looking over the model you're technically doing it wrong. Of course, in practice it's impossible to get my eyeball on that red dot (I mean, I can but it's gonna hurt!). So we just estimate by looking through the red dot.

If we're trying to draw technical conclusions, we'd better start with technically-correct premises (i.e., that diagram).

10 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

The diagram is exactly correct, though. If you're looking over the model you're technically doing it wrong. Of course, in practice it's impossible to get my eyeball on that red dot (I mean, I can but it's gonna hurt!). So we just estimate by looking through the red dot.

If we're trying to draw technical conclusions, we'd better start with technically-correct premises (i.e., that diagram).

Well if you did manage to get your eyeball on the very top, I'm sure Rocket can find you a replacement. Just wash it thoroughly before putting it in.

Anywho; But going off the Learn to Play guide diagram and real world application; vehicles can still see things on the ground.

6 minutes ago, DakDaniels said:

Anywho  ; But going off the Learn to Play guide diagram and real world application; vehicles can still see things on the ground. 

Well, neither one of those images is actually correct. The one in the LTP is close enough for the example it’s trying to present. The stormtrooper’s model would be blocking too much of the image if they took the technically correct angle. They took some artistic license to make a more clear diagram. Neither of those images is actually looking through the point at which the red dot would be. If you positioned your camera correctly (you’d have to move it down substantially. Rest the lense right on top of the model. That would still not be correct, but as close as you’re going to get), you would see that you have no LOS downward. That’s why I think self-blocking just can’t be a thing.

I'm going to respectively disagree with the accuracy of the LTP diagram as that is, to my knowledge, the only official example of how to draw LOS.

I tried submitting the question through FFGs Rules Submissions Form, but received an error when trying to submit it. Is there an email or other contact I can submit this question to?

As far as I know, that’s the only official way to submit rules queries. I would just try again later.

The LTP diagram is correct in so far as the information it is trying to convey: you check from the top of the model, not the feet or some arbitrary point on the base, to see if you have LOS to shoot something. The image is not necessarily physically accurate in every possible way (e.g., the vantage point of the camera is actually above the model). Diagrams have to make compromises for the sake of clarity sometimes.

I like that the example diagram for Cover in the new RRG explicitly shows an AT-ST drawing line of sight through its own head.

All they need to do is add a blub stating:

• The active unit's miniature(s) do not block line of sight. When determining line of sight, if a player cannot see a mini because it is concealed by an active unit's miniature(s) on the battlefield, and that player could otherwise see the mini, that player’s mini has line of sight to the mini that is concealed by the active unit's miniature(s).

19 hours ago, Turan said:

I like that the example diagram for Cover in the new RRG explicitly shows an AT-ST drawing line of sight through its own head.

Yep, that diagram answered my question perfectly.

3 hours ago, AngoraDemon said:

All they need to do is add a blub stating:

• The active unit's miniature(s) do not block line of sight. When determining line of sight, if a player cannot see a mini because it is concealed by an active unit's miniature(s) on the battlefield, and that player could otherwise see the mini, that player’s mini has line of sight to the mini that is concealed by the active unit's miniature(s).

I agree 100%.

Here’s another one to noodle.... where do you draw an eWeb’s line of sight from?

Technically right now it’s from the battery pack on the ground...

26 minutes ago, Orkimedes said:

Here’s another one to noodle.... where do you draw an eWeb’s line of sight from?

Technically right now it’s from the battery pack on the ground...

Why is it from the battery pack and not from above the gunners head?

21 minutes ago, Drasnighta said:

Why is it from the battery pack and not from above the gunners head?

By rule, you draw LOS from the highest point above the center. So technically it depends how you mount your models to the base. Which I think is a little dumb and opens a can of worms I don’t want to deal with. We’ve pretty much just been going with what makes sense without straying too far from the rule (so Luke draws from his head, not top of his lightsaber).

15 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

By rule, you draw LOS from the highest point above the center. So technically it depends how you mount your models to the base. Which I think is a little dumb and opens a can of worms I don’t want to deal with. We’ve pretty much just been going with what makes sense without straying too far from the rule (so Luke draws from his head, not top of his lightsaber).

Agreed... unfortunately I think this is one of those situations where FFG is overthinking the rules writing a little bit. Other systems just say you check the point of view of the firing model, and leave it up to the common sense of the players as to what that means.

The way it’s written right now in the RRG leaves room for weird situations where you are drawing LOS from some object that doesn’t make any sense, like the battery pack or the top of Luke’s saber.