LoS isn't that difficult if you look at it the right way. The problem my group had was that they assumed they were looking up/down a perfectly straight incline from one hex to another, but that isn't the case. In Megalopolis for example there are buildings with streets and alleyways between them. If I'm standing on an elevation 4 building and you're on an elevation 1 street 3 hexes away, I can't see you. That 2 elevation building you're standing next to is providing cover. Same the other direction. That 2 elevation building you're cowering behind is blocking your LoS to me.
This is pretty solid, and I've used it (or variations) a lot. Once I'm done with guides I will probably start using rules like that.
Spiff's rule solves the 4(A)-3-1-1-1-1(D) dilemna, but the reverse becomes problematic. If the elevation goes 4-3-1, you shouldn't have line of sight to the 1.
This is a really good point. I don't have the tiles to look at, but isn't the street as wide as the buildings? That's usually not the case, and even if it were, if you were in the street, you could be ANYWHERE in the street. So, the tiles had to be simplified and so did the LOS rules. If you're going for "realistic" LOS rules, the best you can probably do is to say that more than 2 hexes away and they're too far away to aim accurately. Where's the fun in that?
Yet another reason why I hate when people try to make rules "more thematic". It usually just means that they are getting rid of a rule that they don't like for some reason.
I think the LoS rules as written are fine
/shrug
Stopping the action to calculate (and argue about) LOS when we could apply a simple rule and get on with the punching? Not for me.
Also, the tiles are presumably balanced around the current LOS rules. Changing the rule could unbalance some of the scenarios.
Very true. Broadening the spaces in people's line of site completely changes how good Drone Deployment is for example. If this were a video game implimentation, complex line of sight rules would be fine as the calculations could take a while by hand but be done instantly on a computer. The game already takes a long time if there's even one beginner trying to learn the rules in the game, and line of sight is already a bit much to explain to some new players right of the bat. Making it more complicated is not a good idea, even if it solves some general situations where it looks like a character should be able to see another character.
Krayden's point makes a lot of sense - the LoS rules could basically be reflecting the use of cover by intelligent targets.
I’ve just checked the thread and see no mention of hazard removal. Once placed hazards are there for the remainder of the game?
Once the card that is generating the Hazard Spaces leaves play, the Hazard Spaces are no longer there. Also when a card is removed from play, all tokens on the field that were put into play thanks to that card are put into the supply.
Hazard spaces aren't created, they are generated.
What I mean is Turret Bot doesn't change the map, he generates hazard in those spaces, the hazard is from him, and those spaces are the area in which he is creating the hazard.
If turret bot moves he generates hazard in his new location, the old hazard spaces are no longer hazardous, because they are outside of Turret Bot's reach. If Turret Bot leaves play he no longer is generating hazard at all.
Same with the Volcano or Structures or living Pyre, etc. Every hazard space has some visible object on the map that is generating the hazard.
Hazard spaces aren't created, they are generated.
What I mean is Turret Bot doesn't change the map, he generates hazard in those spaces, the hazard is from him, and those spaces are the area in which he is creating the hazard.
If turret bot moves he generates hazard there, the old hazard spaces are no longer hazardous, because they are outside of Turret Bot's reach. If Turret Bot leaves play he no longer is generating hazard at all.
Same with the Volcano or Structures or living Pyre, etc. Every hazard space has some visible object on the map that is generating the hazard.
Sorry for the late response. But…
Do multiple versions of the same hazard source stack?
If I'm surrounded by six Impaling Structures at the end of my turn, am I attacked six times?
All the examples I've seen so far refer to different sources (such as Spiff's FAQ), but don't give an example with 2 or more of the same source.
Thanks!
Yes. They are all different sources of hazard spaces, so you are affected by each. Overlapping hazard spaces are EVIL!!!
Impaling structures only attack a target on the space they occupy.
You would have to stand on a stack of Structures.
Or get pushed onto them. Pushes ignore elevation change. >:D