Hi there,

I'm sorry if this sounds like an awkward question, but I haven't found any answers yet (btw: the new forum search sucks a lot...)

Let's say there is a big 2x2 creature in a hallway, and my hero is standing in a way around a corner that he cannot see the front part of the creature, but would be able to spot the field of the back part. Does this creature block the line of sight to his "rear" parts with it's front?

I know that there is a ruling that says: "OTHER figures do not prevent line of sight, if the hero cannot see them", but does this also count for the same creature? (I LOVE the "middle to middle" ruling *grmbl*)

My Overlord wants an "official" ruling for that, so if someone could point me in the right direction for my argumentation that this is a ridiculous question, I would very much appreciate it!!!

Thanks

Edo

I think with large creatures, LOS is valid if any square of the creature and another figure can have the line traced center to center. If you can see the ogres butt, your heroes can freely shoot arrows into it.

What you're describing is this:

I have absolutely no reason to think the Hero, which can see the space labeled "Hero can see here" would not be able to see that space cuz it's blocked by more of that monster. I would certainly say this Hero could hit this Ogre, and the range would be 4 (tracing to the space you can see, as the spot that's only 3 away is blocked).

poobaloo said:

the range would be 3 (tracing to the space you can see, as the spot that's only 2 away is blocked).

I think so too, but my Overlord's arguments are like this:

If you draw the line from center to center, and the line goes THROUGH the front part, the line of sight is blocked by the creature itself...

I find it hard to describe it, it is also a rare situation that this problem occurs.

Thanks,

Edo

And the picture is not describing the situation, it would be like this

SS
NN

Imagine the hero standing somewhere where he cannot see "S" part of Ogre without drawing line of sight through the "N" parts...

And he is not able to actually SEE the center of the "N"-parts

Thanks

Edo

Except for the fact that all monsters and Heroes are considered to have 360 degree LOS to everything around them. There are NO facing rules in Descent. It doesn't matter that the monster figure on the board has its "face" turned away from the Hero.

From page 4 of the rulebook:

The direction a figure is facing has no effect in the game.

If you can draw legal LOS to ANY PART of a 2x2 monster, you can hit it.

1-space Figures to which you cannot trace legal LOS do not block LOS. I imagine a similar thing can be extended to "individual spaces of Large figures".

Thundercles said:

That's the exact answer that I need, but as I mentioned in my first post, I needed some kind of "official" ruling for that to convince my OL that he's wrong.

I will show your answer to him and hope that's enough, thanks!

Edo

Thundercles said:

Are you sure? This is huge. Can you confirm this, as this would give the Hero's a big advantage. You're saying that a 1-space figure, to which you cannot trace a legal LOS (to the center of) does not block LOS to figures behind it? So in the image above, if the space marked "Hero can see here" was a Beastman, and the space marked "Hero can not see" was a Kobold - then the Kobold does not block the view of the Beastman, since the Kobold is only partially in view?

I always thought that monsters do block LOS to other monsters, even if it's just a corner, and the "blocking" monster is mostly out of view.

Yes, he's sure

Right from the Gathered List of Answered Question, which for all intents and purposes is an Official Forum Based FAQ

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.

Big Remy said:

Wow, thanks! I'd like to see that make an official FAQ, since it's such a wide-reaching change. Any idea what caused it? It makes no sense logically. See here:

In Scenario 1, the Beastman is in plain view. LOS to the Kobold is blocked by the Beastman.

In Scenario 2, all we've done is add a wall. Now, the Beastman, being partially concealed, no longer blocks LOS to the Kobold, and the same Hero, standing in the same spot, relative to the same two monsters, can now shoot an arrow past the Beastman, and hit the Kobold, as if the Beastman is not there?

Big Remy said:

I would say the difference between a forum answer and an official FAQ is the playtesting. I'm not doubting it, but I'll hold for the FAQ on this one. I'm guessing there are some caveats (like the above example) that will be cause for revision when an official FAQ comes out. Such a rule would make for some ridiculous tactics, and placement designed to make silly can-hit / cant-hit scenarios. Heros would move juuust close enough to a wall to block out vision of creatures, to hit ones behind them.

I can just picture it, a hero holding up his hand, to block out the view of an intermediate monster, so that he can aim at the one behind him, like if he blocks him out, he's not there! :-)

And even better - instead of adding the Wall in that picture, add a Medusa in the same spot.

Now, the Hero can see the Medusa. That Medusa, being in LOS, blocks LOS of the Beastman. So the Beastman is not in LOS, therefore he does not block sight of the Kobold. So the Hero could target the Medusa or the Kobold, but not the Beastman. Then if the Medusa moves away, now instead, the Beastman is visible, but the Kobold is not. Yeah, this one will hopefully not make the FAQ w/o some thought put into it.

Yes, it's a silly rule. But the situations that are silly under this rule are also silly under the original rule. In your "scenario 2" picture, under the original LoS rules, you can continue stacking more and more monsters behind that kobold, as far back as you want, and the hero doesn't have line-of-sight to any of them.

But either way, this is not a "wide-reaching change." These situations hardly ever come up in actual play, and when they do come up, they disappear almost instantly, because every figure moves on almost every turn and monsters drop like flies anyway. The overall impact on the game is virtually nil.

Plus, if you're using a Blast or Breath weapon, you don't even care whether you have LoS to that Kobold, because you won't be attacking its space anyway...

poobaloo said:

What ever gave you the impression that half the stuff in the FAQ were ever playtested? All the answers in that forum thread come straight from either Kevin Wilson or Dan Clark, and since those are the game designers I'm pretty much ready to take it as Law.

FAQ v1.4 came out roughly a week or maybe 2 after members of the old forum (and again, I believe Thundercles did his usual masterful job on it) did a List of Unanswered Questions and sent it in. Since several of the things in red in FAQ v1.4 came off that list, I really don't think they sat and playtested any of it. Do you really think they playtested the concept of an "empty space"?

Big Remy said:

That credit goes to Parathion, mostly, for getting the opportunity and compiling the final list.

Tell your overlord his crazy lol...even if the rules would say you couldnt do that...It's preety dumb for him to acknowledge de fact the the monster is hiding behind itself...

Thundercles said:

Honestly, I have to pass the credits to Dreepa, who actually sent in the list. I merely added quite a few items to it.

StarBurn said:

Where do you come off, calling me a crazy??? ( )

Just kidding! But look at it this way: You want to shoot an Ogre but it is hiding, facing you, so you shoot it in the back because its tummy is in the way, which you cant see because it is hidding(or vise versa for figures have no "orientation")!? As a wise poster once "sig"ed: Descent + Logic = Madness

With multiple monsters it is easier to imagine, that they cant all hide behind the same boulder. And there it is okay for me to shoot the other monsters.

By the way: Just my way of driving my players into madness, for misery likes company.

Natarko said:

That's just pathetic! Its patently obvious that you shoot it in the bum, which is sticking out.

Morale of the story? Big monsters shouldn't hid behind little rocks....

Allright, let's go back to the original situation with the ogre hiding behind the wall. If it was instead a creature with range such as a manticore or a spider would the monster have line of sight to the hero since the hero would have line of sight to it?

Could a monster block its self from achieving line of sight?

If the monster could target the hero, would you count range from the nearer part of the monster or from the farther part of the monster where you're actually drawing the line of sight from?

Randymd said:

1. Yes. Although reciprocity has nothing to do with it.

2. No. LOS is explicitly blocked by other figures. See page 10 (first sentence).

3. The further. Range is calculated from the space occupied by the figure, not a space. As a subject, 'the' can only refer to the space that the LOS is being drawn from as that is the only space previously referenced (in step 2).

If monsters would block LoS to their own squares, how could you ever trace LoS to any of their square centres (single square monsters included)?

And of course what Corbon says at his second point.

I read the official forum answer, and I still do not really understand.

From my experience from other games, if there are no rules for defensive bonus from having cover, LOS should always be reciprical. If one player has it, the other does too. Any other ruling is asking for trouble and arguments.

Apparently the Descent designers do not share your philosophy, as there are multiple cases in Descent where line-of-sight is explicitly NOT reciprocal. Pits, for example.

You're welcome to house rule things if you want, but the official LOS rules are not reciprocal, whether you think it's a good idea or not.

It is reciprocal in most cases, though.