Zug um Zug – Frankreich Zug um Zug – Frankreich

Forum

Suche
Forum » Memoir '44 - English » Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT)
Anzeigen: Heutige Nachrichten 
  
VerfasserThema
Clexton27
Senior Member
Major Howard

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3370
Registriert:
February 2007
Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Fri, 28 July 2017 21:47
Look at the image below:

https://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic3669179.png

You will see that the Russian Armor unit is Firing at the Japanese Infantry unit 3 hexes away. It might be expected that the hill just in front of the Russian Armor Unit would block line of site, but because both units are on a contiguous plateau, the LOS is not blocked and the Armor unit will fire. I have not seen a particular EXAMPLE like this on the Hills (Examples of Line of Sight) and thought it would be a good addition since this situation is unique and actually occurred while playing the Khalkhin - Gol Breakthrough Scenario "Tightening the Noose".

Current Hills Examples:
https://www.daysofwonder.com/memoir44/en/editor/view/?id=109 6

[Aktualisiert am: Sat, 29 July 2017 03:30]

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Railway Tycoon

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8101
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sat, 29 July 2017 23:45
Would we need this example since the hills are all part of the same group? Those rules are pretty clearly outlined in the base game and this example is basically the same as D and F in the official Hills Example.
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 00:46
rasmussen81 wrote on Sat, 29 July 2017 23:45

Would we need this example since the hills are all part of the same group? Those rules are pretty clearly outlined in the base game and this example is basically the same as D and F in the official Hills Example.

For me it's more like I, and no LoS.
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 00:58
http://i.imgur.com/SzJf2Ji.png

You say K has LoS because the hills are from the same group.

Those in L and even M are in the same group. Would you consider them having LoS?

In the official LoS file, the hills in I are from the same group, yet there is no LoS.
The hills don't only need to be from the same group, but there have to be hills all along the LoS line.

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 30 July 2017 01:07]

      
Clexton27
Senior Member
Major Howard

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3370
Registriert:
February 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 03:43
Quit2 wrote on Sat, 29 July 2017 18:58

http://i.imgur.com/SzJf2Ji.png

You say K has LoS because the hills are from the same group.

Those in L and even M are in the same group. Would you consider them having LoS?

In the official LoS file, the hills in I are from the same group, yet there is no LoS.
The hills don't only need to be from the same group, but there have to be hills all along the LoS line.

I would agree with you that L and M also have line of sight because they are also legitimately on the same plateau. The problem with "I" in the original example is that although the units are on the same contiguous plateau, there is a town hex which clearly and completely blocks LOS between the units facing off against each other. In the case of L and M and the example I presented there is no impeding terrain or units between the units in combat and they are all on the same contiguous plateau.

Jesse referenced D and F as basically being the same example. I would disagree as there is only one terrain hex between the units in combat in that example and it itself is a hill. In the actual example I presented and in both L and M which Quit2 provided tthere are multiple terrain types between the units and although it is a subtle difference I think it makes it easier for the general player to make the connection with the rule of contiguous plateau. Anyway, I am just thinking about the fact that not everyone sees things spatially the same. So just a hint to be helpful. No attempt to rewrite the rulebook.

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 30 July 2017 03:57]

      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Railway Tycoon

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8101
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 05:21
Yeah, it could totally clarify things for players who run across this situation. The rules seem pretty clear on this:

Quote:

Line of Sight:
A Hill blocks line of sight for units trying to look over the Hill. Line of sight is not blocked when units are at
the same height and on the same Hill (plateau effect).


And the FAQ clarifies it further:

Quote:

Q. Can an Infantry or Armor unit on a Hill hex see over a terrain hex that blocks Line of Sight if the target unit is also on a Hill hex?
A. No. Also note that when there is a group of Hill hexes together, an enemy unit on ground level, or on a nearby but separate Hill, will only have Line of Sight to the front Hill hexes (the first rank). The same is true in reverse; a unit cannot see over a Hill to an enemy at ground level or on a nearby but separate Hill. The plateau explanation in the rules is there because Hills (along with Mountains and Ergs & Ridges) don’t block Line of Sight when they are in a contiguous group with terrain of the same elivation.


So as long as the hills are connected, they are considered to be at the same height. Paul is right that this visual example will help players, I just think that there are tons of possible examples we could show.
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 11:40
So both of you say L and M have LoS?

I think that's a bit ridiculous.
      
Antoi
Senior Member
Bring Boys Back Home

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 997
Registriert:
March 2005
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 12:15
Quit2 wrote on Sun, 30 July 2017 11:40

So both of you say L and M have LoS?

I think that's a bit ridiculous.


not really because it's a plateau effect and everyting is the same height.

consider all the hill's as normal terrain and the normal terrain as marshes in example L or M. Then a unit will also have LOS.

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 30 July 2017 12:15]

      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 12:34
Antoi wrote on Sun, 30 July 2017 12:15

Quit2 wrote on Sun, 30 July 2017 11:40

So both of you say L and M have LoS?

I think that's a bit ridiculous.


not really because it's a plateau effect and everyting is the same height.

consider all the hill's as normal terrain and the normal terrain as marshes in example L or M. Then a unit will also have LOS.



If that's the case, then J would have LoS too, and those units don't have LoS
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 12:41
By that reasoning, these have LoS

http://i.imgur.com/9qbDYmT.png

And these don't

http://i.imgur.com/bF51Dev.png

Only because of a slight difference on the total opposite side of the map?

That does not make sense to me. Even if I understand that's the rule.

I think the plateau rule should be amended to say that there should be a hill hex all along the trace of the LoS (at least on one side of the line) for the plateau rule to apply.

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 30 July 2017 12:44]

      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 12:54
rasmussen81 wrote on Sun, 30 July 2017 05:21


Quote:

The plateau explanation in the rules is there because Hills (along with Mountains and Ergs & Ridges) don’t block Line of Sight when they are in a contiguous group with terrain of the same elivation.


So as long as the hills are connected, they are considered to be at the same height. Paul is right that this visual example will help players, I just think that there are tons of possible examples we could show.


I think "… when they are in a contiguous group …" does not equal "… as long as they are connected …"

Maybe the rule doesn't need amending.
Just explain what "continuous group of same elevation" means here: "each next hex along the trace of the LoS needs to be of same elevation".

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 30 July 2017 12:57]

      
Artimon
Senior Member
General Mayor

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 732
Registriert:
December 2011
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 12:55
For me, the key point is that hills connected are considered with the same height, so are a plateau.

If hills are not connected, we have to assume that the hills are not at the same height, so that one is smaller than the other one. Then, LoS is lost Rolling Eyes
      
Clexton27
Senior Member
Major Howard

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3370
Registriert:
February 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 13:45
https://cdn.daysofwonder.com/uploads/userpages/320854/_7622_web.jpg

So it seems like what I am hearing from Quit2 is that as long as the LOS is crossing over adjacent hill hexes at a distance then LOS is possible, but if there is a gap (change in terrain type), like in my example "K" then it is not possible. Please correct me if I am wrong.
      
Jeronimon
Senior Member
Brigadier

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1868
Registriert:
November 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 14:18
Quit2 wrote on Sun, 30 July 2017 11:40

So both of you say L and M have LoS?

I think that's a bit ridiculous.


You can find it ridiculous, but those are the rules Smile
      
Quit2
Senior Member
Advanced Historian

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1371
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 17:51
Clexton27 wrote on Sun, 30 July 2017 13:45

https://cdn.daysofwonder.com/uploads/userpages/320854/_7622_web.jpg

So it seems like what I am hearing from Quit2 is that as long as the LOS is crossing over adjacent hill hexes at a distance then LOS is possible, but if there is a gap (change in terrain type), like in my example "K" then it is not possible. Please correct me if I am wrong.


That's indeed what I mean. That's how I would want the rules to be. That's how I want to interprete the word continguous from the FAQ clarification about the plateau rule.
But I understand not everyone sees it that way and I don't know how the plateau rule was intended.

Anyway: I don't think following a chain of hills all the way across the (overlord) board and back to check if there are any disruptions is something we'd have to do to check for LoS. You should be able to check for LoS by checking only the hexes along the line connecting the centers of the hexes of attacker and target.
      
Clexton27
Senior Member
Major Howard

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 3370
Registriert:
February 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 18:27
Quote:

English Oxford Dictionary
Definition of contiguous in English:

contiguous
ADJECTIVE

1 - Sharing a common border; touching.
‘the Southern Ocean is contiguous with the Atlantic’

1.1 - Next or together in sequence.
‘five hundred contiguous dictionary entries’


Based on this definition and the current use of the word contiguous in the rules, since the hill hexes are touching and in also in a sequence I would have to think that K, L and M are all reasonable qualifiers of what is acceptable.

If there is going to be any further elaboration or greater specificity in the Rules as written then I guess we would need a ruling from DOW or Richard Borg

[Aktualisiert am: Sun, 30 July 2017 18:31]

      
Jeronimon
Senior Member
Brigadier

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 1868
Registriert:
November 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 22:26
It also works that (strange) way for mountains.

Not connected -2 dice
connected minus 0 dice
      
rasmussen81
DoW Content Provider
Railway Tycoon

Fan-Seite
Nachrichten: 8101
Registriert:
July 2007
Re:Possible New Example Addition to HILLS (EXAMPLES OF LINE OF SIGHT) Sun, 30 July 2017 22:27
Like Richard Borg has said in the past, we didn't write the FAQ or the rules to cover every situation or possible eventual map configuration. So the example from Quit2 of the overlord maps with hills all the way around the board might have a different answer if that ever came up.

But as the rules are written, and as the FAQ is written, players would have LoS for example M and L in Paul's map. They would be able to see each other because they are on a plateau and all of the hills are the same height.

However, the goal of this game (and all board games) is to have fun so if it makes more sense to say they don't have LoS, just make sure all of the players agree on that before the game starts so someone doesn't have an unpleasant surprise when they declare the attack just to find out they can't see the target. Cool
      
    
Vorheriges Thema:Relive the early hours of World War II, far in the east with Memoir ’44: The Battles of Khalkhin-Gol
Nächstes Thema:Memoir at 2017 World Boardgaming Championships
Gehen Sie zum Forum: