Background:
Fog rules
Block Movement? No
Block Line of Sight? Yes
Figures adjacent to a fog space have line of sight to that space . A figure in a fog space has line of sight to all adjacent spaces, but not to any other spaces.

The sentence in italics doesn't appear to make sense really. Figure adjacent to a space usually have LOS to that space anyway. Unless it assumes that obstacles that block LOS block LOS into their space, not just through their space (which leads to Trees breaking the game and the oddness of Razorwings (all flyers) being able to attack from a rubble space while not being visible to those they are attacking - victims are being clawed, yet can't see the claws!).

However, the word "only..." at the beginning, and it all makes sense, and matches the principle of the second sentence as well.

"Only figures adjacent to a fog space have line of sight to that space. ..."

Question:

Q. Do figures more than 1 space away (in otherwise unobstructed Line of Sight) from a Fog space have Line of Sight to the Fog Space?
A1: Yes, of course they do.
A2: No they do not. The Fog rules are missing a word. They should read " Only figures adjacent to a fog space have line of sight to that space.

Definite overlaps with discussion in thread #12 .

Corbon, I've noticed a tendency when you raise this issue to always assume that fog contains a false assumption in its writeup and trees do not, when the opposite seems equally plausible to me. While it would clearly be problematic to say that you can trace line-of-sight out of obstacles but not into them, I don't see any obvious reason that the default couldn't be "neither" (with an exception for trees) rather than "both" (with an exception for fog).

Really, I'm pretty sure we know how fog and trees are both supposed to work (though the rules for at least one of them are wrong), but I think there is genuine uncertainty about how rubble works. One could rule that you can't see in or out of rubble, or that you can see both in and out but not through, and I don't think either would break the game. Personally, I have conflicting intuitions - it seems reasonable to me to attack in and out when a razorwing is hovering over rubble, but less reasonable to center a Blast attack on a rubble space to hit enemies on both sides of it.

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." Quite strange.

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.

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.

I'll add this to question 12 since it is very similar.

OK, I realize that this isn't entirely your fault, since there are two discussion threads where your suggestion is relevant, but in the future I would suggest a link rather than a repost. On the off chance that your comment prompts an involved discussion, having that discussion split between two threads is really confusing.

So here's the link to Galvancito1's near-identical post in the related thread.

Attacking from rumbble or above water creates more issues since if you can attack a creature above these effects what happens if you web it in a guard action? Home rules could be applied though without breaking the game. A similar issue was made when a guarding character with a web weapon attack a creature while being in the same square as another (something that can be done as faq states). Both creatures got webbed and they were in the same square. We just ruled on the spot that one of the 2 figures should be pushed in a adjacent square.

Since there's no possible grounds for forbidding an attack targeting a water space, that issue needs to be dealt with no matter how rubble is ruled.

Antistone said:

I think this is an entirely separate issue and should be covered by a general question about what to do any time movement is unexpectedly stopped in a space that movement cannot end.

But I really don't understand what the problem is with dropping a blast attack on a rubble space. There is clearly 'space' above the rubble for flyers and acrobats to pass through, so no reason why a blast can't be thrown up there and spread more or less normally?

Antistone said:

Wny? Because there are an awful lot of rules missing under the alternate scenario you outline. There is a single word missing in the scenario I assume. Since LOS is not actually mentioned in the trees rules at all (just the "Block LOS: Yes") then for trees to have a special LOS rule they are missing the entire rule. And the same if it is a general rule about blocking obstacles that LOS is blocked into them (so they are different form the other LOS blockages).

That is the obvious reason.
It is also clear that by default 'things' which block LOS do not block LOS into their own space . If figures blocked LOS into their own space, you could never make non AoE attacks, since you couldn't see the space of the target. Figures are not treated any differently than blocking obstacles in the LOS rules (except for the actual 'looking' figure, which is not blocked by itself (sometimes relevant for large monsters)).

Really, I'm pretty sure that Fog does not work the way the rulebook currently says. The first sentence simply does not make sense as it is now - or rather, having that particular first sentence does not make use, since it tells us nothing at all.

Corbon said:

And an error in the LOS diagram on page 10, and an error in the Blast example diagram on page 22, and also in the Reach and Sweep example diagram on page 23.

Corbon said:

I don't think they omitted a rule, per se. I think the RtL rulebook was written by a different person (there's a different production credit) who made a different assumption than the previous person about how LOS-blocking obstacles worked and didn't realize they were making a change. Kind of like they didn't realize that the "obstacle" classification mattered, and they either didn't realize all the subtle changes they introduced into abilities or didn't realize that those changes were important enough that they should have been highlighted.

I half-suspect they honestly thought that changing Ironskin's resistance from "Blast, Bolt, and Breath attacks" to "area attacks" was just a rewording and not a material change.

Antistone said:

True. Pg10 diagram already has a number of other errors though.
I think these cumulative errors are better explained by them simply forgetting to colour the obstacles as well as the figures.
You do have a bit more of a point here though (or rather, I understand it better now).

It seems like the rules are clear - it seems unlikely they missed an entire rule about obstacles out (walls anyone? ). But perhaps the person creating the diagrams didn't understand them properly.

Antistone said:

As explained, given the fact that (LOS blocking) obstacles and figures are not treated any differently in the original DJitD rules, and figures quite clearly cannot block LOS into their own spaces, it is clear (despite the diagram errors) that obstacles don't block LOS into their own spaces either.

It is what the rules say, its 'clean', it makes everything work (except your very strange objection to blast over rubble) much more sensibly and much better balanced. I think it is a much better place to start and assumption from when looking to clarify.

Do you think your case is strong enough to justify sending in a question that is intentionally worded to exclude any other theory as a possible response?

For the record, figures and LOS-blocking obstacles ARE treated differently for LOS purposes in the original rules (spawning). Not in this specific way , but they do have different rules. Saying that there's another difference in how they block LOS does require an additional rule, but not an additional conceptual category...and while it makes obstacles less similar to figures, it also makes them more similar to doors and walls, which I think most people would find to be the more intuitive comparison.

And I don't see why you believe that allowing LOS in and out of rubble is "much better balanced." The only comment I recall you making in this thread that was even related to balance was about a scenario where you could trace LOS out but not in, which is a straw man if I've ever heard one.

As for my intuition about Blast and rubble, flying over rubble (or breath/bolt "billowing" through it) just implies that some path through exists; they could be weaving back and forth. Centering a Blast on it implies that there is a single point with an unobstructed line of sight in all directions. That's possible if none of the rubble extends higher than some given height, so the ceiling is totally unobstructed...but in that case, why can't you trace LOS through an arbitrary number of rubble obstacles in order to hit a razorwing that is hovering above rubble (especially with a Blast attack that is already centered on the ceiling above rubble)?

It's just an intuition, and obviously we should accept certain simplifications for the sake of playability. But simplifying the other way seems roughly equally appealing to my personal intuition.

Antistone said:

At this stage, yes, I do.
With the expectation that if I am wrong then that will come up in some back-and-forth with the FFG staff member that we discuss our final document with, and that will provide an opportunity for revising if needed.

Antistone said:

I don't think I commented on it before (in this thread at least), but I don't generally approve of a balance which says "I can see you but you can't see me". Yes, we already have that situation in a (specifically covered exception) with pits and maybe also in some weird large figure cases (covered by KISS principle and rarity). To create another situation which is relatively common and is not already a clearly specified existing exception when it doesn't clearly already exist just doesn't seem sensible to me. (Flyers clearly can attack from a rubble space, which is further evidence that they can see out - being 'clawed'/'bitten' by a razorwing melee attack when you can't 'see' the razorwing breaks my personal credibility limit).
That's my 'balance perspective'.

Antistone said:

I don't accept the 'some path exists' as being 'enough'. The flyer/acrobat can pass through in any direction, can change direction, can even attack (flyer) in any direction (at range - shade) while in the rubble space. Clearly, IMO, the rubble does not extend to the 'roof' and in fact leave quite a large 'clear space' above the blockage. It is simply a large obstruction at 'ground/lower level'. The reason you can't trace LOS through multiple rubble's etc to see a hovering Razorwing is simply KISS - the same reason soarer's block movement underneath them.

IMO it is clear that you can see into a LOS blocking space. Very clear. The rules lead to it, require it to work at all, and the only evidence against it really are some diagrams which FFG have already shown they are less than competent at making accurately anyway.

Corbon said:

I've never been involved in such a discussion, but based on reading previous FAQs, I would not assume that anyone at FFG would question any presumption embedded in any question they receive.

Corbon said:

WTF, Corbon? You just quoted me saying that the asymmetric scenario was a straw man, and now you're burning it again . And then you go on to argue about how the game would break...I think you mean if figures blocked LOS to their own square, but that sentence is so vague and so out of left field that I can't even tell.

Are you seriously trying to win an argument through deliberate fallacy, or are you just drunk or something? I expected better of you.

Antistone said:

The way it was discussed by BigRemy and Thundercles previously gave me the impression that there was something of a discussion period.
But anyway, I, personally, am still happy with the assumption I have made. If you don't like it then rewrite the Q and A for me. I'm not doing it unless I am convinced it is a bad thing, and I'm not convinced yet.
This is one of the reasons why we have these threads. The thread-starting post in each case is intended to only be a starting point to get a similar 'final post' that can be compiled into the FAQ-offering.

Antistone said:

If you will excuse one paragraph of sarcastic rhetoric that I don't actually mean, but illustrates the point....
[sarcastic rhetoric]Ok, so anything you say is a straw man (without any expanding) is a straw man and can't ever be mentioned again. If you say 2+2=4 is a straw man, then 2+2 will ever after have to be argued as either 3 or 5.[/sarcastic rhetoric]

I am neither trying to win an argument with a deliberate fallacy, nor am drunk (don't drink alcohol at all actually).
I simply am responding to being asked why, from a balance perspective, I think symmetrical LOS is better, and why it applies in this case.

The rules (currently) require it (LOS can enter or exit LOS blocking obstacles, just not pass through from one side to another) to work at all in the current case of trees (putting aside razorwings on rubble for now). If you cannot see into a tree, RtL is (can be, through player choices) literally unplayable as outdoor encounters have no auto-end mechanism. If a tree cannot be seen into, a hero can literally sit in a tree forever.
Yes, you say that this could be a 'missing rule' for LOS blocking obstacles. However I do not accept this a reasonable possibility.
Already, I've pointed out that a single missing word that only changes one extremely minor thing (I think I've only ever interacted with Fog once in my entire Descent career) is far, far, far more likely that an entire missing rule that has wide ranging implications that exist in the very base game, and therefore every game of any type of Descent. The diagrams provide addition evidence for 'missing rule' but are already known to be flawed, and are also consistant in that no rubble obstacle is ever shaded in the base rules even when it should be - both the sweep and blast diagrams should have shaded rubble - blast cannot pass through blockages (which does not prevent entry) and I believe it is universally agreed that blast may affect a figure in a tree providing the 'attacker' is adjacent to the tree.

If you rewrite it, so that it covers both options, and with a great deal more explanation in the background section, I'll be fine with that.

Corbon said:

Do you even know what a straw man is? It means I'm not disagreeing with you . If you argue that 2+2=4 and I say you're attacking a straw man, that means that you may presume that 2+2 does indeed equal 4, for the rest of the discussion, if it helps your argument in any way.

Corbon said:

Except that you weren't asked anything remotely resembling that.

I've already said - repeatedly, and at length - that I am NOT suggesting asymmetrical LOS through rubble. You're shoving a preposterous argument that I have emphatically disavowed into my mouth, and then arguing against it.

Since my actual position apparently has no impact on your posts, I'm clearly not required for this discussion.

Antistone said:

Well, I'm not even sure what we are discussing anymore, so apparently neither of us is required here right now. It wasn't even fun this time.