Squares with fewer than 4 corners, LoS and cover

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Some of the squares on both the dungeon and outdoor tiles are partially filled with walls. The rules indicate which are legal, saying that if the square is more than half covered with wall it is illegal. 

Since they do not have 4 corners it's impossible to get a clear shot to a figure standing in these spaces. The LoS rules clearly state that a figure has cover unless all 4 corners are in line of sight. Are people playing this way?

A further and more fanciful issue is with the outdoor tiles. The walls are never straight lines and unfortunately according to the LoS diagram in the rules we're meant to let the art dictate LoS. This makes the edge squares a little bizarre, since it seems as though they only have 2 corners. There are only 2 drawn and I'm not sure how seriously I'm supposed to take this fact. Do all of these edge squares provide cover? 

Here's an image on BGG if you want to have some tiles up while considering this. www.boardgamegeek.com/image/1368506/dung... 
I use the following, though it is not based on any official ruling (based on DDM RE rules).

A target has cover against a creature’s attacks if that creature cannot draw a line of sight from the origin square to every point in one square of the target’s space without crossing a wall, or a square occupied by an enemy creature or obstacle.

It just makes sense, and takes care of those situations that you have highlighted. Without such a rule change or clarification, the elf archer could not target a creature in space 'X' in the piccy below ... The square has 5 corners!!!

 
The square has 5 corners!!!



My head asplode!

Thanks for the reply. Your method makes sense. They wrote you need to see all 4 corners but meant you need to see the entire square (even if it's not a square shapped square). That sounds reasonable to me.

It just makes sense, and takes care of those situations that you have highlighted. Without such a rule change or clarification, the elf archer could not target a creature in space 'X' in the piccy below ... The square has 5 corners!!!

 



By "square", they refer to the grid, not what is illustrated on top of the grid. The square is always square and always has four corners.

In the example above, the archer has line of sight to Square X, but a creature in Square X would have cover, per the rules on p. 13 ("Line of Sight and Cover").

All cover means is that the creature has "some protection against ranged attacks." If you need an in-game explanation, you could argue that a creature in terrain like Square X would get benefit from being in the shadows or might be able to tuck in beneath an overhang or be able to hug the wall, thereby being more difficult to hit with a ranged attack.

By "square", they refer to the grid, not what is illustrated on top of the grid. The square is always square and always has four corners.

In the example above, the archer has line of sight to Square X, but a creature in Square X would have cover, per the rules on p. 13 ("Line of Sight and Cover").



Thanks for weighing in Hreth. Do you also think that the edge spaces on outdoor tiles have cover for this reason? They appear to have only two drawn corners.  
By "square", they refer to the grid, not what is illustrated on top of the grid. The square is always square and always has four corners.

In the example above, the archer has line of sight to Square X, but a creature in Square X would have cover, per the rules on p. 13 ("Line of Sight and Cover").



Thanks for weighing in Hreth. Do you also think that the edge spaces on outdoor tiles have cover for this reason? They appear to have only two drawn corners.  



You know, I'm inclined to take back my initial answer and replace it with an honest "I don't know." The answer hinges on what the game designers meant by the word "cross". Does a line of sight cross a wall when it enters a wall, even if the line never exits the wall? Or does it only cross a wall when it enters a wall and then exits on the other side? If the latter is true, than neither edge spaces nor Square X would grant cover and I think that's the way I'm inclined to play. It certainly gives a more intuitive result.

Hopefully Chris can step in to provide clarification.
Technically, since one corner of the square is inside the wall on that square, you could say the creature in that square has cover. But I think the cover rule needs to be changed to "the nearest three corners are visible" as even if you are stading behind a box; being shot from the same side of the box as you are standing negates the cover.