Community

Under the rules for Cover, Creatures do not block line of sight. While it doesn't make sense that the target Creature should be allowed to dodge if behind another Creature, it also doesn't make sense that the attacker can just easily target past Creatures in front of the target.

My playgroup feels there should be a rule for such cases. We propose as follows:
"Any Creature that provides cover to a targeted Creature may tap to intercept the ranged attack."

We also feel that "within X squares" needs to clarify how the route is counted. Our group plays as follows:
- for "Make a ranged attack", we count squares as per movement and follow cover rules.
- for "Deal x damage", we count squares as per movement. LOS is required but cover rules are ignored.
- for other ranged effects, we count squares as per movement but LOS is not required and cover rules are ignored, so you could route around hard cover.

In both cases, the route counted ignores terrain penalties.

In effect, we are saying that magic spells should not require LOS unless it deals damage. Therefore, magic can target creatures behind hard cover but at a much reduced range. Thematically it could represent the effort required to locate a creature that is not in sight.

With this, we could then have new possibilities for Creature abilities such as an "Accurate Shot" that makes a ranged attack that cannot be intercepted.

Your suggestion is aligned with mine as there would be no reason for an ally to intercept a ranged attack targeted at an enemy. In the current rules, creatures do not affect LOS.

We didn't mind allies not blocking LoS. We did think enemies ought to provide cover though.

How much control you give an archer? Should the game force the archer to attack the closest target? While this seems the most logical, it does take some tactical decision making out of the hands of the player and puts it into the rules. On the other hand, it does allow different tactics for the defender against the archer.

Peace