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

[Kurgan]

It was so much easier for me back in the day when I just ignored the diagram and treated aiming with magic or throwing dagger/crossbow like the moves in chess using squares rather than drawing invisible lines from any part of a miniature's square to another...

I realize that looking at all these factors together you are increasing the number of possible scenarios where you can hit/cast on another character without having to move first, but still not allowing quite as many possibilities as you would under the EU rules (where aiming really only matters in corridors or when targeting outside of the room you're in). The recent update is interesting but I had thought they were just restoring a line that had been removed from the first printings, nothing more? I'll have to compare again myself later.

[HispaZargon]

The problem with the "tracing the straight line from any point of the Hero's square to the centre of the target square" concept is that if we assume that a character can lean to bring an enemy into his line of sight, who wasn't already, for the purposes of making a missile attack (which is effectively what the "the leaning to any point within his square" piece that you are suggesting emulates) then we must equally assume that said enemy can then lean in such a way that takes him out of the line of sight, so he doesn't get hit by the missile attack effectively cancelling this out.

Mmmm... another interpretation for the "tracing a straight line from any point of the attacker's square to the centre of the target square" approach could be assuming that how skilled is the target to evade the missile shot is covered by his Defend Dice basic atribute, so you don't need to care about what is doing the target (instead of assuming it can lean inside its square to avoid it), just what is doing the miniature who wants to shot...

In other words, according to the basic stats, for me has a different interpretation the Attack Dice than the Defend Dice. You know that in NA rules, all Attack Dice are in 95% situations linked to the type of weapon you are using. However the Defend Dice is assumed to be a number of basic Defend Dice plus some extra dice linked with the Armor you are using. Then, I think maybe the 'lean' action of the attacker could be part of the action of attacking from a distance, but the 'lean' action of the defender is already implicit inside its Defend Dice roll, so we don't need to care if the target is leaning or not inside his square when pointing to it in the game board.

Well, just giving another chance to this...

[Bareheaded Warrior]

And that is a fair point.

Personally, either approach works in specific terms of resolving the contradiction between LOS in the text and in the diagram, either changing the text as you propose or changing the diagram that I propose. My concern with the change you have proposed "tracing a straight line from any point of the attacker's square to the centre of the target square" is the unintended consequences caused by this not being "symmetrical" or "bi-directional".

This claim may need an explanation and an example!

"tracing a straight line from any point of the attacker's square to the centre of the target square" isn't symmetrical or bi-directional in the same way as tracing a straight line from centre of attackers square to centre of target square, i.e. centre to centre, or top left hand corner of attack's square to top-left hand corner of target square, i.e. top-left to top-left, and so on. In these examples the conditions are bi-directional, if I can trace a line from my centre to your centre then you can do the same back to me.

This isn't true for your proposal.

Why is this a problem?

How much this really affects gameplay will depend on player tactics and exploits but on a point of principle there is an issue.

Example: Orc with Crossbow placed on bottom right corner of the board, Dwarf with Crossbow placed one square vertically up from the bottom left corner of the board. If it is the Dwarf's turn then according to your proposal he can shoot the Orc, tracing a line from the bottom right of his square to the centre of the Orc's square, however if the positions stay the same and it is the Orc's turn he cannot shoot the Dwarf as no line can be drawn from any point on his square to the centre of the Dwarf's square. This means that the Dwarf can hold his position and shoot at the Orc repeatedly over the several turns that it will take the Orc to traverse that long passageway and the Crossbow armed Orc will not get any opportunity to return fire whatsoever.

There is a rule in HQ mentioned many times in the rulebook along the lines of "you may move and take an action, or take an action and move, but you cannot split your movement by moving, taking an action then continuing to move". One of the reasons for this rule is to prevent "pop up" attacks where a character moves out from an unseen position makes a missile, spell or other attack and then moves back into an unseen position, rendering their target unable to respond. This rule means that HQ avoids the need to implement complex rules around "going into overwatch", firing on your opponents turn and all that jazz.

I think your proposal breaks that principle.

[Daedalus]

I think the thoughtful response above can apply nicely to your p.6 post way back:

. . . However something cropped up in a game recently, that I thought I would share for other people's input

Dwarf Hero armed with crossbow used his movement to move to the square behind the Barbarian - couldn't move further as he only had one square left and couldn't share with the Barbarian - then decided to use his action to take a shot with his crossbow at a Goblin down the far end of the passage (six squares away passed the Barbarian). I said no, Barbarian blocks line of sight however he asked, as you can move passed another hero, presumably with a request / gentle push (or shove - Barbarian) to move him up against the side wall, then can you push them to one side whilst you take a shot at a distant monster?

Strictly speaking you can't but it was an interesting question, would you allow it as it has the potential to make supporting characters such as the Elf or Wizard more useful in a second position taking pot-shots from behind a human shield?

[Daedalus]

The line of sight diagram of the various rulebooks is often cited as containing an error by Inn members. I'm referring to the Elf's LoS to the middle Orc on the far right side of the illustration, which appears conveniently offset from a line that would be truly connected from center to center of the two involved figures. Had the figures and line been correctly oriented, the LoS would just cross the top of the Wizard as a blocking figure (at approximately 348 and 360 degrees).

I have considered myself among this group seeing it this way until yesterday, when I had a new realization: the written rule calls for line of sight from the centers of the attacker and target that can be blocked by a figure, but the illustration instead pictures icons.

Accepting this incongruity as a necessary limitation of the illustration and setting it aside, I believe the line was intentionally drawn as is to provide a way to evaluate relative positions of figures on a grid when they are oriented symmetrically; the exact placement of the icons and line at the centers of the figures isn't required--only the intersection of the LoS with the grid counts here.

Correctly drawn, this key information can be depicted at the midpoint of the top side of the blocking Wizard's square. The Wizard's icon is merely an abstract representation of secondary in importance, so his and the other figures' imprecise positioning can be ignored. Graphiclly, what matters most is the midpoint intersection of the LoS with the grid line at the top of the blocking square. Focusing on this fact alone, it can be deduced that the attacker and target are mirrored about that point in a 180 degree grid rotation. Mathematically, this kind of mirrored symmetry can always be quickly deduced as correct LoS, without need for actually tracing a line.

Once this symmetry of squares about the side of a blocking figure is identified, the LoS can be extended at either end to judge if either the attacker or target lies inside or outside of a blocked area on the gameboard--very useful indeed.

All four sides of a square containing a blocking figure contain this critical midpoint. If they are joined, the effective blocking area of a figure in a square that uses gridded symmetry can be accurately represented as an inscribed diamond within that square. If LoS between figures were to cross two sides of that diamond, then it is blocked.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

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.

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?

All four sides of a square containing a blocking figure contain this critical midpoint. If they are joined, the effective blocking area of a figure in a square that uses gridded symmetry can be accurately represented as an inscribed diamond within that square. If LoS between figures were to cross two sides of that diamond, then it is blocked.

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?)

That said there is still a special case that still needs to be considered in many interpretations where the line crosses the corner between two blocked squares... but I'll pick that up separately when my brain has recovered.

EDIT: I think this conversation should really be under the topic Line of Sight as we are discussing interpretations of the LOS rule(s) and not the differences being "see" and "line of sight".

[Bareheaded Warrior]

BHW, you have some question marks regarding placing items in the 1st Edition, and you don't cover it in ths US Edition:

Seeing/Line of Sight/Missile Fire/Casting:
1st Edition:
The drawing of imaginary lines from the center of one figure or square to another to establish "line of sight" or visibility is only required when targeting characters through doorways or in corridors. Otherwise a figure in the same room with you is always considered to be visible. For purposes of placing items, a hero can "see" the entire corridor or room they're in. ?? Opening a door does not reveal the room until you actually step inside (but you can practically see everything anyway just standing in the doorway). ??

2nd Edition:
Same as above.

NA Edition:
The aiming mechanic for corridors is now also used in rooms. You must have an unobstructed line of sight to be able to cast a spell or target another figure with missile fire. If you can see a monster in the room with you, this should prevent searches of any kind, but it's debated if this means you could form a screen around yourself to obstruct line of sight to a monster and therefore search (when it comes to treasure, a monster in the room prevents the search, period). Furniture is technically never stated to block line of sight, except when it comes to closed doors, while stone blocks are considered walls, so they definitely block line of sight. In modern times Avalon Hill has clarified they interpret it to mean that (in the words of Doug Hopkins) "Treasure cares about monsters in the room, while traps and secret doors care about visibility."

Here is a collrction of the relevant paragraphs from the 3 editions together with my interpretation


EU 1st Edition
--------------

The paragraphs concerning placement in the 1st Edition are the following:

Moving Around the Board

As the characters explore Morcar’s dungeons, they enter new rooms and passages. If you are the first player to enter a new room or passageway, you should give the evil wizard player enough time to consult the Quest book and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture.

Opening Doors

Characters and monsters can only enter and leave rooms through open doors. Monsters cannot open doors.

You can open a door by moving onto the square in front of it. You do not have to open a door if you do not want to. Opening a door does not count as a move. Having opened a door, you can keep moving, if you have any spaces left to move.

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors). Once opened, a door remains open for the rest of the game. The evil wizard player should remove the closed door piece and replace it with an open door.

Note that, because you may not move through the same square twice in one move, if you move through a door, you may not pass through it again until your next turn.

Blocked Square Tiles

These tiles should be placed according to the map in the Quest book as soon as they become visible to a player character. The tiles show where extra walls have been built, or where the ceiling has fallen in. Neither characters nor monsters may move through blocked squares.

Casting Spells

Spells can be cast at monsters or characters provided they are visible to the spell- caster. Models in the same room as the spell-caster are always visible. Models in passages or in different rooms are only visible if you can trace an unobstructed straight line from the spell-caster to the target. If the line passes through another model, through a wall, or through a closed door, then the target model is not visible.

When a Hero opens a door into a new room or passage, the complete room or passage is revealed ("any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book"). When a hero enters a new room or passage, only the visible monsters and furniture are placed. It is not defined what visible means in this case. There is a definition of visible in "Casting Spells", but it is not stated that this visibility rule also applies to placement.

If you use the "Casting Spells" visibility rule for placement, then you would have to reveal a complete corridor when the Hero opens a door into the corridor, and only pieces with an unobstructed line (also unobstructed from miniatures) when the Hero enters the corridor from a junction. This doesn't feel like it is intented.

My interpretation of visible in the context of placement is "not hidden", like traps and secret doors, and not blocked off by blocked squares.

The rules don't cover the situation when a Hero approaches a junction and "peeks around the corner". You could argue that Morcar should reveal the new corridor when the Hero moves onto the square next to a junction, because from a geometrical perspective it would be the same as standing behind an open door. However, since it is not covered by the rules, strictly speaking the Hero would have to move onto the junction to trigger the reveal of the new corridor.


EU 2nd Edition
--------------

The paragraphs concerning placement in the 2nd Edition are the following:

Moving around the board

As the character players move around the gameboard they enter new rooms and passages. If you are the first player to enter a new room or passageway, you should give the evil wizard player enough time to consult the Quest Book map and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture.

Opening doors

Characters and monsters can only enter and leave rooms through open doors. Monsters cannot open doors. Character players may open a door by moving onto the square in front of it. Character players do not have to open a door if they do not wish to. Opening a door does not count as a move. Having opened a door, a character player may keep moving, if he has any spaces left to move. As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place onto the board any pieces shown for that room, or passageway, on the map in the Quest Book. Once opened, a door remains opened for the remainder of the game. The evil wizard player should remove the closed door piece and replace it with an open door piece.

What can be seen?

Deciding what can be seen by a player character is very important in determining what should be placed onto the board. Miniatures in the same room are always visible. Miniatures in passages or in different rooms are only visible if you can trace an unobstructed straight line between the two miniatures. If the line passes through a wall or a closed door then the miniature is not visible.

2nd Edition uses the the same placement rules as 1st Edition when opening doors into a new room or passage: "As soon as a door is opened, place onto the board any pieces shown for that room, or passageway, on the map in the Quest Book". Again, no visibilty retraints for placement when opening a door.

However, the next paragraph talks about visibilty. It defines "visible" in a way similar to the "Casting a Spell" chapter, except that miniatures don't block visibility. This paragraph is an addition to the 1st Edition rules. Maybe someone hinted at the fact that the word visible was used without defining what it means, so they felt the need to clarify it. But instead of clarification they created a contradiction between the "What can be seen?" rule and the "Opening doors" rules.

Morcar has to resolve the contradiction by prioritizing either of the 2 rules:
Option 1) "opening doors" rules has higher priority: This means that when a Hero opens a door into a corridor, everything is revealed, but when he enters a corridor from a junction, only pieces with an unobstructed line are revealed. Since miniature do not block the line, it doesn't make any difference from a practical point of view. You could construct a conflicting situation by placing a monster behind a single blocked square inside a 2 square wide corridor, but this is rather theoretical.
Option 2) "what can be seen?" rule has higher priority: This means that when a hero opens a door, he would only have a 90 degree wide field of view into the new room or corridor. The sides would be blocked off by the wall edges around the open door. He would have to step into the room to see everything inside. This means that on Morcar's turn Morcar would not be allowed to move the miniatures inside the blind spot, since they are not yet on the board.

If I had to choose, I would go for option 1, because it is the simpler approach. Option 2 doesn't feel like 10 year old kids would have fun handling the 2 stage reveal plus the discussions about monsters in the blind spot. But in fact I don't choose. I am convinced that whoever added the "What can be seen?" chapter simply messed it up, because he didn't double check the chapter about "opening doors". So I just ignore it.

US Edition
----------

The paragraphs concerning placement in the US Edition are the following:

Looking And Opening Doors

As a Hero, while moving, you may "look" down a corridor or through an open door. Looking gives you the opportunity to see what is directly within your line of sight, such as closed doors, blocked square spaces, and monsters. Looking is NOT one of the 6 actions. On your turn, you may move adjacent to a closed door and ask Zargon to open it. Zargon will open the door by removing the closed door piece and replacing it with an open door piece. Opening a door is also NOT one of the 6 actions. Both "looking" and "opening doors" are simply considered to be additional things you may do on your turn.

How Zargon Reacts To Hero Movement

As Zargon, you must carefully watch a Hero's movement. Continually refer to the Quest Map in the Quest Book. When a Hero "looks" down a corridor, place on the gameboard any closed doors, blocked square tiles, and monsters that are directly within the Hero's line of sight. (See page 15 "SEE" for clear line of sight.) When a Hero opens a door, place on the gameboard the monsters, treasure chests, and any other items that belong in that room. Note: Do not put out any traps or secret doors. Do not reveal treasure at this time.

"SEE"

For the Elf or Wizard to cast a spell, the target must be visible. Heroes and monsters are only visible if an unobstructed straight line can be traced from the spellcaster to the target.

A Good Rule of Thumb: Draw an invisible straight line between the center of the square the spellcaster is on and the center of the square the target is on. If the line does not cross a wall, closed door, Hero or monster, the target is declared visible, even if the line just touches a corner or wall edge. The following diagram shows an example of what is visible.

Zargon needs to reveal a new area in the following situations:
1) A Hero opens a door into a new room
2) A Hero opens a door into a new corridor
3) A Hero "looks" down a new corridor

About situation 1), the US rules say:
"When a Hero opens a door, place on the gameboard the monsters, treasure chests, and any other items that belong in that room."

This means that opening a door triggers the reveal of the complete room, independent of the LOS rules covered by the "SEE" section. The reveal is triggered by the opening of the door, not by the hero "looking" through the open door.

Situation 2) is not directly mentioned by the rules. Probably the hero needs to "look" down the new corridor or through the open door. The rules do not cover the situation when a hero "looks" through an open door, so although the hero has the option of "looking" through the open door into the new corridor, Zargon has no means to react to this event, because it is not covered by the rules. He would have to say "I'm sorry, but I don't know what happens when you "look" through an open door, would you mind "looking" down the new corridor?"

Situation 3) It is not covered from where the hero can "look" down a corridor. Does he have to be in the new corridor? Or can he "look" down the corridor from behind an open door, or from the square just behind the junction into the new corridor? Whatever option Zargon decides to use, he will have to reveal the corridor according to the following rule as soon as the hero "looks" down the corridor:

When a Hero "looks" down a corridor, place on the gameboard any closed doors, blocked square tiles, and monsters that are directly within the Hero's line of sight. (See page 15 "SEE" for clear line of sight.)

Zargon will have to place everything in the Hero's line of sight. Line of sight is supposed to be defined in the chapter "SEE", which says the following:

"SEE"

For the Elf or Wizard to cast a spell, the target must be visible. Heroes and monsters are only visible if an unobstructed straight line can be traced from the spellcaster to the target.

A Good Rule of Thumb: Draw an invisible straight line between the center of the square the spellcaster is on and the center of the square the target is on. If the line does not cross a wall, closed door, Hero or monster, the target is declared visible, even if the line just touches a corner or wall edge. The following diagram shows an example of what is visible.

Line of sight is not mentioned in the chapter "SEE". In fact, it is not mentioned anywhere in the document except in the 2 chapters about "looking". Let's assume "visible" in chapter "SEE" means line of sight. Then Zargon would reveal everything with an unobstructed straight line to the hero. Unobstructed by what? The rule does not state it, only the "Rule of Thumb": "If the line does not cross a wall, closed door, Hero or monster..." So if there are 2 Orcs in a row in the new corridor, Zargon would only reveal the first. According to the rules, the second Orc would never be revealed, except when the hero once more "looks" down the same corridor.

Of course common sense would tell Zargon to reveal the second Orc when the first is gone. But what if the hero doesn't kill the first Orc? Would Zargon be allowed to move the 2nd Orc on his turn? Probably not, because the rules say:

Zargon, only after ALL 4 Heroes have completed a turn is it your turn. You may then move every monster currently on the gameboard.

The 2nd Orc is not on the gameboard, so Zargon does not move it.

I think the US placement rules are far too complicated, both in terms of how they describe it and how they probably want it to be handled. I'm glad I don't have to use them.

I've reposted the post below here as I suspect it needs more of an in-depth answer and, as always, I’ll have to break it down into bite-sized chunks to process, and I also I think it may be handled as two distinct topics:

1. Line of Sight
2. This one

I suggest that we use the first of these for discussing the questions around exactly how line of sight is supposed to work and this one for how visibility/seeing works, irrespective to the exact method of determining line of sight.

To start with, let’s consider the 1st edition only

1st Edition:

1. Models in the same room as the spell-caster are always visible

Assumption A: “Models” refers to character (heroes) and monsters, but not furniture. This appears consistent with terminology in the document where model is the term used for the physical representation of characters (heroes) and monsters however see note below around the word “pieces”.

2. Models in passages or in different rooms are only visible if you can trace an unobstructed straight line from the spell-caster to the target. If the line passes through another model, through a wall, or through a closed door, then the target model is not visible.

Assumption B: The diagram provided indicates that the straight line must be traced from the centre of the spell-casters square to the centre of the target square (although the Elf-Centre Right Orc line may bring this into question), cover under Line of Sight topic.

Assumption C: The diagram provided indicates that target squares that are 50% visible, Elf to Top Left Orc, count as being visible, cover under Line of Sight topic.

Assumption D: The reference to the line passing through another model, is meant to refer to the line passing through a square occupied by another model, cover under Line of Sight topic.

Issue: i) The two corner conundrum, cover under Line of Sight topic.

Issue: ii) Inconsistency between same room rules and same passage rules

Because if models are in the same room, then we use rule 1, but if they are in the same passage, we use rule 2, this creates an inconsistency as below

Models ABC are in a line:
A can target C with a missile attack provided they are all in the same room
A cannot target C with a missile attack, as B blocks LOS if they are in the same passage

I think it is clear from the official rules that this is supposed to be the case, but it feels wrong to me, but I guess this may be an opportunity to house rule rather than interpret the official rules differently!

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors)

Assumption E: This piece of text above should include the word “visible” as frequent references appear in the text that indicate you only place items on the board when they are visible.

As the characters explore Morcar's dungeons, they enter new rooms and passages. If you are the first player to enter a new room or passageway, you should give the evil wizard player enough time to consult the Quest book and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture

The contents of this room (barring any traps, secret doors, or treasure) should be laid out at the beginning of the game. All doors are closed. No pieces outside this room are placed on the board. These should only be set up when the player characters can see them by moving into a new room or passage.

To play the Maze, each player character places his model in one corner of the board. The evil wizard player checks the map and places on the board any pieces (doors, furniture, monsters, blocked squares) that are visible to any of the player characters.

Assumption F: “Pieces” usually refers to furniture pieces and door pieces, but could it also include models? The quote above defines pieces as “doors, furniture, monsters, blocked squares” but is this definition, found on the penultimate page of the rulebook, supposed to be the definition of the term “pieces”, in which case why not define the term when it is first used, or is it supposed to be a “local” definition of the meaning in the context in which it is defined only i.e. in this specific case the term “pieces” refers to “doors, furniture, monsters, blocked squares”. Either way it is clear that only things (doors, furniture, monsters, blocked squares) that are visible to at least one character are placed on the board.

Thoughts so far?

[Onan]

I think it is important to understand that visibility means different things for spells and for placement. My focus here is on placement.

Assumption A: “Models” refers to character (heroes) and monsters, but not furniture.

2nd Edition uses the term minature, never model. In 1st edition they use model, but not when talking about placement, only with regard to spells.

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors)

Assumption E: This piece of text above should include the word “visible” as frequent references appear in the text that indicate you only place items on the board when they are visible.

I think this sentence as is gives us a an idea of what visibility means in terms of placement: everything in the new room or passage "apart from traps and secret doors" (= not hidden).

1st Edition does not link placement to the spell casting visibilty rule. This was introduced in 2nd Edition, and it introduces a contradiction to the above sentence.

I think in 1st Edition they forgot to mention that in a passage you should not place stuff behind Blocked Squares, although these squares belong to the same passage. Maybe that's why they defined visibilty in 2nd Edition placement rules.

Assumption F: “Pieces” usually refers to furniture pieces and door pieces, but could it also include models?

Also traps and secret doors (1st Edition):

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

Probably also models. The example you gave is about the initial setup of the Maze, and there are no monsters initially, so they are left out.


Placement is not strictly linked to visibility in the quests. An alarm goes off, and everything is placed on the board. Morcar is allowed to open some secret doors in KK The Great Gate and place everything behind on the board, no matter visibility. Placing a monster on the board gives Morcar the possibility to use it. So it would be totally off not to place a monster in a room when the hero opens a door, just because it is cornered behind a bookshelf. Should Morcar not be allowed to use this monster, just because the heroes can't see it? Clearly the monster knows that the door was opened, even if it doesn't see the guest.

So why make things complicated?
- As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).
- When the hero enters a new corridor from another corridor, do the same when he steps on the first square of the new corridor.
- When a hero is teleported into a new room, do the same.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

There is nothing wrong with assumptions, we couldn't get out of bed in the morning without them, the issue is with "hidden" assumptions, where we interpret something based on assumptions that we think are facts but may not be. Also when comparing two different rulesets and stating that one is simpler than the other, you need to be sure that the scope of both rulesets are the same, that you are comparing like for like, as a ruleset that is not complete often appears simpler than one that is complete but the comparison isn't really valid.

Setting aside for another topic the questions around exactly how LOS works, I think there are two potentially valid interpretations of the 1st edition rules, which I'll name and state to aid the discussion. Which one of these interpretations is valid depends on how you interpret one single piece of text, the section around opening doors.

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors)

Interpretation #1: The Opening Doors section is missing the word "Visible"

Only two rules are given in the rules for determining visibility, one (a) states that everything in the same room as you is visible, the second (b) that in all other scenarios things are only visible if you have line of sight.

There is an apparent contradiction between the rules given for determining visibility and the text around opening doors but this is due to a mistake as it should have included the word "visible", this assumption is based on the fact that there are frequent references in the rules to the principle that you only lay out on the board things that are visible to one or more characters (heroes).

Interpretation #2: The Opening Doors section is correct as written

This means that you place everything on the board in a room when the door is opened, which contradicts the previously stated two rules about visibility.

You resolve this contradiction by assuming that the two visibility rules (a) and (b), stated above, relate only to missile attacks (including most spells) and that a different ruleset is used for visibility in relation to placement.

If that is correct, then ignoring the two "visibility in terms of missile attack" rules stated above, and talking about placement visibility in the 1st edition only, then...

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

You are correct, this scenario is covered in the rules as written for when you open a door to a room, or when you open a door to a passage.

When the hero enters a new corridor from another corridor, do the same when he steps on the first square of the new corridor.

Issue (i): Where does this appear in the rulebook? The placement rules for moving into a new passage without going through a door appear to be missing from the rulebook which is an issue under this interpretation.

Issue (ii): An additional issue under this interpretation is that your statement above appears to directly contradict the rule below as that states that if you enter a new passage the evil wizard player needs to place visible stuff on the board, not all stuff.

As the characters explore Morcar's dungeons, they enter new rooms and passages. If you are the first player to enter a new room or passageway, you should give the evil wizard player enough time to consult the Quest book and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture

Incidentally this also addresses your earlier point (below) as stuff behind Blocked Squares would not be visible and would not therefore be placed.

I think in 1st Edition they forgot to mention that in a passage you should not place stuff behind Blocked Squares, although these squares belong to the same passage.

Comparison between the two interpretations

Interpretation #1 = Only two rules are given in the rules for determining visibility, one (a) states that everything in the same room as you is visible, the second (b) that in all other scenarios things are only visible if you have line of sight. These two visibility rules apply in all circumstances, including both missile attacks and placement

Interpretation #2 = In terms of visibility for missile attacks two rules are given, one (a) states that everything in the same room as you is visible, the second (b) that in all other scenarios things are only visible if you have line of sight. In terms of visibility for placement two different rules apply (c) when you open a door into a room or passage you put out all the stuff onto the board and (d) when you move into a new passage without opening a door you..?

I would say that interpretation #1 that has only two rules is simpler than interpretation #2 that has the same two rules PLUS another two rules, one of which isn't defined. However I'm more interested in trying to understand how the 1st edition rules were intended to work rather than which is the simpler interpretation. That said if we can agree that there are two different interpretations of these rules (and we may not but I'll await your response) under 1st edition then perhaps we can move onto to exploring the 2nd edition?

Assuming of course that there is a door between the 1st and 2nd editions otherwise we might not be able to see the whole of the 2nd edition

[Onan]

Interpretation #2 = In terms of visibility for missile attacks two rules are given, one (a) states that everything in the same room as you is visible, the second (b) that in all other scenarios things are only visible if you have line of sight. In terms of visibility for placement two different rules apply (c) when you open a door into a room or passage you put out all the stuff onto the board and (d) when you move into a new passage without opening a door you..?

... should give the evil wizard player enough time to consult the Quest book and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture.

Yes, there are 2 interpretations, because in 1st Edition one rule uses "visible" and the other not:

If you are the first player to enter a new room or passageway, you should give the evil wizard player enough time to consult the Quest book and place onto the board any visible monsters and furniture.

As soon as a door is opened, the evil wizard player must place any pieces shown for that room or passage on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors).

Interpretation 1) The 2nd rule forgot the word "visible". In this case visible would only be defined under casting a spell, and models would block line of sight for placement.

Interpretation 2) The 2nd rule defines what "visible" in the 1st rule means: anything "on the map in the Quest book (apart from traps and secret doors)"

I guess you go for interpretation 1 and don't reveal monsters in the corner behind the bookshelf when the hero opens the door. When he steps into the room you reveal the monsters not visible from behind the door.

I go for interpretation 2 and reveal the whole room when the door is opened.