Ephel_duatH said:

Yes, the rules are quite clear about that.  It's just that a lot of people (myself included) don't particularly like the idea that the very figure you're trying to attack can block your LoS to attack it.  Hence the debate.

I think it's easy enough to house rule these little corner cases for people who can't live with RAW.  Everyone can have their fun in their own way, provided of course, that the people sitting around the table can all agree.

After reading the rule book, but before having much chance to play, I had issues with some rules -- especially LOS.  After having more chances to play through encounters & understanding that the game has a more abstract than realistic bent, I have come to accept the rules as written.  I still don't like some of the design choices, but they play better than they read.

Steve-O said:

I agree with you :) but i think that hourules some aspect of the game would be results in an unbalanced game. I think that the movement of giant monsters is much worse, but after several games I can say that it works, especially for the fact that most of the scenarios have victory conditions that involve a high degree of mobility on the map. A giant monster can block or be blocked resulting in a stalemate that is not expected in the development of the scenarios. Changing the rules to make them more realistic could result in a deadlock that is not contemplated in the development of the scenarios. For example, a giant monster can block or be blocked more easily by using a different movement similar to that of the first edition, resulting in a lengthening of the game and in a substantial change in the gameplay imagined by developers.

Ephel

exy said:

Lord_Nikon said:

It really isn't so dumb when you consider that you are playing a board game consisting of a grid of squares. This isn't a three dimensional, real world simulation. The game world lives on a grid and as such the rules are designed around the limitations of this. I agree that it does read like something nonsensical, but the designers didn't just throw the rules together - You don't think they play tested center-to-center LoS? Perhaps if they went with a hex grid  that would have tested  better, but they went with squares. So, this is how it plays. It is not dumb. It is how the game was designed to be played.

Rico said:

I agree it's a board game and it needs a simple board game rule.  However, trace a line from any corner to any corner and check for obstacles between the target squares, is no more difficult than, trace a line from any corner to any corner and check for obstacles between the squares including the target squares.  I actually think the form is easier because it's intuitive and makes sense, and quite honestly thought that's what the rules meant prior to the FAQ (due to their emphasis on ANY CORNER in the original rulebook).

I just don't see a point in using a wonky rule when there's a non wonky version that works just as easy and is almost identical.  Especially given the original rule was unclear so it would have been a clarification of the original rules, not an outright rules change.

Center to center LOS would ask for a dot to be printed in the center of each square.

It would be less appealing, graphically.

And I seem to have read that 1st edition used center to center LOS and that the rule generated quite a lot of debates - and the LOS was more difficult to obtain, thus quite a long time spent by players to place their figures in the best cover or firing position.