A situation happened last session where a large monster was round a corner. The hero that he wanted to attack was 2 spaces away from the square of the monster base that was nearest the corner, and as such, that space didnt have LOS. However, another square of the monster did have LOS, but was 3 spaces away.

Can the monster attack?

I suppose an easier way of asking the question would be if a large monster does a ranged attack, is the range of the attack calculated from the actual space of the base that can get LOS to the target.

This came up a while back on boardgamegeek, and there wasn't really a consensus. My opinion is that when you choose a space of a large figure to trace line-of-sight to or from, you should count range from the same space--the theory being that when you don't have line-of-sight, your attack doesn't fail because you can't see your target, it fails because there's a physical obstruction that will block your attack. This is consistent with the fact that monsters outside your LoS don't get any defensive benefits for that if caught in an AoE attack (blast, breath, etc.), and that you can't center a blast attack on a space you can't see. Of course, it's also verging into thematic logic, and I don't think you should change the space you count range from when using the Crack Shot skill, so take that for what it's worth.

The actual written rules for counting range tell you to count from "the space occupied by the attacking figure" (implying there will always be only one) with no rules at all for large figures (even though there are special rules for large figures for tracing LoS two paragraphs earlier), so this is another case of the Descent writers failing to generalize.

I would be of the opposite opinion... The monster can see him, but in reality is only two spaces away. The fact that it's only his right eye that has clear line of sight is irrelivent. :-) There's also nothing in the rules to suggest that LoS and range must be drawn from the same space of the monster. Fluff-wise, his arm can still reach that far, provided he can see that there's a reason to swing his club in that direction (He isn't an indiscriminate troll, after all)

That being said, however, I would recommend this get added to the long list of unanswered questions, since both Antistone's opinion and mine are just that; opinions. There is nothing in the rules to clearly define how this is handled.

Both make a lot of sense, one from a precedence standpoint, one from a thematic standpoint. That is another good one though. It amazes me how many things I haven't thought about in this game...

Osaka said:

Forgive the tangential lesson on basic clarity, but...

1) You say at the end of your post that there's no rules supporting either ruling, but here you cite the lack of rules as an argument in favor of your ruling. You can't have it both ways.

2) Your argument about being able to reach with the part of the monster that can't see was specifically anticipated and responded to in my original post. It would be courteous for you to at least acknowledge that fact, especially since your post is explicitly responding to me, personally. You're kind of moving the discussion a step backwards when relevant contrary points have already been raised and you just ignore them.

I don't think you should take Osakas post personnel.

I think Osaka simply states that the rules are lacking. You are not wrong, but Osaka simply likes the other option better. (s)he's not pushing anyone into his/her school of thoughts either.