Archer's watchtower

[Silverhaze]

I think i know the answer, but just to be sure...
When a creature is behind a wall with the los blocked, it can shoot at objects behind the wall, but it can't be targeted by ranged attacks from the other side of the wall. Correct? The indirect trait doesn't provide the enemy los?

[silverclawgrizzly]

That is correct.

[Silverhaze]

Tx for your very fast answer 

[wtcannonjr]

Now that terrain can block LOS we may need an update to the Codex definition for Indirect. For example, Steep Hill blocks ranged attacks from an archer's watchtower.

Thoughts?

[ClockWork]

it mentions walls specifically in codex, I'm under the impression thats on purpose to prevent those cards from being best friends

[Brian VanAlstyne]

Now that terrain can block LOS we may need an update to the Codex definition for Indirect. For example, Steep Hill blocks ranged attacks from an archer's watchtower.

Thoughts?

It does?

[DaveW]

Now that terrain can block LOS we may need an update to the Codex definition for Indirect. For example, Steep Hill blocks ranged attacks from an archer's watchtower.

Thoughts?

It does?

It does if the LOS passes through two sides of the zone where the Watchtower exists. A wall adjacent to the zone with both a steep hill still and a Watchtower does not block LOS for the Watchtower.

[ClockWork]

A soldier, in a watchtower, can not target an enemy creature 2 zones away orthogonally, with a steep hill directly in between.

A soldier in a watchtower, can target an enemy creature 2 zones away diagonally, with a steep hill  in one of the two zones that could be used to determine LOS between them

A soldier, in a watchtower, can not target an enemy creature 2 zones away diagonally, with a steep hill  in both of the two zones that could be used to determine LOS between them.

This is correct, this is what we are all saying here, right?

[Zuberi]

A soldier, in a watchtower, can not target an enemy creature 2 zones away orthogonally, with a steep hill directly in between.

A soldier in a watchtower, can target an enemy creature 2 zones away diagonally, with a steep hill  in one of the two zones that could be used to determine LOS between them

A soldier, in a watchtower, can not target an enemy creature 2 zones away diagonally, with a steep hill  in both of the two zones that could be used to determine LOS between them.

This is correct, this is what we are all saying here, right?

Not quite. First, I think you may be confused about line of sight. Determining Line of Sight is completely different and separate from determining distance. You trace line of sight from the center of your zone straight to the center of your target's zone (or the center of the zone border if you're targeting a wall). So, if your target is in a zone adjacent to you, line of sight will go straight from your zone and into there's by passing through the corner that connects them. There are no intervening zones and so there can't possibly be a steep hill between them.

Now that we have that established, we also need to keep in mind that steep hill only blocks line of sight if it passes through two sides of the zone, i.e. if line of sight passes through the zone rather than simply into the zone. It doesn't prevent you from targeting the zone with the hill, just zones beyond it.

So, when evaluating your statements, and ignoring the error in how LoS is determined, the first two are correct and the third is false. If I have a steep hill to my east and another steep hill to my north, then I still can fire between them to hit the zone directly to my northeast (diagonally adjacent to my current zone). If that zone also has a steep hill, then I can again still fire into it because I'd only be dealing with its steep hill which prevents me from firing beyond it but not into it.

This is because, unlike walls, there is no rule that says flanking hills affect LoS through the diagonal at all. While flanking walls are meant to portray one continuous wall through the diagonal, flanking hills are still conceptually two separate hills with a valley between them. Which also helps explain why moving from one hill to another still requires a Full Action, because you aren't just staying on a high plateau.

[bigfatchef]

Now that terrain can block LOS we may need an update to the Codex definition for Indirect. For example, Steep Hill blocks ranged attacks from an archer's watchtower.

Thoughts?

Strange that I cannot find the trait indirect in the codex. Maybe I am overseeing it right now...
From Forcemaster/Warlord rules:
“Indirect:
This ranged attack does not have its line of sight (LoS) blocked by any walls.“

Since the wording specifies walls, there is no interaction between the watchtower and steep hill, because there is no wall. In other words: a soldier in a watchtower will still get its LoS blocked if there is a steep hill in the zone between him and his target (that he cannot target).

[Brian VanAlstyne]

     A     B     C
1


2         SH


3         AW


4


Could a soldier with range 2 in the watchtower hit something in A2 or C2?

[Puddnhead]

     A     B     C
1


2         SH


3         AW


4


Could a soldier with range 2 in the watchtower hit something in A2 or C2?

Yes, because line of sight is drawn from center of zone to center of zone and that would pass through the corner and not a side of B2.  A soldier would not be able to shoot B1 due to Steep Hill (as everyone knows).  Additionally, a soldier with Range 3 would not be able to shoot A1 or C1 as line of sight would be drawn through two sides of the zone containing Steep Hill.

[wtcannonjr]

Now that terrain can block LOS we may need an update to the Codex definition for Indirect. For example, Steep Hill blocks ranged attacks from an archer's watchtower.

Thoughts?

Strange that I cannot find the trait indirect in the codex. Maybe I am overseeing it right now...
From Forcemaster/Warlord rules:
“Indirect:
This ranged attack does not have its line of sight (LoS) blocked by any walls.“

Since the wording specifies walls, there is no interaction between the watchtower and steep hill, because there is no wall. In other words: a soldier in a watchtower will still get its LoS blocked if there is a steep hill in the zone between him and his target (that he cannot target).

Agreed.

So Indirect no longer guarantees an archer LOS to a target. Steep Hill becomes a counter to archer's.

[ClockWork]

There are no intervening zones and so there can't possibly be a steep hill between them.

This is a messy one big Z. 

The intersection of four zones belongs to all 4 borders, thus 2 walls can work together in concert to block LOS, this is how we know without a doubt there isn't the smallest 1 pixel micro opening that can be shot through.

So when drawing LOS through a corner you are technically drawing LOS through all 4 borders.

Walls have a special exception, "Walls do not normally block LoS if the line crosses diagonally through the corner of a wall border, as long as at least one side of that corner does not block LoS.

Steep Hill does not have this exception, so when drawing LOS diagonally through 4 zone borders, it is possible to draw LOS through 2 borders of a zone that contains a Steep Hill.

What all this means is that even a single Steep Hill is able to block  LOS diagonally.

I personally don't like this, and hope steep hill receives the the same exception as walls.

I feel we might need an official answer this.

[Zuberi]

You think we need an official answer regarding whether or not a traced line that crosses zone borders only one single time at one single point should count as crossing two separate and distinct sides of a zone that it never even enters? You understand that such a ruling would mean that if the only Steep Hill being discussed was in the zone you were targeting, your idea would prevent line of sight to that zone?