Line of sight to big creatures

By Edo77, in Descent: Journeys in the Dark

Posted at

Corbon said:

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).

The question's come up in my game about the Crack Shot skill: Is range traced from the space the hero has LOS from, or the space the hero is standing in? We have been playing it as the space the hero is in. Corbon's point 3 2nd sentence is in agreement with that, but the last sentence is potentially contradictory for Crack Shot, since the space the figure is in isn't the space with LOS.

Is there an official ruling for Crack Shot?

Posted at

Siebeltje said:

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.

So you postulate that the center of a square a figure is standing in, is the point that blocks LOS?? Carful, my friend, this could leed to real problems. What if the LOS to another figure doesnt run through the center of this space? Voila, LOS to the other figure!

@Blocking LOS: The FAQ states that "other" figures, that you dont have LOS to, dont block LOS, nothing about the same figure. So as a rules lawyer i say the big figure can block LOS to other spaces it is occuping. Anyone against rules lawyering? gui%C3%B1o.gif

Posted at

Natarko said:

Siebeltje said:

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.

So you postulate that the center of a square a figure is standing in, is the point that blocks LOS?? Carful, my friend, this could leed to real problems. What if the LOS to another figure doesnt run through the center of this space? Voila, LOS to the other figure!

@Blocking LOS: The FAQ states that "other" figures, that you dont have LOS to, dont block LOS, nothing about the same figure. So as a rules lawyer i say the big figure can block LOS to other spaces it is occuping. Anyone against rules lawyering? gui%C3%B1o.gif

No. All parts of a space block LOS - a space is entirely occupied by anything in it. There is no 'this figure/obstacle only occupies 87.3% of this space', a space is entirely occupied or not. But the 'to space' and the 'from space' do not (cannot, see explanation below) count anything in them as obstructing LOS.
DJitD pg 9
...In other words, the attacking figure must be able to trace an uninterrupted straight line from the center of its space to the center of the space it is targeting...
DJitD pg 10
Line of sight is blocked by walls, closed doors, other figures, and blocking obstacles.

If things in the target space ('to space') block LOS to that space then no space with a figure in it can ever be targeted as that figure blocks LOS to the centre of the space. Similarly, if figures (in the target space) do not block LOS but obstacles (in the taget space) do, then figures in trees do not just get shadowcloak, they can NOT BE TARGETED, as the tree will block LOS to the centre of its own space. That is clearly nonsense.
Similarly for the 'from space'. The figure in the space has to be able to count LOS out of it or no attacks are ever possible. And Trees prove that obstacles in the 'from space' are also not counted.

@LOS: Neither FAQ 1.4 nor the recently aborted FAQ say this - at least not that can be found by a document search using 'line of sight'. I suspect you are referring to the old answer from KW or someone similar that had a diagram with a row of skeletons (IIRC) behind a rubble space in a corridor. If you wish to use this as evidence, please post the whole quotation as I rather suspect you are misquoting out of context.
The rules, as quoted directly above state that 'other' figures do block LOS - implying pretty clearly that a figure in the target space does not (indeed, if it does the target space cannot be targeted!).

Rules Lawyer FAIL on your part. Decent 'rules lawyers' (analysts would be a better term) are needed precisely to stop this sort of idiocy (nothing personal, just a general comment).