| Author | Topic |
|---|
nemesszili
Posts: 938
Registered:
June 2008
|
 Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 25 July 2009 16:39
|
 |
Well, as I first saw the 'question-in-scenario' thing, I thought that point A is incorrect.
Example:
You and your friend are on a trip. Your friend went on a hill with the same height as a hill which you are on. Can you see your friend? If you can't, well, glasses aren't cheap  , but they can be bought for seeing your friend.
B and C are the same thing. Units do HAVE LOS.
I fear that the official clarification won't tell the same thing which I did: but I think this is the most realistic solution.
P.S. Sorry, if I made somebody nervous because of this 'glass-thing': I have glasses too  !
|
|
|
Timmuilwijk
Posts: 164
Registered:
March 2009
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 25 July 2009 18:13
|
|
Me too
Tim
|
|
|
nemesszili
Posts: 938
Registered:
June 2008
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 25 July 2009 18:34
|
|
Even if I'm on holiday, I can still use the internet! 
Any suggestions about this LOS topic?
Greetz from Venice!  (for now).
|
|
|
ad79
Posts: 772
Registered:
September 2007
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 25 July 2009 19:21
|
|
Hi Nem
The scenario was made to illustrate my question in this thread: http://www.daysofwonder.com/en/msg/?th=17700&start=0
Official answer from Antoine said A doesn't have LOS, and B is there to question if a continuous hill gives the units LOS.
Or if only example C is considered continuous.
We are still waiting for the official answer from Antoine or someone else at DOW.
BTW: Thanks for making my scenario a topic on this forum, I am so honoured!
If someone tries to play it, be adviced, it hasn't been playtested.
|
|
|
rasmussen81
Posts: 6063
Registered:
July 2007
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 25 July 2009 19:49
|
|
| ad79 wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 10:21 |
If someone tries to play it, be adviced, it hasn't been playtested.
|
I wondered why it was so hard for the Axis to win!! 
I hope you're enjoying your summer vacation, ad79. I know I am!
|
|
|
rasmussen81
Posts: 6063
Registered:
July 2007
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 25 July 2009 19:51
|
|
Based on a brief conversation with Richard about this, I believe the two units would have LOS because the hills are contiguous, even though there is an open hex in the formation.
|
|
|
ad79
Posts: 772
Registered:
September 2007
|
|
|
rasmussen81
Posts: 6063
Registered:
July 2007
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sun, 26 July 2009 01:37
|
|
| ad79 wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 15:30 |
| rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 19:51 |
Based on a brief conversation with Richard about this, I believe the two units would have LOS because the hills are contiguous, even though there is an open hex in the formation.
|
Assuming you are talking about example B here and in that case it would be ODD, given the official statement that A doesn't have LOS. I don't see the difference the offset hexes should represent to the LOS. But that might just be me!
|
I am talking about example B. Unless I remember the conversation wrong (which is possible) the key to the whole issue is the second part of the Summary card that says, | Quote: |
Block line of sight (except from adjacent contiguous hills at same height)
|
Richard said that originally he wasn't sure units would have any LOS along hills because in real life hills are never the same height. But it was decided that if the hills are contiguous, which according to Wikipedia means | Quote: |
Contiguity is a series of things in continuous connection, a grouping of parts in contiguous physical contact.
|
then it was conceivable that all of the hills were of similar height.
If they are separated by other terrain, two hills could have very different elevations. He pointed out that if you look at a military map the hills are all different (like hill 217 in one part of a map and then hill 142 nearby).
So in your example B, because the hills are connected it is assumed that they are all at similar height and the two units can see each other.
I hope this makes sense and I hope I'm accurately representing the information. Correct me if I'm wrong, Richard! 
Enjoy the last bit of summer break, Stig! And have fun with the campaign; I just played that one with a friend and had a blast!
|
|
|
GreatDane
Posts: 755
Registered:
June 2004
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sun, 26 July 2009 11:45
|
|
| nemesszili wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 16:39 |
Well, as I first saw the 'question-in-scenario' thing, I thought that point A is incorrect.
Example:
You and your friend are on a trip. Your friend went on a hill with the same height as a hill which you are on. Can you see your friend? If you can't, well, glasses aren't cheap , but they can be bought for seeing your friend.
B and C are the same thing. Units do HAVE LOS.
I fear that the official clarification won't tell the same thing which I did: but I think this is the most realistic solution.
|
But you are forgetting that a game is an abstraction, not realism!
|
|
|
nemesszili
Posts: 938
Registered:
June 2008
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sun, 26 July 2009 15:56
|
|
|
Yeah, but this is so simple. Anyway, the game MUST be realistic (at least a little bit...).
|
|
|
rasmussen81
Posts: 6063
Registered:
July 2007
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sun, 26 July 2009 16:16
|
|
| nemesszili wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 06:56 |
Yeah, but this is so simple. Anyway, the game MUST be realistic (at least a little bit...).
|
The way I think about that example is that the unit on the far side of the hill is on the "downward slope" of the hill and can't see up and over the crest to the other unit, even if the other unit is on a taller hill. 
In game terms, we see three different hills on the board but it may be only two hills...with one of them longer than the other. Or maybe it's three hills but the middle one is taller than the other two. Either way, we can make it realistic and still follow the rules as explained.
|
|
|
ad79
Posts: 772
Registered:
September 2007
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 01 August 2009 00:43
|
|
Is this the right answer to my LOS question? B has LOS.
No offence meant, Ras, but is the answer Ras is giving here official enough for me to remove my LOS scenario?
| rasmussen81 wrote on Sun, 26 July 2009 01:37 |
| ad79 wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 15:30 |
| rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 25 July 2009 19:51 |
Based on a brief conversation with Richard about this, I believe the two units would have LOS because the hills are contiguous, even though there is an open hex in the formation.
|
Assuming you are talking about example B here and in that case it would be ODD, given the official statement that A doesn't have LOS. I don't see the difference the offset hexes should represent to the LOS. But that might just be me!
|
I am talking about example B. Unless I remember the conversation wrong (which is possible) the key to the whole issue is the second part of the Summary card that says, | Quote: |
Block line of sight (except from adjacent contiguous hills at same height)
|
Richard said that originally he wasn't sure units would have any LOS along hills because in real life hills are never the same height. But it was decided that if the hills are contiguous, which according to Wikipedia means | Quote: |
Contiguity is a series of things in continuous connection, a grouping of parts in contiguous physical contact.
|
then it was conceivable that all of the hills were of similar height.
If they are separated by other terrain, two hills could have very different elevations. He pointed out that if you look at a military map the hills are all different (like hill 217 in one part of a map and then hill 142 nearby).
So in your example B, because the hills are connected it is assumed that they are all at similar height and the two units can see each other.
I hope this makes sense and I hope I'm accurately representing the information. Correct me if I'm wrong, Richard!
Enjoy the last bit of summer break, Stig! And have fun with the campaign; I just played that one with a friend and had a blast!
|
|
|
|
rasmussen81
Posts: 6063
Registered:
July 2007
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 01 August 2009 01:02
|
|
No offense taken, Stig!
I don't know if my answer is official enough, so you can leave it up and hope to get a more official answer. But I did talk to Richard about it and that's the answer I understood him to give me.
|
|
|
ad79
Posts: 772
Registered:
September 2007
|
|
Re:Ad79's LOS question
|
Sat, 01 August 2009 07:58
|
|
Well, I take it we have a satifactory answer to the question.
I will edit in your answer and leave it up for a short while before removing it.
|
|
|
