I have a couple of questions regarding LOS and slopes. I may well be missing the blindingly obvious so sorry if the question seems trivial or banal but I can't seem to get my head around how the rules should translate into play clear in my mind.
1) In 18.104.22.168.5 it says:
'Both Slope and Crest hexsides have a Height of +1. However, only Crest hexsides may individually block line-of-sight. Slope hexside are part of a Hill formation and any line-of-sight checks are made from the Hill hexsides.'
I have been making LOS checks from the centre dot of the hex. When it says 'line-of-sight checks are made from the hill hexsides' does it really mean that I shouldn't use the centre dot for LOS checks and if so does it mean using any point on the available hexside?
2) In 22.214.171.124.4 It says:
'If the line-of-sight crosses an obstacle which is higher than one vehicle but lower than the other vehicle, a line-of-sight check must be made using one of the following procedures. Count the hex that the potential obstacle occupies but not the hex the spotting vehicle occupies. A calculated Blind Zone is never less than 1 hex.'
So if a unit is on level two and there is a level one obstacle in the adjacent hex that would create an Blind Zone of one hex for a target 'behind' the obstacle from the level 2 unit's POV.
I can't see where in the rules it differentiates between a slope and non-slope obstacle so the rules would seem to say that LOS is blocked from the top of a level 2 hill that slopes evenly down to Ground Level in two hexes. This just seems intuitively wrong and I've been playing it that LOS wouldn't be blocked in this situation but would be if the level 2 unit's LOS was blocked by a adjacent non-slope level 1 obstacle.
Any comments that could help me get clear on this would be gratefully appreciated.
Thanks Peter, I've read most of those and note that Jim was asking for a clear way of stating the situation so I'm having a go (although quite how clear they are is open to debate!).
So, Jim, maybe a rule could be inserted thus, the line in bold being the key point:
126.96.36.199.5.1 Continuous Slopes
It is easier to maintain a line of sight along a series of connected descending hexes with slope hexsides than it is along the step like formation created in a comparable situation by non-slope obstacles.
A series of contiguous hexes with slope hexsides such that the level of each hex is one lower than the adjoining higher hex is a Continuous Slope and doesn’t block line of sight as long as no other blocking terrain exists therein.
The line of sight exists along the slope and into locations in adjacent hexes along the line of sight one level higher at the top and one level lower at the bottom of the slope.
A ‘Continuous Slope’ is also assumed to be present even if hexes along the line of sight contain other terrain as long as the line of sight is not otherwise blocked.
A slope hexside with an elevation change of more than 1 creates a Blind Zone as normal but otherwise can be considered to be part of a Continuous Slope.
Example. (Best done with pictures!)
A Panzer V on a level 4 hill hex (A) adjacent to a level 3 hill hex (B), adjacent to a level 2 hill hex (C), adjacent to a level 1 hill hex (D) adjacent to a level 0 hex (E) are all on a Continuous Slope and line of sight would not be blocked along it.
If hex A was a level 3 hill containing a leg unit on level one of a building this would also qualify for a continuous slope as would a situation in which hex C were at level 1 (although hex C itself would be in a Blind Zone due to the -2 elevation change from hex B to C).
If hex C contained a level 1 hill with a level one obstruction in it then the Continuous slope would be blocked in hex C
This does create a problem with the existing line of sight rules as the last case in the example would, using the current rules, create a one hex Blind Zone in hex D only but the line of sight along the continuous slope has been blocked at C so shouldn’t magically reappear at E. This could be solved by incorporating a rule that acknowledges the increase in the Blind Zone that is caused by the increasing height difference between the blocking obstacle and the lower unit (so far the rules have only acknowledged the effect of the height difference between the blocking obstacle and the higher unit). I know that this has been raised before but don’t really understand why this effect hasn’t been taken into account in the rules so far.
I believe it’s an easy enough fix along the lines of:
In all cases the Blind Zone is increased if the lower unit is more than one level below the obstacle. In these cases multiply the calculated Blind Zone by the difference in height of the obstacle and the lower unit.
Whether you disagree as to how I suggest calculating this effect surely some account of this effect needs to be made?
188.8.131.52.4.1 In all cases the Blind Zone is increased if the lower unit is more than one level below the obstacle. In these cases multiply the calculated Blind Zone by the difference in height of the obstacle and the lower unit.
+1. I've just spent 2 hours trying to find this case in rulebooks, then on forums. Thanks.