Line of Sight

[Bareheaded Warrior]

The Elf will be in a serious trouble.

On that point, I think we are all agreed!

[Kurgan]

The "monster standing behind a monster" thing was infamously mentioned in the scripted Q&A session for the Remake prior to release. All those years however before they said this we never understood that this was even an issue.

I haven't a doubt that perhaps someone did ask that question at some point (I never even considered the Crossbow debate until I came to this forum!), but it's one of those things that if you assumed the opposite, it really wouldn't make much difference in the game, just make it a little bit goofy, like the misunderstanding our family had when we first played the game that we thought you had to point your finger at every single square you were "looking" at to actually reveal it (glad we realized that wasn't how the game was meant to be played, it took forever!).

Yes of course when you open a door, everything (other than hidden traps, treasure and secret doors) are placed. So it wouldn't matter if a monster was standing behind another monster.

Same with corridors... the entire corridor gets revealed once you touch the square that leads to it, whether there are monsters behind that monster or not.

The only thing that is relevant there is that the monster standing behind the monster is going to have a blocked line of sight to the figure on the other side, which again, we knew. Agreed that "putting it out on the board" is not the same thing as "I can hit it from where my figure is standing."


I agree also that if you played a game as a kid and never really did a wide poll of other players all that time, how would you ever know if there was a controversy? Apparently one of the quest designers got asked a question at a toy convention as to whether having two weapons meant a hero could make multiple attacks (one with each weapon) per turn. Obviously the rules don't account for this, but somebody wondered it, and even bothered to ask a designer (no official answer was given to the public on this, but it's assumed the answer was "no, they can't" as no dual wielding mechanic).

The only big "whoa, I guess I was wrong" moment I have now from those days is the "Mentor not Zargon" intention behind the GM screen. That one blew my mind! (but I still contend the artwork was confusing in 1990, and it really doesn't impact gameplay at all).


PS: And as we all know in the final release of the Remake, this clarification they used as an example wasn't even included anywhere in the documentation! A couple of small tweaks on cards were really all we got. Though I see "New Beginnings" has some "rule clarifications" that are 99% the same as what will undoubtedly appear in the Frozen Horror remake pack (just as it would in the EQP if that one ever gets remade) a la the adjacent heroes being able to give/receive items.

[Egefalos]

It also confused me when i was reading the rules.
The only logical explanation i gave was to consider all figures as circles within their squares.

Hello my friend. Can you email me at dim.gangos@gmail.com
Cause I have some questions? Thank you. Dimitris from Athens Greece

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Relevant chunks from the Polishing the Second Edition rulebook

Exploration
As the heroes move, they will discover more of the board. The Evil Wizard player will place onto the board anything that the heroes can see. Therefore, when a hero opens a closed door, they must pause to give the Evil Wizard player the chance to consult the Quest map and place onto the board anything that is shown for that room or passageway.

As the heroes move around the board the Evil Wizard player must consult the Quest map to see what should be placed into each room or passageway.

What can be seen?
Deciding what can be seen by a hero is particularly important in deciding what should be placed onto the board.
Characters can see:
• All squares in the room or passageway that they are currently in
• All squares in a room or passageway that they are adjacent to
• All squares that they have line of sight to.
A line of sight exists if you can trace an unobstructed straight line between the centre of the two squares. If the line passes through a wall, blocked square, bookcase, cupboard, or a closed door, then no line of sight exists, and the contents of the square is not visible.

Missile Attacks
Missile attacks can be made against characters provided that a clear line of sight exists between the attacker and the target, (see Line of Sight Rule in the Book of Exploration under “What can be seen”). If the line passes through a square occupied by another figure, then the line of sight is blocked, and the attack cannot be made.

[HispaZargon]

Hi, once again I have revisited the so discussed Line of Sight topic... and here I am with more thoughts about it.

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'.

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, so I consider the center-to-center rule text only adds confusion and it is not correct for me. Then, for me the 'DIAGRAM LOS APPROACH' interpretation is the more coherent one through the rules and I think the Line of Sight rule should have been written saying that the straight line should be drawn connecting anyone point of the shooter square with the center of the target square, instead of joining both centers, as I explained here.

So, considering that we are playing under American classic rules, please have a look to the five different situations I show in the following picture:

LoS_v2_Situation_A.jpg

Now, imagine the Elf has a Crossbow... the question is: Can the Elf shoot a quarrel to the Fimir? Well, let's see...

Here we have what is said for the Crossbow in NA rules about which target can be shot or not:

- Rulebook (page 15): '... daggers and crossbows are special weapons due to their ability to hit a monster from a distance.'

- Armory cardsheet (Crossbow): 'You may fire at any monster that you can "see". However, you cannot fire at a monster that is adjacent to you.'

Then, attending to the different interpretations of what means "see the target", I think the only situation of those five where there is 100% agreement that the Elf can shoot the Fimir is Situation A3, because it is explicitly said in the "see" rules of the Rulebook that "a target is declared visible even if the line just touches a corner or wall edge". In the other hand, I think the only situation of total agreement that the Elf cannot shoot the Fimir is Situation A1 because there is no way to target the center of the Fimir from Elf's position. And what happens with the other three situations? Well, lets see the same situations with straight lines:

LoS_v2_Situation_A_w_Lines.jpg

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. In my games I would follow 'DIAGRAM LOS APPROACH' interpretation so I would allow the Elf to shoot the Fimir, understanding that the Elf is leaning a bit inside his square to target the Fimir with the Crossbow, as if the Elf was looking down a corridor from an opened door. Then, depending which interpretation you trust, you can consider the Fimir is shootable or not. But probably the most controverial situations would be A4 and A5... well maybe some players could clearly think that the Elf can shot the Fimir because touching a monster square by the straight line does not count as touching a corner wall, and moreover touching a corner wall (or a monster square corner) is not enough to obstruct the line of sight because that is what says the rules... 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 potentialy obstruct it too, and secondly I would say that the 'even if the line just touches a corner' rule maybe refering 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.

Ok... after this, please have a look to the three more different situations I show in the following picture:

LoS_v2_Situation_B.jpg

Now the Elf is closer to the Fimir, imagine the Elf owns a Crossbow AND a Longsword... Well, as written in the NA Rulebook it is 100% clear that the Elf is allwed to use the Longsword to attack the Fimir in anyone of those three situations:

Screenshot_20230614-181121_Adobe Acrobat.jpg

... but the question again is: Can the Elf shoot a quarrel to the Fimir in those threee Situations? Well, let's see...

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. Moreover, Hasbro confirmed through their official Twitter acount that those diagonal squares can be shot by a Crossbow in the 2020's Remake Edition of the game. Then, considering it, no doubt that the Crossbow would be a really powerful weapon, specially comparing its gold price with the gold price of a Longsword, but... are we sure that the Crossbow would cover all those situations where a Longsword is useful?

Well, I would not discuss here if the Crossbow should need the two hands to be used and, indeed, it should not be combained with a Shield, since that's another discussion, but if you check again the three different situations B1, B2 and B3 I shown above, in my opinion maybe we could find here an exception which also could be an extra difference between using a Longsword or a Crossbow:

The Crossbow rules written in the Armory says that the target need to be "seen", which means in NA rules that the target must be in the line of sight, which means that the Fimir could be shot by the Elf in Situation B1 without any restriction. However, according to my interpretation above about line of sight in Situations A4 and A5, the Fimir in Situations B2 and B3 should not be either in the line of sight of the Elf because the line should cross a corner with two obstructions in between, of Orcs and/or corner wall, which are too many obstructions (not just one like in Situation B1!) ... Therefore, maybe we should think that the Elf cannot shoot the Fimir in anyone of those B2 or B3 Situations? In my opinion, I should answer that the Elf cannot shoot, for coherency with the rest of my interpretations.

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 )

LoS_v2_Situation_B_w_Lines.jpg

Then, how would you play in those situations?

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Always a fan favourite this one!

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!

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)

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.

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)

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.

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!

[HispaZargon]

I have observed something (I think) relevant about this classic topic, so I decided to re-open it:

These days people are starting to receive at their homes the first retail copies of PoT and SQT, and as most of you know these new versions have fortunatelly included many fixes and clarifications to the lots of errata and flaws detected in their very first versions included in the Mythic Tier box.

Well... inside all those added changes there was one that catched my atention in the PoT box: The original version of the 'Wand' Equipment card said that you may attack with the Wand 'to any monster you can "see"...', however the retail new version says that you may attack 'to any monster in your line of sight...'. Additionally, this kind of change has not been included in any other card of the retail versions of PoT and SQT were mechanic of "seeing" is mentioned, like 'Dark Wings' Warlock Spell card or 'Healing Song' Bard Spell card.

In my opinion, with this change Hasbro intention seems to be making clear that the Wand shots must actually follow a straight line when the Wand is used. However, I think the change and the other two non-changed cards give us much more information: Once again, the rules for "see" and "be in the line of sight" seem to be two different things in this remake's edition (and I bet also in the classic American edition), as I have always considered.

P.D.: I also think of course that the change introduced by Hasbro in the Wand card should be also applicable to the Crossbow card.

[Kurgan]

The Wand seems to be able to hit monsters that are nearby (even diagonally) as well as at range, making it more versatile than the Crossbow (for the Warlock at least) despite it being weaker (2 dice instead of 3).

I always read "see" and "line of sight" to be synonymous, but I get the whole "well you know they are behind the monster standing in front of you and you know they are in the same room but can't actually hit them with your projectile" kind of thing in the NA/Remake rules. I never really thought about the Wand being able to blast monsters that were behind solid objects as if it were launching up into the air or seeking them out (which certainly would have made it much more powerful!).

Importing the Warlock into the EU rules though I would fully expect that's how it should work.

[The Admiral]

The Wand seems to be able to hit monsters that are nearby (even diagonally) as well as at range, making it more versatile than the Crossbow (for the Warlock at least) despite it being weaker (2 dice instead of 3).

Yes, that's how I read it and play it. 3 dice in demonform, so she is quite powerful right off the bat.

[Bareheaded Warrior]

Once again, the rules for "see" and "be in the line of sight" seem to be two different things in this remake's edition (and I bet also in the classic American edition), as I have always considered.

I agree, "seeing" and "line of sight", have always had a different meaning (otherwise why use two different terms), and blurring the two, prevalent in the NA edition (but present elsewhere), just causes confusion.

3 minis in a row, A,B,C. A can "see" both B and C, but his line of sight to C is blocked by B so no clear line of sight exists.