$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 125.78

7,483 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
47.2% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
 
 Thumb up
 Hide
14 Posts

Band of Brothers: Screaming Eagles» Forums » Rules

Subject: Another hedgerow LOS Question rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Dan Poole
United States
Goldsboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Have you seen the Yellow Sign?
badge
Have you seen the Yellow Sign?
mbmbmbmbmb
Hedgerows that are neither adjacent to firer or target block LOS. Check. But what if LOS touches the image of a non-adjacent hedgerow without actually crossing a hedgerow hexside? In other words if the LOS string clips the corner of a hedgerow image without crossing any hedgerow hexside?

Ex. Scenario 4 battle of bloody gulch. H7 on map 3 looking at B9 on map 8

Thanks. And sorry for another hedgerow question
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Peter
msg tools
mbmb
I thing it blocks by rule (highlight mine):

"If trees/bushes, buildings, or hedgerows in any of the
intervening hexes can be seen on both sides of the string,
then the LOS is blocked."
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
David Janik-Jones
Canada
Waterloo
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
Slywester Janik, awarded the Krzyż Walecznych (Polish Cross of Valour), August 1944
mbmbmbmbmb
Blocked. Just barely, but blocked.


Remember, you can't check LOS before declaring a fire attack in BoB, so it pays to be very careful ... if you think it might be blocked, is it worth shooting and using the unit?
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dan Poole
United States
Goldsboro
North Carolina
flag msg tools
Have you seen the Yellow Sign?
badge
Have you seen the Yellow Sign?
mbmbmbmbmb
I forgot that rule. That makes sense then. And wow, thanks for the photo!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher O
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
Summer grasses / All that remains / Of soldiers' dreams. - Basho.
mbmbmbmbmb
DaveyJJ wrote:
Remember, you can't check LOS before declaring a fire attack in BoB, so it pays to be very careful ... if you think it might be blocked, is it worth shooting and using the unit?


Wait - is that actually in the rules? I thought that Jim was a fan of the "check LOS anytime as long as it doesn't get ridiculous or slow down play" rule.

I know ASL rules are a stickler for when you can check LOS but I didn't think BoB was.

[EDIT] Nevermind - I found the relevant rules section in section 14.0, page 6:

Quote:
Players may not check LOS for free during the game. If a unit
attempts to fire and the LOS is found to be blocked, the unit is
marked as Used. There are three exceptions to this. LOS may
always be checked to: a Conceal marker in Open Ground to
see if it loses its Concealment, during the Rout Phase to
determine a legal Rout path, and to see if a unit may gain
Concealment.


Here I had been telling people BoB wasn't as anal about it as ASL is.

Now I'm going to have to go back and check previous rulesets and see how long I've been doing that wrong.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher O
Canada
Toronto
Ontario
flag msg tools
designer
Summer grasses / All that remains / Of soldiers' dreams. - Basho.
mbmbmbmbmb
Kozure wrote:
Now I'm going to have to go back and check previous rulesets and see how long I've been doing that wrong.


Went back and checked my first edition rulebook.
Quote:

Units that check to see if they can fire are marked as Used if the
LOS is blocked.


Guess I missed that rule. Looks like the later edition clarified and emphasized it.

I'm not a fan of LOS checks not being free unless the player in question is abusing it... so I'll just house-rule that, but good to know that the official ruling is no free checks, in case I ever play in a tournament.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Kozure wrote:
I'm not a fan of LOS checks not being free unless the player in question is abusing it... so I'll just house-rule that, but good to know that the official ruling is no free checks, in case I ever play in a tournament.

Agreed, this kind of rule always seemed silly to me. Especially as players become familiar with a map anyway, it just rewards a player who's played on a given map more often.

It seems analogous to having a rule that you're not allowed to actually compute what your attack numbers will be until you actually declare an attack, or a rule that you're not allowed to calculate & plan a movement path for a unit in advance and must compute hex by hex as you're actually committed to moving.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
mbmbmbmbmb
Quote:
I'm not a fan of LOS checks not being free unless the player in question is abusing it... so I'll just house-rule that,


Well, that is just it, isn't it. There are lots of people who abuse it. Now, two reasonable people can house rule it. If that is your preference, problem solved.

Let's reverse it - say the rule allows free LOS checks and you have someone who abuses it. Good luck trying to get them to house rule it so they can't. Seriously, that was our train of thought when discussing that rule.

FWIW, I do play with the RAW. I like to play quick and I think that style of play is more emblematic of squad warfare, it is more immersive for me.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Sincere question: what do y'all mean by "abuse" in the context of checking whether LOS exists? I can imagine 2 rather different things being labelled "abuse":

1. Someone checks whether LOS exists between 2 distant hexes before announcing their attack. This is considered "abuse" because it's somehow against "fog of war". (But a player who knows the map from experience will have already penetrated that "fog of war".)

2. Someone checks many different pairs of hexes, taking a long tedious amount of time to do it. This is "abuse" because it's tedious and annoying waste of time. But I don't see how this is any different from any other kind of "analysis paralysis", e.g. trying to make a rule against someone thinking too long about their turn. If someone's playing too slowly, ultimately it doesn't really matter what specifically they're doing that is taking too long (to me, anyway).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jim Krohn
United States
New York
flag msg tools
designer
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
badge
Ahhh....my misspent youth...
mbmbmbmbmb
Number 2 is what I meant.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
Thanks. So yeah, given that reducing analysis paralysis is the intent of the rule, then all the more I tend to ignore that rule; it really seems analogous to saying "You're not allowed to calculate in advance what your attack strength would be before declaring an attack" just because some players might spend too long considering various possible attacks.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dean Halley
msg tools
Quote:
FWIW, I do play with the RAW. I like to play quick and I think that style of play is more emblematic of squad warfare, it is more immersive for me.


So what does FWIW and RAW stand for?

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Russ Williams
Poland
Wrocław
Dolny Śląsk
flag msg tools
designer
mbmbmbmbmb
deanhalley wrote:
So what does FWIW and RAW stand for?

For What It's Worth
Rules As Written
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Dean Halley
msg tools
Thanks!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.