Here's the link all. Confirmed a few suspicions and discusses line of sight.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp

I like the fact that they provide "mini" links to click on to see additional cards, info, etc.

Getting more excited, although the lack of extra dice to buff with has me concerned. It seems that additional damage caused comes from weapon text as opposed to more dice…which actually sounds just fine with me. Take out a lot of the randomness although the dreaded "X" is ever present.

I was hoping they'd do something to change up the X factor. The X on the old die liked me way too much. The game continues to sound great despite this.

Looks like there's a bug in the rules. In the Line of Sight example, it says that you can trace from any corner to any corner. In the picture, it says that Jain Fairwood can't attack that zombie. Actually, it appears she can. She can draw a line from her bottom left corner to the target's bottom right corner. That should have the line go between the rocks and therefore, she can see it.

rshelley said:

She can't see the bottom-right corner of the zombie, though. That's what's important.

"In short, rather than tracking "center to center" (from the center of the attacker's space to the center of the target space), line of sight is now traced "corner to corner" (from any corner of the attacker's space to any corner of the target space)."

Maybe any doesn't really mean any?

rshelley said:

It does mean any. But you still have to be able to trace an uninterrupted line between the two corners that you choose. If you choose the zombie's lower-right corner, you cannot trace an uninterrupted line, and so the attack is invalid.

I don't see what is difficult to understand about this.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, i'm just a very literal person (a mathematician). I now understand what you're describing and yes, that works. It just came off as confusing at first because i read "any corner" from both attacker and target, and given your explanation (which i'm guessing is correct), there is never a case where "any" corner can be used with a single target. It's only ever two corners that can be used. Now again, i understand that depending on where the target is, you might in fact use different corners resulting in choosing any of them. All i'm saying now is, it was confusing. And if i got confused, i'm guessing someone else will as well. So, good to know it's not a bug, but i see a clarification coming…well, hopefully.

Thanks for the explanation.

Bleached Lizard said:

What is interrupting the line? the monster itself? So she can't hit the monster because it's in the way?

I might be misunderstanding something here but with a line from her bottom left to monster bottom right it goes a similar route as Leoric's line so I can't see why she can't hit the monster as well.

rshelley said:

Actually, three corners. It's only the ones facing directly away from your opponent that won't be used (baring special abilities).

And you should see the "discussion" that's already raging on BGG.

I understand the problem at hand here and if my link works, the blue line is the LoS issue at hand here (if my link works correctly)

KronikAlkoholik said:

KronikAlkoholik said:

I can see "so I can't hit the monster because the monster's in the way?" will become the most-said phrase when explain the rules to D2E!

The line from Leoric isn't passing through anything. The line you propose from Jain is - it passes through the monster.

The way I explained it over on BGG is like this: imagine attacking each point on the monster's square from a point on your square represents a different thing thematically:-

From your square:

The point facing the monster: firing straight ahead.

The point on the hero's left as facing the monster: leaning to the left to shoot.

The point on the hero's right: leaning to the right to shoot.

The point facing away from the monster: ????

Targeting the monster's square:

The point facing your hero: hitting the monster's front.

The point on the monster's left as facing your hero: hitting the monster on its left side.

The point on the monster's right as facing your hero: hitting the monster on its right side.

The point facing away from your hero: ????

I leave it up to you to figure out what the question marks could possibly represent. Basically what we have now is a primitive form of "facing" for the figures. The entries with the question marks represent impossible shots.

Wouldn't it actually be two corners since both back corners of the zombie are directly opposite in relation to the character in question?

I just may end up using the old LOS rules for the new edition as the monster blocking its own LOS makes little sense to me.

gforce200 said:

I was speaking in general, not about that specific example. If all the walls and rubble weren't in the way, Jain could target the zombie from three of her corners to three of the zombie's corners.

gforce200 said:

It seems to make sense that one would only use the two closest corners of the attacker and target. It would be silly to attack from a rear corner if it made the uninterrupted LoS besides your own character model being in the way.

If there is no resolution for this new rule, I'll probably make a house rule for two-three closest corners to the target closest two-three corners as well.

Coldmoonrising said:

Except that this ignores the mathematical utility of a system where you can target "any corner of the target space": the angle of attack for the corner(s) that are not "facing" the attacker can be no greater and no less than the maximum and minimum angles of the corner spaces that are "facing" the attacker.
Put more simply - it helps simulate attacking the center of the target.

Targeting the closest two-three corners simulates a system, where you can target the tip of a creatures nose, or the furthest protrusion of it's rear end, but not it's center mass - it's dumb.

At a bare minimum, the discussions here and here prove that the example given is terrible, and, at a minimum, the blue line in the link from your earlier post should be explicitly addressed.

Just an FYI, this line of sight example has sparked a huge debate on boardgamegeek.

The example is fine. It's just that we haven't looked at the complete ruling. It's not huge debate, just vocal minority. So happy finding the game's "faults".

The guys on the "target doesn't block itself from being shot" are misguided I think. Especially think that it's line of sight. If you can see, you can't be seen. In the "forced" theories, the zombie would have been able to shoot Jain, but only when it shoot through itself.

I don't know if someybody ever found counter-intuitive that a 1st Ed Large Monster figure does block LoS to some spaces occupied by the figure itself. There were situations where a Blast attack could be more conveniently placed on the rear part of the Large Monster to target the critters hiding behind him, but his front squares blocked line of sight to the rear squares and nobody said it was nonsense. There were also cases where a Large Figure front spaces blocked an attack traced from the same figure's rear spaces.

Changing the points used for tracing LoS does not change the rule that a figure blocks LoS (and attacker is a figure even for himself). It is still unexpressed in the previews, but I agree that sufficient hints have been found to support this (see discussion on BGG). By (game-related) commonsense, a figure must block LoS, otherwise everybody could shoot through a host of figures and target a specific figure behind them.

I think that LoS traced this way will reduce time spent thinking about the best move, probably not so much as intended until the players get accustomed to the new rule, which has some troublesome outcomes like an obstacle not protecting you if attacker shoots from a perfect diagonal position. The idea behind the new rule is to make visual interpretation easier, because corners are drawn on the board and space centers are not. In some situations LoS was really tricky to trace and we had to use a diagram to persuade each other that it was legal/illegal.

It will probably shift the weight from "moving to trace the LoS for attack" to "moving to take the best available cover", but in Descent 1st Ed both of these issues required a lot of planning. Now Heroes and Monsters will have to think more about cover, as attacking will be typycally possible, if ranged. Also remember that Spawning will not work like 1st Ed, so no need to plan your moves to prevent spawning.

Bleached Lizard said:

Ok it seems everyone aggrees with what you are saying but I'm not sure where you get it from?

Is it specifically mentioned in the preview?

Is it just the peoples understanding of the rule " can't pass anything"?

or has there been official word somewhere?

Ps. I actually like the rule better this way. It would be hard to find a point where you couldn't shoot someone in the example with how I understood it first.

I also think that the rules are better this way… the hours we spent measuring the exact angles and arguing… until the online sight checker came out…. I was very frustrated as the Overlord… let's hope that the new rules, which seem good in theory also provide for a little faster line of sight determination….

Am I the only person that doesn't like tracing line of site between diagonally places blocking terrain? I've always looked at those as a continuous wall (despite the fact you can walk between them - which also doesn't make a huge amount of sense to me).

Now, onto BGG to find out what the hoo haa is about. Can a monster REALLY block line of sight to itself? Seems a bit stupid, and I can't imagaine that's the case. Certainly not a rule me and my gaming group will be utilising if so.

Coldmoonrising said:

This is exactly the same as the official rule anyway. No need to make a house rule.

Sausageman said:

Re: point #1 - I'm a bit iffy about that as well. I'm not sure what LoS rules I'm going to use when it actually comes to it.

Point #2: As someone above stated, figures have *always* blocked LoS to themselves. It's just that now we measure to/from four points rather than just one. Think of it this way: if we're standing directly in front of each other, facing each other, can you see the back of my head?

It's a shame the LOS still isn't made more intuitive. My playgroup always found it confusing that you can see monsters behind obstacles and can even walk through obstacle diagonals. A missed opportunity.

I do like the fact that it appears that you can still buy stuff, since there is a shop deck! I was worried getting gold was a thing of the past, luckily this is not the case. I do wonder what the effect of hero death is though. As it is now, it just seems an inconvenience for the heroes. I am a bit worried about that…