Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
12 Posts

Descent: Journeys in the Dark (Second Edition)» Forums » Rules

Subject: Another LOS Issue rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
United States
Avon
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Does the Goblin Archer have LOS on the Spider in this example? There's a discussion we are having right now. RAW would suggest yes, but it just doesn't seem...Right.

Similarly, if there were a wall line (you know, a black line) along the top portion of the spider space, would it still be LOS?

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Proto Persona
United States
N Richland Hills
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
By the RAW and many examples that have been confirmed by the designers, yes they both have LOS to each other. My group also found that confusing and we house ruled that the corner in question by the goblin can't be used for LOS in either direction. It seems to have a very minimal effect on balance and tactics either way really.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ryan Byrd
United States
Griffin
Georgia
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I would suggest that it makes sense that there is no line of sight since the corner of the archer square technically is blocked by the black edge (which extends past the corner). I know it is artistic license, but it may help keep things straight for house rules. If the edge came right up to the corner, they may be able to creep around and pinch off a shot. But that still seems problematic to me, especially when reversing the LoS direction.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul
United States
New York
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
RAW, there is LOS, no question (see my guide to range and LOS in the files section for more details).

That being said, no one will blame you for house ruling a situation like this- you just need to be clear on how you're ruling it before you start playing.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
ICE 0ne
United States
New Jersey
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmbmb
ryan_c_byrd wrote:
I would suggest that it makes sense that there is no line of sight since the corner of the archer square technically is blocked by the black edge (which extends past the corner). I know it is artistic license, but it may help keep things straight for house rules. If the edge came right up to the corner, they may be able to creep around and pinch off a shot. But that still seems problematic to me, especially when reversing the LoS direction.


Think it specifies in the rules somewhere that walls do not extend to corners. Otherwise you would not be able to walk diagonally through that corner since you'd be walking through a wall.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
I use Imperial Assault LOS rules in all situations in which a wall is between target and attacker. By IA rules, goblin has LOS to spider because he can peak around the corner and fire (range is 3). Spider does NOT have LOS to goblin.

IA rules require two non-overlapping lines to be drawn from one corner of the attacker's square to any two adjacent corners of the target's square. The lines can be drawn through the attacking figure and target figure. Other figures, walls, doors, and obstacles do block the lines if they intersect them; passing along edges is OK. So...goblin can draw his two lines from his top-right (TR) corner to spider's TL/TR, TR/BR, or BL/BR corners. Lines to spider's TL/BR or BL/TR corners would not work because those corners are not adjacent. Lines drawn from any corner of goblin's space except for TR would be blocked by the wall but not the goblin, itself. Remember, the lines can pass through the attacking figure and target figure.

IA rules make MUCH more sense than Descent rules when there is a wall between target and attacker. I personally tend to think they make more sense in ALL situations, but I only apply them in these situations because they are where the Descent rules fail horribly.
5 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon
United States
Christiansburg
VA
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
when there is a wall between target and attacker.


I'd assert that this qualifier isn't even necessary. whistle
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Neverfade wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
when there is a wall between target and attacker.


I'd assert that this qualifier isn't even necessary. whistle


I agree completely, as noted in an edit I just made, but the game is balanced for its own LOS rules, so I use them whenever I can stand it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Avon
Indiana
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmb
Thanks everyone.

I'm probably going to start using IA rules for LOS since it seems to be the generally more well written design in that regard.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Proto Persona
United States
N Richland Hills
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
csouth154 wrote:
Neverfade wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
when there is a wall between target and attacker.


I'd assert that this qualifier isn't even necessary. whistle


I agree completely, as noted in an edit I just made, but the game is balanced for its own LOS rules, so I use them whenever I can stand it.
Having used both rule sets, can you see any reasons the IA rules would affect the balance of Descent all that much if used full time? It just seems like it makes cover something you can actually have over the Descent rules. I'm not sure if it would have much of an affect on all that many situations in general though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Craig S.
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
mbmbmbmb
Proto Persona wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
Neverfade wrote:
csouth154 wrote:
when there is a wall between target and attacker.


I'd assert that this qualifier isn't even necessary. whistle


I agree completely, as noted in an edit I just made, but the game is balanced for its own LOS rules, so I use them whenever I can stand it.
Having used both rule sets, can you see any reasons the IA rules would affect the balance of Descent all that much if used full time? It just seems like it makes cover something you can actually have over the Descent rules. I'm not sure if it would have much of an affect on all that many situations in general though.


One reason might be the layout of obstacles and the difference between IA and Descent rules regarding how they block LOS. In Descent, LOS and movement can pass between the diagonal intersection of obstacles. In IA, figures cannot move or see through the diagonal intersections of any combination of walls, doors, or blocking terrain (obstacles in Descent). It seems likely that the maps were laid out with a specific rule set in mind, so I've decided to only use IA LOS rules where I feel the Descent rules REALLY break down logically, which so far I have only found to happen when target and attacker have a wall between them.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Henrik Havighorst
Germany
Cologne
NRW
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The black borders of the walls are rules as obstacles (i.e. hinder LOS) in our game, everything else would not make sense at all
 
 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.