Is "see" the same thing as "line of sight?"

[MonsterMotor]

Everytime I play The Stone Hunter, I'm in doubt if I should place the next if the player moves up to the on the junction. I would say that the idea is to take out the first two, then the others. But maybe the idea is to be surprised by another being placed when the player moves up to the first.

I think such a situation is not clear from the rules you have there. Sooner or later you need to make an own decision how you want to handle this. I personally don't follow a particular rulebook edition but combine rules how it makes the most sense for me. I also make more extended alterations anyway to resolve the more serious issues in the whole HQ rule system. For corridor exploration I employ lines of sight, by the way.

[Daedalus]

Regarding the "allowing a figure to shoot passed an adjacent (friendly) figure" rule I did consider it, but ended up rejecting it due to it breaking the principle that I can never decide on a name for "the mirror principle" i.e. it creates a situation where A can attack B but B cannot attack A. I'm currently play testing an interesting new rule that allows missile attacks (and more importantly spellcasters) to exploit their full potential, discussed here: Combat: A Sticky Situation?

As to the rest of your post Daedalus, and it may just be a monday morning thing, but all the words make sense to me, just not in the order that you have put them together

When I read the words my brain tries to create a diagram which I think makes sense but I seem unable to hold on to it.

Are you saying something along the lines of...

We can ignore the exact positioning of the figure inside the blocking square, by assuming that every figure is symetrically arranged within their square, contained within a diamond shape created using the midpoints of the edges, so provided that the line of sight doesn't pass through the diamond then LOS isn't blocked?

Nope I don't think I got that right.

Provided that you can draw two straight lines from any two corners of the shooter's square to the corresponding corners on the target square without those lines crossing the line between the same two corners on the blocking square, then your LOS is clear...?

I think I might need you to provide a diagram.

Allow me to amend my original explanation, which was made a bit prematurely following the enthusiasm of an Ah-ha! moment. First, the diagram you asked for, which more accurately shows the true center-to-center line of sight with a blue line:

First, forget the inscribed diamond approach. Let's just stick with the circular icons, which I believe were intentionally included to abstractly represent what the rules--the primarily important element--delineate as a figure. The exact size of the icons isn't as important as the fact that they are both smaller than and entirely contained within the squares they occupy. This is helpful to establish that a figure should be imagined as not fully occupying the square space it is located on.

Now back to the true LoS which is shown with a blue line. It not only connects from the center of the attacking Elf figure to the center of the targeted Orc figure, but it also crucially crosses the midpoint of the top side of the square space that the blocking Wizard figure occupies. This midpoint reveals a pivot point for a geometric mirroring of potential targets, as shown with the bisecting green line. Since the path of the blue LoS line originates at the center of the attacking Elf, the reflected portion of the blue LoS that continues strait on to the targeted Orc must also pass through its center, proving at least 50% visibility.

Why would the designers choose to include this example? To me it is evident that this helpful principle was included so that mirrored squares could be concretely counted up to determine LoS (an attacker left 2 and down 1 of the point of blocking reflects to right 2 and up 1 of the target) rather than trying to determine tricky angles and what constitutes the blocking part of a figure. Anything above the blue LoS line is potentially visible (unless otherwise blocked, as with the top Orc), while anything below the blue line has LoS blocked (unless there wasn't a wall and a new LoS line could be traced to the bottom of the blocking Wizard).

This all seems to have gotten muddled by the confusing and visibly incorrect LoS of the diagram that was skewed to intersect at the corner of the blocking Wizard's square space. I judge that the creator of the diagram misunderstood the written meaning of "figure" within the rule, thinking that it must include the base and thus the square space. This is the interpretation I adopted as a result, but the diagram shows it isn't actually possible using that definition when carefully inspected. The base shouldn't block anything, as it isn't meant to have the necessary blocking element of height. The poorly represented takeaway is that the middle Orc is in LoS because the square space doesn't block anything where figures are involved.

Whilst I suspect that you may be technically correct, and that interpretation may allow the diagram as written to be technically correct, if that was the designer's intention then I would question what type of 9-10 year olds they had in mind when creating the rules? Young Sheldon perhaps?

Bazinga!
Stephen Baker: Does the diagram help you to understand what is in line of sight? Playtest kids, slowly in unison: Uhh-huhh.

This bit I understand...but as HQ is supposed to be simple (right now I'm less than convinced) and the other rules assume that squares are either occupied or not occupied (boolean) then I have always assumed as I think you do that the exact positions of the figures within the squares is irrelevant, that part I agree with. I pictured each square as being either occupied, so pretend it contains a blocked square marker, or unoccupied in which case it is empty. Then I draw the centre-to-centre line and provided that doesn't cross any of the sides of any blocked squares (it can touch the corners but not cross the sides) then it is good. So whilst I get your diamond example, this would require squares occupied by figures to be treated differently to squares occupied by blocked square markers (and if you allow certain furniture types to block line-of-sight then you would need to decide whether that should use the "diamond", "blocked square" or a third method?)

The rules and diagram are concerned with blocking figures, but in general, I'd judge that furniture would better be considered to fully block the squares they occupy as far as 2-D is concerned. Regarding height is another topic.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

So just to recap first, so my brain doesn't melt.

Q1: How to handle visibility / placement around opening doors?

a) Character opens door, remains on same square, but can see everything in the room or passage behind irrespective of LOS

For this to be effective you would need a definition of each distinct room and each distinct passage so that you know what needs to be placed on the board. Distinct room definition is in place, distinct passage definition is not in place in the rulebook, and from the examples given from various quest books it appears that such a distinction has never been defined or agreed.

b) Character opens door, remains on same square, and can see everything in the room or passage behind that falls within LOS

Uses existing LOS rules, however this could cause a two-stage reveal effect in rooms, where monsters could be located in a room but not within LOS - may or may not be an issue.

c) Character opens door, is automatically moved into room or passage through door, and can therefore see everything in the room (because you are now in the same room) or passage according to LOS (as you are now in the passage)

I think this rule is just not practical and I understand why they dropped it (if it has ever been around anyway). So while this rule removes the discrepancies between our interpretations, it is only hypothetical and there is even a rule that explicitely allows opening doors while standing still.

If this rule never existed what is meant by the line "opening doors does not count as a move" in both 1st and 2nd edition rulebook?

Assuming it did exist then when do you think it was removed?

Which is the rule that explicitly allows opening doors whilst standing still?

Q2: How to handle visibility / placement around passage corners?

a) Use LOS to determine what can be seen and is therefore placed on the board

b) Only place on the board once the character has moved onto the first square of the passage

For this to be effective you would need a definition of each distinct passage so that you know what needs to be placed on the board. Distinct passage definition is not in place in the rulebook, and from the examples given from various quest books it appears that such a distinction has never been defined or agreed.

You could argue that the monsters around the corner can hear the heroes and are thus activated....If you use LOS for revealing the goblin, and let's say on the X there is an Orc, then the goblin is allowed to attack the dwarf on Zargon's turn, but the Orc is not, although he sees that the goblin runs off to attack someone. I think this is as odd as the dwarf not causing a reveal of the goblin in the diagram. I think it's best to avoid this kind of situation when designing quests.

I wouldn't argue this, activating monsters based on whether they can be seen by characters appears to be hard enough, I certainly wouldn't argue for introducing general rules around activating monsters based on what they can hear, or whether they can see other monsters that have been activated.

The and problem only happens in 2 square wide corridors. In a 1 square wide corridor we would have the same situation only when the dwarf is right next to the new corridor (1 square north in the diagram). In this case it feels right to reveal the complete corridor (the dwarf looks around the corner), although looking down a corridor is not covered by UK 1st Edition (only German 1st Edition).

I think the same situation happens whether the passage is one or two squares wide, my preference is to use LOS to handle it in both circumstances, but if you choose to use the "place only when entering a new passage rule" when the passage is two-squares wide, then why would you choose to apply something different if the passage is one-square wide?

You could argue that although the goblin is shown on the quest map on this square, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is there all the time. Maybe it just arrives when the dwarf reaches the junction, maybe it lay in ambush. So the dwarf can target the goblin square while it is not revealed, but there is no goblin on that square yet.

Within HeroQuest, I'm fine that we don't know or need to know the location of monsters until the point at which the square that they are marked on the quest map is visible to a character, if we also make even that conditional so even if a character can see the square that has a monster icon on it, then they still can't necessarily see the monster, this just gets really confusing!

Everytime I play The Stone Hunter, I'm in doubt if I should place the next if the player moves up to the on the junction. I would say that the idea is to take out the first two, then the others. But maybe the idea is to be surprised by another being placed when the player moves up to the first.

Whether you adopt interpretation (a) or (b) for passages and corners (Q2), you would only place the initial pair of under (a) because you only have LOS to that pair, under (b) you would do the same because only the first pair are in the same passage as you? Did I miss something here?

Figures blocking LOS (Daedalus)

Thank you for that explanation I now understand your "inscribed diamond" but whilst I think you are technically and geometrically correct, for me it feels more complex and harder to explain than assuming everything fills the whole square and you use the corner point of occupied squares (or wall corners including blocked squares), rather than the mid-point, as the pivot point for a geometric mirroring of potential targets.

We already have the concept of a figure occupying a square fully, from the movement rules, blocked squares fully occupy a square (for both movement and visibility), walls align to the edges of squares, and even you agree that if you choose certain furniture types to block LOS (and all types to block movement) then all of those "block the full square" so for me personally I think I'd adopt the same for figures, in the interests of simplicity and consistency.

That said I'm still thinking!

[Parzival]

I think it’s rather obvious that general ability to see something is not the same as Line of Sight, which is the ability to target someone for a missile attack or spell. After all, it’s quite clear in every rulebook that while you can’t target a monster (or hero) if another monster or hero is directly between you and the intended target, you can still see that same monster to know it is present and where it is located.

And this, in and of itself, explains the difference between visibility (“see”) and target potential (“line of sight”).

So when you open a door, you can see and know where everything in a room is unless the room description says otherwise.
Think of this as the hero sticking his head in and peering around. (Dude’s “on point.” That’s part of the job. )
And yes, there are quests where such visibility is indeed restricted, and where the text says so. (Usually a bookcase or cabinet is located a full square’s distance away from a presumed chamber wall, and something is hidden or obscured behind it.)
But unless that provision has been made, everything in the room is visible to the hero at the door when the door is open, and his comrades, while technically unable to “see” any of it, get to have essentially perfect knowledge of it all.

“Yo, Nanoc, what do you see?”
“There’s a throne, a desk, a chest, a cabinet and— BY MORC, A MUMMY!”
“Maybe you could have mentioned the mummy first?”

For a passageway, the “Line of Sight” rules actually make visibility understandable here— recall that the Line of Sight exists for determining whether a figure can be targeted (and thus, obviously, must be at least partially visible)— but, as noted, this also helps us understand whether that figure actually is partially visible. The “line” in the “Line of Sight” is imagined as a line going from the center of a figure’s square to the center of the intended target’s square. But as already shown, a blocked target is still a visible monster, even though a line can only be drawn from the viewer’s square (not its center) to a portion of that monster’s square. If you can see beyond the exact edge of the square, even if only a sliver, you can “see” what is in that square. If you can’t see any portion of the square, then you can’t see what’s in it. Thus, one cannot see around a corner of a passage until one reaches a position one square before the three squares which form the “L” of the corner. At that position (and only that position) the figure may see the square just around the corner, but nothing further. A hero on such a square thus sees the “sliver” of the edge of the corner square, and thus what (if anything) is located there— but cannot shoot it. But only when he moves forward one step into the L of the corner can he peer around to see the entire corridor and whatever is in it— but at that point, he can only diagonally target (or cast a spell on) whatever is immediately around the corner. A double corridor extends this somewhat, but again, the potential LOS (the existence of a line, sliver to a sliver or corner to a corner) is still the guide.

So, to recap: What is visible is not always in LOS, but what is in LOS, or potential LOS, is always visible. But what is outside of even potential LOS is not visible.
Thus, a room’s contents (always potentially in LOS of a figure at the door) are immediately visible, as you can trace a line from a corner of the door square to every square in the room. This is not the case with a passage until you have reached the corner itself.

Honestly, it’s rather obvious to me, and I think the level of precision I suggest is unnecessary for understanding in the game.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I think it’s rather obvious that general ability to see something is not the same as Line of Sight, which is the ability to target someone for a missile attack or spell. After all, it’s quite clear in every rulebook that while you can’t target a monster (or hero) if another monster or hero is directly between you and the intended target, you can still see that same monster to know it is present and where it is located.

I don't find that obvious or correct. In both the 1st and 2nd edition rulebooks, it clearly and explicitly states that you CAN target a monster or character for a missile attack or spell if another monster or character is directly between you and the intended target, provided that you are all in the same room.

If the "Line of Sight" rule defines the ability to target someone for a missile attack or spell, then why in the 2nd edition are there two different line of sight rules, one for targeting someone for a missile attack or spell, and one for determining what can be seen?

[wallydubbs]

I can't believe this debate/conversation is going onto for 16 pages... Don't we all play this a little differently from each other? I'm not actually sure if they're the same thing, but if I come into a situation in the game, I'd make a judgement call. If there's a line of monsters down the corridor and the more powerful Dread Warrior is muddled in the middle. If I think the Wizard can see him, I'll allow him to cast Genie. But at the same time, if a hero wants to fire a Crossbow at him, there would probably be way too many monsters blocking the path of the arrow. Not that anyone asked me. But if you play your game differently from mine, I'll respect the rules of your table.

[Onan]

If this rule never existed what is meant by the line "opening doors does not count as a move" in both 1st and 2nd edition rulebook?

Assuming it did exist then when do you think it was removed?

Which is the rule that explicitly allows opening doors whilst standing still?

I guess "does not count as a move" means that it does not cost movement points (like e.g. in Descent). I would say that the rule "You can open a door by moving onto the square in front of it." allows opening the door without moving through. I would say the rule was in, but it was removed after some playtests, because people didn't follow this rule instinctively. But you can still "feel" this rule in the 1st edition rulebook.

For this to be effective you would need a definition of each distinct passage so that you know what needs to be placed on the board. Distinct passage definition is not in place in the rulebook, and from the examples given from various quest books it appears that such a distinction has never been defined or agreed.

Here is another one from the Spiral Passage:

The boulder will crash into the wall at the end of the passage, in the square marked with a star, and block the way.

It is not clearly defined where a passage ends, but I think most players would say they run in a straight line until they hit a wall or border of the board.

Whether you adopt interpretation (a) or (b) for passages and corners (Q2), you would only place the initial pair of under (a) because you only have LOS to that pair, under (b) you would do the same because only the first pair are in the same passage as you? Did I miss something here?

No, but both rules don't meet my players' expectations. I have tried to hold back the next until they stepped 1 square further, thereby entering the new passage. The reaction was "I should have seen him when I attacked the first one". Also when I don't automatically reveal the new corridor when they reach the square in front of the junction, they complain "you forgot to show the corridor". I think this is because I reveal the whole corridor when they open a door into it, so it is inconsistent not to reveal it when they move up to a junction. With LOS you don't have this problem, but I like to keep the number of reveal interrupts low. The players know the squares on which I reveal, so they give me "enough time to consult the Quest book and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture".

So my experiment of playing strictly by the rules (as they could be interpreted) failed because of the inconsistencies between opening a door and reaching a junction. Also the "you have to step in if you open a door" rule failed the playtest because that's not the natural behavior of the players. Maybe with a fresh group of newbies it might work.

I think the same situation happens whether the passage is one or two squares wide, my preference is to use LOS to handle it in both circumstances, but if you choose to use the "place only when entering a new passage rule" when the passage is two-squares wide, then why would you choose to apply something different if the passage is one-square wide?

In fact I use "place when they step up to the junction", so in 1-square corridors the effect doesn't happen. This situation is also very rare in the quest books. Here is maybe the most extreme example:
The Great Citadel
I would reveal the whole army when a hero steps on B. With "place only when entering a new passage rule" you would reveal all when they reach C, which feels strange. With LOS you would reveal the left Fimir when they reach A, the right Fimir and the lower left Orc when they reach B, and the rest when they reach C. This reminds me of old computer games where you could trigger enemies one by one by carefully stepping forward. It feels like a hack from the players. At least in this case you could say that the army is looking towards the exit gate and only the rearguard reacts to the players.

I think it’s rather obvious that general ability to see something is not the same as Line of Sight, which is the ability to target someone for a missile attack or spell. After all, it’s quite clear in every rulebook that while you can’t target a monster (or hero) if another monster or hero is directly between you and the intended target, you can still see that same monster to know it is present and where it is located.

I agree. According to the rules you need either have LOS or be in the same room and ignore LOS. So "seeing", LOS and targeting are 3 different things. Here we have another inconsitency that my group doesn't like. The "cells" are smaller than the 2-square corridors, but they are rooms and allow targeting all in the same room, but in the 2-square passage you are supposed to draw an invisible line. So for spells I also allow "all in the same passage" as targets. The only real "missile" spell is Ball of Flame, where the caster throws the ball at the target. For the other spells it is believable that you just have to "see" the target or know where it is, even if the line is blocked. And in our group we're ok with throwing the Ball of Flame over a monster's head to hit someone behind. It's magic, after all! I also allow casting spells through an open door or from behind a corner into the whole room or passage, and in reverse you can target the square behind the door or corner. It's good enough, and no-one ever checks LOS.

For the crossbow this doesn't work as well, and we haven't found the perfect rule yet.

[Parzival]

I think it’s rather obvious that general ability to see something is not the same as Line of Sight, which is the ability to target someone for a missile attack or spell. After all, it’s quite clear in every rulebook that while you can’t target a monster (or hero) if another monster or hero is directly between you and the intended target, you can still see that same monster to know it is present and where it is located.

I don't find that obvious or correct. In both the 1st and 2nd edition rulebooks, it clearly and explicitly states that you CAN target a monster or character for a missile attack or spell if another monster or character is directly between you and the intended target, provided that you are all in the same room.

If the "Line of Sight" rule defines the ability to target someone for a missile attack or spell, then why in the 2nd edition are there two different line of sight rules, one for targeting someone for a missile attack or spell, and one for determining what can be seen?

Maybe it means Brits can’t be trusted to write clear rules?

Seriously, without the exact wording of 1st and 2nd editions, I admit I can’t compare. I’m working from what the reproduction rules state (2021, 2024)… where I note that the previously discussed diagram is also included, showing a line that clearly passes through a square containing a miniature, but is not considered blocked!

What does this mean? Well, that centers of a square are the actual blocking line for both visibility and line of sight. Simply being occupied by a thing isn’t enough. If the line doesn’t pass through the center of a square containing a figure, then the line of sight isn’t blocked! This can be argued as the fact that no figure truly fills the entire square they are located in; they are not solid blocks, or even blocks at all. Thus, they only truly block line of sight which passes through themselves— that is, the center of the square that the bulk of the hero/creature obviously fills. The edge of a square isn’t a block; the figure isn’t necessarily in that sliver of a space. Of course, a wall naturally fills the entire side of a square— it is a giant block; one can’t see or shoot through it, because wall.

Which is exactly what the 1st and 2nd rules present (at least as offered in this discussion).

The big “however” in all this is that the rules for revealing what is in a room actually have nothing to do with line of sight. Instead, the rules specifically state that when a hero looks through a door (essentially the same as opening it), then what is in a room must be placed by Zargon. Questions of LOS don’t apply to knowing what is in a room, except for very special circumstance defined for specific rooms in a specific quest. One can rationalize that however one likes, but the heroes immediately know what (and who) are in a room. Call it the gaze of an expert warrior, taking in the whole situation at a glance, or what-have-you, but he sees it all, even if he can’t shoot it all.

Passages, however, are a little more distinct. In this circumstance the existence of corners and intersections in a passageway creates a situation where everything might not be seen— such as the nasty little skeleton hanging just around the corner. But this still works with the LOS diagram, as any line drawn to a square in a side passage from the corridor being “looked” down will naturally pass through a wall at some point. Thus the side passage (and what is in it) aren’t visible, and Zargon is not instructed to place those items which are down a side passage. Which again, makes sense— a corridor is in a way the reverse of a room— a room is effectively an open space, a corridor is a closed-in space. Both are open for viewing as long and as wide as they each are— but in the case of a corridor, that may be very long, but it will never be very wide.

So, I modify my thinking on this— the diagram of the elf looking past his fellow to have Line of Sight on an orc, despite a portion of that line passing through the fellow hero’s square, is indeed the correct interpretation, and not an error at all. Only the center matters, or the presence of a wall. Since the line passes neither through the center of the fellow hero’s square, nor through a wall, the orc is in LOS and may indeed be targeted. This is particularly supported in the rules by the statement: “… even if the line just touches a corner or a wall edge.” (2021, page 14.) I note also that a nearly identical diagram and exact same wording appears in the First Light Rulebook (2024, page 10). Which means that, despite several editions now, this concept has not been edited, excised, or altered. Again, the centers are what matter; nothing else— and the whole thing is not intended for precision measuring, but rather a loose interpretation, in general favoring the shooter/spellcaster if the matter is in doubt. Close enough is good enough.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

I guess "does not count as a move" means that it does not cost movement points (like e.g. in Descent). I would say that the rule "You can open a door by moving onto the square in front of it." allows opening the door without moving through. I would say the rule was in, but it was removed after some playtests, because people didn't follow this rule instinctively. But you can still "feel" this rule in the 1st edition rulebook.

I agree that the wording clarifies that opening a door does not cost movement points, but why is that clarification needed, lots of things in HQ don't cost a point of movement, opening doors, opening chests, looking, searching, casting spells, attacking, in fact pretty much everything apart from moving from one square to another, doesn't cost a movement point, so why is clarification needed here on this point specifically? Is it because opening a door includes automatic movement into the room or passage behind the door, which you might reasonably expect costs you a point of movement, but the rule is included to clarify that it doesn't (presumably to avoid the situation where you open a door with no movement points remaining).

I don't see any distinction between any of the following statements "you can open a door by moving onto the square in front of it", "you can open a chest by moving onto the square in front of it", "you can attack a monster by moving onto a square next to it", "you can disarm a trap by moving onto the trigger square", all of them explain the position that you need to be in so that you can carry out the activity, but none of them explain how the activity, opening a door, opening a chest, attacking a monster, disarming a trap takes place so I'm certainly wouldn't read that line as instructions on how opening a door works, just the position you need to be in for it to happen (and I assume that the original designers would agree with that statement, otherwise why would there be a whole section on how "opening a door" works, if only that single line "You can open a door by moving onto the square in front of it" was sufficient.

As I said previously, that rule is present in both 1st and 2nd edition, so I'm confused when you keep mentioning that it was removed, but you can still feel it in the 1st edition, it is present in both (unless you think it isn't present at all, in which case it is absent in both, either way it wasn't removed)!

No, but both rules don't meet my players' expectations.

Understood but your players expectations have been set by your own previous interpretations of the rules, so that is circular logic.

So my experiment of playing strictly by the rules (as they could be interpreted) failed because of the inconsistencies between opening a door and reaching a junction.

It sounds like your players have picked up on the inconsistency created by your choice of interpretation (a) for Q1 and interpretation (b) for Q2. These inconsistencies disappear if you choose either;

+ Interpretation (b) for Q1 and interpretation (a) for Q2

Or

+ Interpretation (c) for Q1 and interpretation (a) for Q2

So why choose an interpretation that creates an inconsistency?

In fact I use "place when they step up to the junction", so in 1-square corridors the effect doesn't happen. This situation is also very rare in the quest books. Here is maybe the most extreme example: The Great Citadel
I would reveal the whole army when a hero steps on B. With "place only when entering a new passage rule" you would reveal all when they reach C, which feels strange. With LOS you would reveal the left Fimir when they reach A, the right Fimir and the lower left Orc when they reach B, and the rest when they reach C. This reminds me of old computer games where you could trigger enemies one by one by carefully stepping forward. It feels like a hack from the players. At least in this case you could say that the army is looking towards the exit gate and only the rearguard reacts to the players.

Again, choosing interpretation (a) for Q1 and interpretation (b) for Q2, creates an inconsistency between the visibility (placement) and visibility (targeting) rules. If you use interpretation (a) for Q2 then it works exactly as you have described with A-B-C. For me personally I would rather an interpretation that feels like an old computer game, than one that introduces inconsistencies between the rules that players can detect (even young players who may not be able to explain the inconsistency but they feel it)

With "place only when entering a new passage rule" you would reveal all when they reach C, which feels strange.

And yet that is exactly your choice of interpretation (b) for Q2.

Q2: How to handle visibility / placement around passage corners?

b) Only place on the board once the character has moved onto the first square of the passage

I think it’s rather obvious that general ability to see something is not the same as Line of Sight, which is the ability to target someone for a missile attack or spell. After all, it’s quite clear in every rulebook that while you can’t target a monster (or hero) if another monster or hero is directly between you and the intended target, you can still see that same monster to know it is present and where it is located.

I agree. According to the rules you need either have LOS or be in the same room and ignore LOS. So "seeing", LOS and targeting are 3 different things.

As I said previously that original statement is not correct, you CAN target a monster if another figure is directly between you and the intended target, in both 1st and 2nd edition, provided that you are all in the same room

That aside, under the 1st edition, there is one "concept"

+ Visibility (placement + targeting): in same room = always visible, not in same room = use LOS (blocked by figures) to determine visibility

Under the 2nd edition, there are two "concepts"

+ Visibility (placement): in same room = always placed, not in same room = use LOS (ignore figures) to determine placement

+ Visibility (targeting): in same room = always targetable, not in same room = use LOS (blocked by figures) to determine targetability

In neither edition are there 3 different things, "seeing", LOS and targeting. It would be good to clear this one up, particularly under the 2nd edition, for my clarification document as I really don't understand how there can be "3 different things: seeing, LOS and targeting" when there are two different LOS rules, one for "seeing" (placement) and one for "targeting".

Here we have another inconsitency that my group doesn't like. The "cells" are smaller than the 2-square corridors, but they are rooms and allow targeting all in the same room, but in the 2-square passage you are supposed to draw an invisible line.

This one I agree with you on, but this is a case when the rules are clear in both the 1st and 2nd edition, but you don't like them (and I agree) so this is an area to consider applying house rules, but it isn't a case of lack of clarity in the official rules.

Seriously, without the exact wording of 1st and 2nd editions, I admit I can’t compare. I’m working from what the reproduction rules state (2021, 2024)… where I note that the previously discussed diagram is also included, showing a line that clearly passes through a square containing a miniature, but is not considered blocked!

What does this mean? Well, that centers of a square are the actual blocking line for both visibility and line of sight. Simply being occupied by a thing isn’t enough. If the line doesn’t pass through the center of a square containing a figure, then the line of sight isn’t blocked! This can be argued as the fact that no figure truly fills the entire square they are located in; they are not solid blocks, or even blocks at all. Thus, they only truly block line of sight which passes through themselves— that is, the center of the square that the bulk of the hero/creature obviously fills. The edge of a square isn’t a block; the figure isn’t necessarily in that sliver of a space. Of course, a wall naturally fills the entire side of a square— it is a giant block; one can’t see or shoot through it, because wall.

Which is exactly what the 1st and 2nd rules present (at least as offered in this discussion).

I think you are making two different points in that text block.

One point is that figures block line of sight for both visibility (placement) and visibility (targeting) which is not correct under the 2nd edition, figures do NOT block visibility for placement but they DO block for visibility (targeting) - at least outside of the same room scenario.

The other point is a far more interesting one, for me at least, that you only need to consider the centre of a square occupied by a figure, when considering LOS (targeting). This is a really good point and may resolve some of the confusion around how the LOS (targeting) rule is actually supposed to work (although not the situations in which you apply it), both in terms of the wording and the diagram. I'll have to think about it a little more, but at first glance it appears to do the trick, and I would add to your reasoning that figures are treated differently than walls, blocked squares (or even certain types of furniture if you choose to apply that) is because figures are considered to be in motion whereas walls, blocked squares and so on are fixed.

The big “however” in all this is that the rules for revealing what is in a room actually have nothing to do with line of sight. Instead, the rules specifically state that when a hero looks through a door (essentially the same as opening it), then what is in a room must be placed by Zargon. Questions of LOS don’t apply to knowing what is in a room, except for very special circumstance defined for specific rooms in a specific quest. One can rationalize that however one likes, but the heroes immediately know what (and who) are in a room. Call it the gaze of an expert warrior, taking in the whole situation at a glance, or what-have-you, but he sees it all, even if he can’t shoot it all.

But that first sentence is a conclusion, not an argument, and it is a conclusion based on an argument using a rule from the 1990 remake, whereas I am first trying to understand the official rules in the original editions, before considering changes brought in under the later 1990 remake.

But this still works with the LOS diagram, as any line drawn to a square in a side passage from the corridor being “looked” down will naturally pass through a wall at some point. Thus the side passage (and what is in it) aren’t visible, and Zargon is not instructed to place those items which are down a side passage.

If the side passage (and what is in it) aren't visible, then why does the LOS diagram show that the Elf has a clear line of sight to the Orc diagonally to his top left, an Orc that if I understand your definition correctly is in a side passage relative to the passage that the Elf is in?

Surely visibility (placement) when you are not in the same room uses LOS (without figures blocking), and visibility (targeting) when you are not in the same room uses LOS (with figures blocking) so the Orc is visible to the Elf, is placed on the board, and can be targeted, hence a clear line of sight.

This is particularly supported in the rules by the statement: “… even if the line just touches a corner or a wall edge.” (2021, page 14.)

I don't agree that this statement supports your idea of the centre of a square occupied by a figure only counts towards blocking, as the statement that you quoted is explicitly around corners and wall edges, that said I don't think your idea needs further supporting, I think it is a very good one that warrants serious consideration in its own right!

I think, and I'll have to mull it over in my brain for a bit, that all of this has now crystalised my thinking around the original edition(s) and I'll put something together shortly and see where we stand on this topic, before those who wish to can continue the task of incorporating the 1990 remake aspects.

[Onan]

When I look at the quest design from the EU base game, there are hints that opening doors by moving through them was the intention. There is not a single door with a monster right behind it. In Legacy of the Orc Warlord the goblin that guards the cells is 1 step away from the door, so the heroes can open it by moving through. In the south east corner there is an Orc guarding a door by standing right next to it, but in this case the heroes come from the Orc's side of the door.

And look at Race Against Time right at the beginning: When a hero opens a door by moving through it he gets a nice welcome. If he fails to kill one monster, his colleagues can't help him! Maybe that was the idea behind this otherwise pointless mission: You try 3 mean doors just to realize that all you had to do was search for secret doors The last time we played this the wizard (going first) opened the first door, didn't like what he saw, then walked to the next door to open it, and still not happy opened the third. The others shook their heads, but this gave them the idea to search for secret doors.

Also the many pit traps right behind doors might have been a way to design a trapped door: the trap is triggered when the hero opens the door by moving through it. This looks like some quests with "trapped chests" that are surrounded by traps instead of having a quest note with a furniture trap. So all the whining how unfair it is that the heroes cannot find the trap behind the door would be pointless if you use this rule.

Also the pit traps at corridor corners look like they were designed to be triggered when the hero wants to see the new corridor by stepping onto the junction. If you allow "leaning" or if you use LOS for revealing, the hero would immediately see that there is only 1 square followed by a blocked square, so there is no reason to enter the corridor and trigger the trap (see lower left corner in Legacy of the Orc Warlord).

I don't see any distinction between any of the following statements "you can open a door by moving onto the square in front of it", "you can open a chest by moving onto the square in front of it", "you can attack a monster by moving onto a square next to it", "you can disarm a trap by moving onto the trigger square", all of them explain the position that you need to be in so that you can carry out the activity, but none of them explain how the activity, opening a door, opening a chest, attacking a monster, disarming a trap takes place so I'm certainly wouldn't read that line as instructions on how opening a door works, just the position you need to be in for it to happen (and I assume that the original designers would agree with that statement, otherwise why would there be a whole section on how "opening a door" works, if only that single line "You can open a door by moving onto the square in front of it" was sufficient.

Except that the rules never use "by moving onto" in any other context than opening doors. Saying that the "Opening Doors" rule requires moving through the door stretches the text a bit too far, I would say. "You can open a door by moving onto the square in front of it." In front means on the hero's side of the door, or does it? "By moving onto" doesn't state a prerequisite for opening the door, but the action that is required to open the door. To me this rule sounds like you are not automatically moved through the door. And should you really get 1 movement square for free just because you opened a door? Hard to believe.

But I like this rule. Together with no backtracking it creates an elegant way to commit the hero to the new room or passage. And at the same time it provides a simple rule when to reveal things, with consistency between doors and junctions. I just don't think it is the most evident interpretation of the "Opening Doors" rule. And it might be too artificial and "board game style" for an RPG like game.

But the quest design and this rule hint at it: "These should only be set up when the player characters can see them by moving into a new room or passage."

It sounds like your players have picked up on the inconsistency created by your choice of interpretation (a) for Q1 and interpretation (b) for Q2. These inconsistencies disappear if you choose either;

+ Interpretation (b) for Q1 and interpretation (a) for Q2

Or

+ Interpretation (c) for Q1 and interpretation (a) for Q2

So why choose an interpretation that creates an inconsistency?

This happened because I tried to combine "you have to step into a corridor to reveal" and "you have to open a door to reveal, but need not go through", which was an experiment. My usual way of revealing a corridor when the hero moves up to the junction (not onto it) is consistent with my opening doors approach. So all 3 ways are consistent:

1) Always use LOS when revealing
2) Reveal the complete area when a hero enters a new room or passage, opening a door requires to move through it
3) Reveal the complete area when the hero reaches a square adjacent to the new passage, or when opening a door, without moving through