Background:
The LOS mechanics include drawing a line from the centre of the 'looking' figure's space to the centre of the 'target' space. Any obstruction that this line passes through blocks LOS.
Many people argue that there is no preclusion for obstructions in the target space (or the originating space). They therefore claim that, for example, a hero cannot shoot a razorwing as it passes through a rubble space - the rubble blocks LOS to the razorwing! The holes in this logic are painfully clear, but the thought still comes up regularly enough to possibly deserve a clarification.
Clearly, neither obstructions in the originating space nor in the target space block LOS, or, as a single example, tree spaces would make all figures in them both invulnerable and unable to attack.

This could be clarified with a simple statement.

"When checking LOS, the line is drawn from centre of space to centre of space as on pg9. However blockages in either the originating space or the target space do not block LOS. Only blockages between those spaces (including walls, closed doors, other figures, blocking obstacles and blocking props or terrain) actually block LOS from space to space."

If necessary, this could be turned into a question. Something like...
"How do I measure Line of Sight if either the attacker or the target are in spaces with obstructions that block Line of Sight?

This almost certainly requires a more nuanced ruling than that. The rules for Fog (AoD p.7) seem to assume that line of sight IS blocked by obstacles in the origin and target space. However, the rules for Trees (ToI p.6, RtL p.27) seem to assume the opposite, since otherwise a figure in a tree space would be invulnerable to most forms of attack, including ALL shop weapons. I think it's probable that the writers have been operating on a double standard, assuming whatever makes sense to them at the moment, and may not have realized the contradiction.

Obviously, an attacker's line of sight shouldn't be blocked because he is standing in his own space or because the figure he intends to attack is standing in the space he's targeting. But it's less clear how Rubble should work; it's not shaded in the LOS diagram on page 10 of the JitD rules, and it seems a bit weird to defeat an opponent sheltering behind Rubble by centering a blast attack on top of the rubble space (of course, that seems kind of weird for trees, too).

At the minimum, Corbon's suggested ruling should have an addendum listing special rules for Fog, which is obviously supposed to block line of sight in and out of its own space under some circumstances (or they should change Fog to simply grant Shadowcloak, similar to trees, though that would be a bit weird).

But it's also possible that they'll want to say that obstacles block LOS in and out of their own space (except for trees, and the existing special rules for Fog), but that figures do not. Or just add Rubble to the list of special exceptions along with Fog.

Antistone said:

Fair enough. I hadn't considered Fog, thinking (with no basis) that the special Fog rules onviously overrode normal LOS rules.
I guess it needs a full writeup etc explaining the contradiction between Fog and Trees.
Possibly the best option is the addendum for Fog, as you note.
Perhaps Fog rules really should have "only..." as their first word (basically changing the whole meaning of the first sentence and making it make a lot more sense). Fog has been almost unheard of in our games, so we've never really had it take affect (the few quests using it were often lost before the fog was gotten to, or combat around it was all at point-blank anyway).

Thanks.
I was hoping for a lot more of this sort of commentary all round, but I guess we must have done an adequate enough job on most thread starters. Seems kind of hard to believe though...

Antistone said:

OK, just before there are more problems with this let's refresh our memory for a bit. It was stated in the FAQ that figures in a pit could see adjacent spaces to prevent a problem with certain skills (sush as grapple) . This isue was also taking into acount for the fog: A figure who is adjacent to a fog square can see that fog square, and a figure in the fog can see all its adjacent squares. So we are to asume that wherever you are, you can always see all the squares that are adjacent to you (in order to prevent problems with certain skills sush as grapple).

The trees can only be seen from the adjacent spaces (that's why figures there must be treated as if they had the shadowcloack skill). If you think about it, figures in the fog benefit from the same advantage as if they had shadow cloack (except they cannot see). So a posible answer would be:

"Figures in spaces with an obstacke that blocks line of sight can be seen only by adjacent figures, and they may only see adjacent figures unless otherwise stated (as in the case of the tree)".

Galvancito1 said:

Where do the rules for trees state otherwise? Or are you recommending that they change the rules for trees to indicate they are an exception to this new standard after it's created?

Also, Shadowcloak and being unable to trace LOS from non-adjacent spaces are subtly different. For example, under the current rules, a target in a Fog space can be hit by a distant attacker targeting an adjacent space with Blast , since the figure in Fog has LOS to the center of the blast radius, while a figure with Shadowcloak would be immune since the attacker is not adjacent. Contrariwise, a distant attacker can center a Blast attack on top of a figure with Shadowcloak (with or without a tree), and won't hurt that figure, but can damage other targets in the area, whereas a Fog space couldn't be targeted in the first place.

Would the rules be better if they made these cases more uniform? Possibly. But then you're definitely talking about changing the rules, not just clarifying them.

Ok, forget what I said about fog being similar to trees (I just forgot about attacks that don't require LOS like blast, bolt and breath).

Then there has to be an exception. Either the fog and the pit are special cases (you cannot see what's at the other side unless you are adjacent to it, when you normally would) or the tree is a special case (you can see it when you normally wouldn't). Those would be:

A1: "Figures in spaces with an obstacke that blocks line of sight can see and be seen as if that space didn't contain an obstacle unless otherwise stated (see pits and fog)".

A2: "Figures in spaces with an obstacke that blocks line of sight can be seen only by adjacent figures, and they may only see adjacent figures with the following exception: a tree doesn't block a line of sight that starts or ends in the same tree."

These can be used as posible answers. Note that I'm talking about obstacles (not figures) blocking LOS. It still requires to be clarified.

By the way the word "only" (that Corbon mentioned) DOES appear in the spansish translation.

Galvancito1 said:

Those are good potential answers.

Interesting that the spanish translation does include "only". I was already 99% convinced that this was purely an editing error that omitted one word. Maybe the spanish translation came from a different manuscript than the one sent to the printers? Of course, past experience says it is more likely that the translators just did a loose job and translated what their own paraphrase of the rules was rather than what the rules actually say (and like me, automatically read the word "only" there, simply because that makes everything make sense).

At this stage though, I think that the best way to handle this is a separate check on Fog, because if the word "only" truly should be there then everything else is internally consistent.
If the initial answer on Fog from FFg is "no only" then I'd probably do a hurried rewrite then (I expect frm what othes have said that there will be a week or two back and forth with FFg once we are ready to go to them with all the questions).

Galvancito1 said:

Oops! After reading it again, I see I've made a mistake. The word does not appear (sorry). Instead, there is a different word that appears in the Spanish translation and not in the original English manual: "always": "Figures adjacent to a fog space always have line of sight to that space." It seems to be implied, however, that tine figures not adjacent to the fog cannot see the fog, because line of sight can be traced in both directions: If A sees B then B sees A (unless A or B has a skill that gives him/her the ability to see through things). This could be argued, but that's how it works in the real world, you know.

From question 40:

I sugest to ask if that's true, because that would solve the problem with the fog. It would also solve the problem with the pit as well: When inside a pit, a figure can only see the spaces adjacent to it. But can it be seen from the spaces adjacent to it?

A posible question would be:

Q40: If there is line of sight from a space (A) to another space (B), does it imply that there is also line of sight from B to A? This afects pits and fog.

A1: Yes, line of sight can be traced in either direction to all purposes.

A2: No, sometimes the line of sight can be blocked in one direction while leaving it intact in the other. For example if a figure (A) is in 1x1 a fog space and another figure (B) is two spaces away from A, then B has line of sight to A but not the other way round.

From the rules PDF:

"While in a pit, a figure has no line of sight to any other spaces. Other figures may trace line of sight to a figure in a pit normally ." (p.17)

That indicates pretty definitively that line-of-sight symmetry is NOT a rule.

Ther'es also other issues with your question, like LOS for figures vs. spaces, the fact that it doesn't actually resolve the Fog issue, and that you're making up a rule you like instead of asking about things that actually appear in the rulebook.

Revision: tried to nuance it more, phrase it as a question based on Antistone's comments. Left Fog out as it is covered by a different question, but included it as note that special rules might change the general rule.

Background:
The LOS mechanics include drawing a line from the centre of the 'looking' figure's space to the centre of the 'target' space. Any obstruction that this line passes through blocks LOS.
Many people argue that there is no preclusion for obstructions in the target space (or the originating space). They therefore claim that, for example, a hero cannot shoot a razorwing as it passes through a rubble space - the rubble blocks LOS to the razorwing! The holes in this logic are painfully clear, but the thought still comes up regularly enough to possibly deserve a clarification.
Clearly, neither obstructions in the originating space nor in the target space block LOS, or, as an example, tree (and mast) spaces would make all figures in them both invulnerable and unable to attack.

Question:
Do things which block line of sight block line of sight into (or out of) their own space?

Answers:
A1. Figures do not block line of sight into or out of their own space . Obstacles which block both line of sight and movement block LOS into their space, but not out of it . So a flying or acrobatic figure on a rubble space cannot be targeted by an attack ( breath and blast attacks may still affect it, but the space itself cannot be the target). Special rules (such as fog) may change this general rule.
A2. Figures do not block line of sight into or out of their own space. Obstacles which block both line of sight and movement block LOS out of their space, but not into it. So a flying or acrobatic figure on a rubble space cannot attack, but can be targeted by an attack . Special rules (such as fog) may change this general rule.
A3. Figures do not block line of sight into or out of their own space. Obstacles which block both line of sight and movement block LOS into and out of their space. So a flying or acrobatic figure on a rubble space cannot attack or be targeted by an attack (breath and blast attacks may still affect it, but the space itself cannot be the target) . Special rules (such as fog) may change this general rule.
A4. LOS is only checked between the originating and target space . Things which block line of sight in either the originating space or the target space do not count. Special rules (such as fog) may change this general rule.

Comments:
Better? Any more comments before transfering to the final FAQ proposal document?

For clarity and ease of reading the question could be reworded.

For completeness and consistency, we could add: "flyer on a rubble may attack" to A1. as well as "flyer on a rubble may both attack and be targeted" to A4.

In general, is it then clear enough for the consequences of centering a Blast on a rubble space for figures behind the rubble?

Parathion said:

Fair enough.

Parathion said: