Always a fan favourite this one!
HispaZargon wrote:At this moment I think everybody agrees that the Line of Sight diagram showed in the NA Rulebook does not fit with what is said in the text of the same book because if you strictly follows the Good Rule of Thumb as written in the text, the Elf could never target one of the Orcs, but surprisingly one of the diagram lines says that he can... Since now I will call each one those Line of Sight interpretations as 'GOOD RULE OF THUMB LOS APPROACH' and 'DIAGRAM LOS APPROACH'.
Yes agreed, whoop, whoop!
HispaZargon wrote:Then, as I explained before in this thread, I think the Rulebook's 'DIAGRAM LOS APPROACH' is correct because it is coherent with the "looking down a corridor" rule written in the same book, but the 'GOOD RULE OF THUMB LOS APPROACH' is not coherent with the looking down corridor one
I think that one of the problems in this area under the NA edition is caused by the fact that the editors removed a piece of text from the Second Edition rules, as, at first glance, it appeared to be duplicate text, but in fact it contained a subtle but essential difference between LOS in the context of the "looking" rules and LOS within the context of "targeting with missile attacks" rules.
As these two rules are different, it is perfectly possible for a monster to be visible but to not be able to shoot at it.
An example is inadvertently provided in the diagram where it shows a "blocked line of sight" exists between the Elf and the lower of the 3 Orcs to the right of the diagram, which is correct for the purposes of LOS for missile attacks (and that is what the diagram is for, probably), but for the purposes of LOS for looking, the dotted line, blocked for the purposes of missile attacks is "clear" for the purposes of looking, the Elf CAN see that Orc (and vice versa) but they could NOT target each other with a missile attack (which is why it is labelled as BLOCKED on a diagram about missile attacks).
As these two sets of rules are different I'm don't accept the "coherency" argument as they are not the same and neither would I expect them to be.
For the purposes of missile attacks the line of sight is blocked by other figures, for the purposes of 'looking' other figures are ignored Note: I appreciate the effort you have gone to with the diagrams, they help but are time-consuming!
• A1: No, because missile weapons need a
clear line of sight and this one is blocked by the wall/corner and incidentally I don't think in this situation, the Elf could even see let alone target the Fimir
• A2: No, same as above
• A3: Yes, the Elf has a
clear LOS because the straight line only touches the corner wall so the Elf has 50% or more visibility so can see and target the Fimir
• A4: No, whilst the Elf can see the Fimir as the straight line only touches the corner wall so 50% or more visibility (for vision), however squares occupied by figures DO block LOS for the purposes of targeting missile weapons so no
clear LOS for missile fire exists as less than 50% of the Fimir's square would be available to target)
• A5: No, same as A4, YES to vision (as figures DON'T block vision LOS), NO to missile fire (as figures DO block LOS for missiles so less than 50% would be available to target)
HispaZargon wrote:In previous picture we can observe that the Elf cannot shoot the Fimir in Situation A2 according to 'GOOD RULE OF THUMB LOS APPROACH' interpretation, however in contrast the Fimir could be shoot according to 'DIAGRAM LOS APPROACH' interpretation.
Mmmh suspect. For the purposes of 'missile attacks' which is what the text and diagram are covering, the diagram you would expect to match the text (kind of what a clarification should be!), as that isn't the case there is a practically infinite number of interpretations that could be drawn from the diagram alone without the supporting text, including the one you have drawn, but also you can conclude that the Elf can target the middle Orc on the right hand side, because he could loop the shot over the top, or swerve the shot around the Wizard, or bounce the shot off the wall, and so on. I agree that your interpretation fits the diagram but I don't agree that is the only interpretation, and this is the problem with a diagram that is intended to make the rule text easier to understand but achieves the opposite.
HispaZargon wrote:Ok, but I would say to those players the following: First of all, if you check the infamous diagram in the Rulebook you can see that other figures (a Hero for example) obstruct line of sight, so those Orcs could also potentially obstruct it too, and secondly I would say that the 'even if the line just touches a corner' rule maybe referring to one doubtful point like a corner wall, but maybe we are not able to extend the rule to more than one doubtful points... and in these situations A4 and A5 we have two doubtful points, a corner wall and an Orc in situation A4, and two Orcs in situation A5. Therefore, in my humble opinion, I think here there are so many disadvantages to consider that the Elf can shoot the Fimir, so I would not allow it. I think the better interpretation in these two cases is the Elf would always shot first to an Orc before shooting to the Fimir, probably because the Elf would feel more menaced by the Orcs due to their closer proximity than by the Fimir.
The 'even if the line just touches a corner' part of a rule just means that you have to be able to see at least 50% of the figure in order for it to count as being visible (or targetable), which is a fairly common game simplification/abstraction, that results in a binary outcome, either you can see 50% or more (it is visible) or you can't (it is not visible). If you can't see it then you definitely can't shoot it.
As other figures don't block "seeing", then you can see the target, however as squares occupied by other figures DO block missile targeting then that would by my logic for disallowing the shot, less than 50% of the Fimir's square is targetable.
I get your logic, but that is why many games have a "you must target the closest enemy" rule, but HeroQuest doesn't. I would (probably - even I can never be sure of my position at any given moment in time) support that as a house rule, potentially.
• B1: Yes*, the Elf has a
clear LOS because the straight line only touches the corner wall so the Elf has 50% or more visibility so can see and target the Fimir
• B2: No, whilst the Elf can see the Fimir as the straight line only touches the corner wall so 50% or more visibility (for vision), however squares occupied by figures DO block LOS for the purposes of targeting missile weapons so no
clear LOS for missile fire exists, because less than 50% of the target square is available.
• B3: As B2
*Personally I don't allow missile attacks on orthogonally OR diagonally adjacent squares, so the answer taking that into account may be different "NO" but setting that aside for the moment...
And in terms of the longsword (or any other diagonal attack weapon), agreed in B1, B2 and B3, the Elf could attack the Fimir. This is one of my arguments for (*) comment above, to ensure a clear separation between the squares that can be targeted by missile weapons (including the crossbow) and hand-to-hand weapons (including the longsword)
HispaZargon wrote:I know that there are players who directly think that under NA rules a Crossbow may not be used against enemies placed in the surrounding diagonal squares of the shooter, even the classic Japanese Version of the board game explicitly confirms that idea. However, the truth is that anywhere in the classic NA rules nor 2020 Edition rules is explicitly written that those diagonal squares cannot be shot by a Crossbow, but only the adjacent ones to the shooter cannot be shot.
I think you meant "nowhere" rather than "anywhere", but yes I agree with that statement. However there are many rules within the HeroQuest game that are not explicitly stated but are still present and correct, and not being able to use missile attacks on orthogonally adjacent squares
because this would blur the distinct between hand-to-hand and missile attacks that has been introduced to the game extends to diagonally adjacent squares once diagonally adjacent attack weapons are in play, as they are then within the reach of 'hand-to-hand' combat like adjacent squares, so missile attacks cannot be used.
HispaZargon wrote:Then, if we assume that in Situations B2 and B3 the Fimir is in safe position (some kind of cover!) against distant attack weapons but not against diagonal attack weapons, it would introduce a difference between the Crossbow and the Longsword... which could support a bit why both weapons have the same gold price! (to make such difference more clear I would also add that the Crossbow may not be combined with a Shield, but as said, that's another discussion
)
Yes, but as I mentioned above, about the "you must target the closest enemy" rule, if it makes sense for missile attacks, you have to target the closest as that is the one that poses the immediate threat, then the same logic would apply for Longswords surely? So perhaps I wouldn't support that rule after all!