Steep Hill + wall and LoS

[DaveW]

Strictly speaking, it depends upon how do we interpret "passes through" in the Steep Hill text.
Literal interpretation ("touches" <> "passes through") implies that all three borders are visible. However an official opinion will be greatly appreciated.

The critical wording is in the new LOS rule for the border where the wall is being cast, and the wording of Steep Hill.

The zone border is not the same as the far side of the zone. The SH prevents sight to the zone border directly across from the adjacent creature.

[Zuberi]

Let me try to phrase my previous explanation a little differently with an example:

A normal wall doesn't block line of sight to itself. I think we can all agree on that. Thus, it doesn't block line of sight TO the zone border that it occupies. It just blocks any attempts to trace line of sight ACROSS the zone border it occupies.

Similarly, a Steep Hill doesn't block line of sight TO the second border of the zone it sits in. It only blocks line of sight ACROSS the second border. Ergo, you can target a wall on the opposite side of a steep hill.

It has been argued that walls, sitting on a zone border, do not "cross" a border, but clearly the rules on range show that walls belong to, and affect, both bordering zones and thus casting a wall must necessitate "passing" the zone border in some way. (You might also say that since you can't have two walls back-to-back against each on either side of a zone border a wall must have a foot in both camps, as it were.)

Draw two squares on a sheet of paper that share one side. Can you draw a line to the shared side without crossing it? Yes. I don't know how you came to your assumptions, but casting a wall doesn't necessitate passing the zone border. It's on the border. It's not in both camps. It's on their shared border. It is literally the line between two squares.

[Zuberi]

Strictly speaking, it depends upon how do we interpret "passes through" in the Steep Hill text.
Literal interpretation ("touches" <> "passes through") implies that all three borders are visible. However an official opinion will be greatly appreciated.

The critical wording is in the new LOS rule for the border where the wall is being cast, and the wording of Steep Hill.

The zone border is not the same as the far side of the zone. The SH prevents sight to the zone border directly across from the adjacent creature.

What rule are you referencing?

[Arkdeniz]

I have seen on these forums that it is dangerous to go against Zuberi in a rules argument, but because I am still grumpy that my newly-summoned phalanx of goblin legionnaires was shredded by a wall of pikes + force wave combo last night, here goes.

A normal wall doesn't block line of sight to itself. I think we can all agree on that. Thus, it doesn't block line of sight TO the zone border that it occupies. It just blocks any attempts to trace line of sight ACROSS the zone border it occupies.

Agreed.

Similarly, a Steep Hill doesn't block line of sight TO the second border of the zone it sits in. It only blocks line of sight ACROSS the second border. Ergo, you can target a wall on the opposite side of a steep hill.

This is where we differ. Let me start off by reflecting your first paragraph to indicate what I think is going on, and then I'll try to explain why.

A Steep Hill doesn't block line of sight to itself. I think we can all agree on that. Thus, it doesn't block line of sight TO the zone that it occupies. It just blocks any attempts to trace line of sight ACROSS the zone it occupies.

The key is the language used on the Steep Hill card: "LoS which passes through two sides of this zone is blocked."

Various posts on this thread, including Zuberi's, have equated 'sides' here to mean 'zone borders'. I don't think it does. Arcane Wonders has been in this business for a long time, and I give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the language they use. If they meant 'side' to mean 'zone border', they would surely have written 'zone border.' They must have been thinking of a different concept with 'side'. (In passing, I note that the codex definition for Zone Border does not use the word 'side' anywhere.)

I would argue that the intent is to differentiate the Hill's effect from the rulebook's section on Line of Sight, which is explicitly and only discussing LoS as it relates to walls and zone borders, and is silent on LoS as it relates to conjurations inside a zone.

I'd like to see an official ruling, but before such a thing shows up, I present my theory:

The Steep Hill's wording introduces a second meaning for line of sight, one that is used in wargaming - a virtual line between the active creature and its target, where 'Zone borders' are not a relevant consideration but the 'sides' of the zone are.

With the Steep Hill what we have is some terrain that sits above the 'floor level' of the arena. Functionally it is like a building in a war game, one that effectively has the same ground dimensions as the zone it sits in. If you're standing in front of the 'SH building' you can only see and target its front wall and what is on its roof. if the line of sight passes through the 'SH building' you can't see through it to what is beyond, and you can't see or target its three far side walls (which would be the zone borders, so you couldn't build a wall on them).

A tidier way of putting it on the card might have been "LoS that passes beyond the centre of this zone is blocked."

As I say, that's my view. I appreciate that there are others and would love a ruling on it.       

[DaveW]

Strictly speaking, it depends upon how do we interpret "passes through" in the Steep Hill text.
Literal interpretation ("touches" <> "passes through") implies that all three borders are visible. However an official opinion will be greatly appreciated.

The critical wording is in the new LOS rule for the border where the wall is being cast, and the wording of Steep Hill.

The zone border is not the same as the far side of the zone. The SH prevents sight to the zone border directly across from the adjacent creature.

What rule are you referencing?

I am referencing Hagen’s quote of the rule change on walls ... “and the zone border in LoS when you cast the wall spell" ... and I am suggesting that the zone border on the far side of the zone is not in LOS by the wording on the Steep Hill spell card. The zone border is not part of the zone... even the farthest reaches of the zone.

That is ... it passes through two sides of the zone before reaching the zone border. The side of the zone is the farthest point within the zone, just before the zone stops existing and the zone border is reached. At least that is my interpretation of the terms zone border and side of the zone.

[Arkdeniz]

I am referencing Hagen’s quote of the rule change on walls ... “and the zone border in LoS when you cast the wall spell" ... and I am suggesting that the zone border on the far side of the zone is not in LOS by the wording on the Steep Hill spell card. The zone border is not part of the zone... even the farthest reaches of the zone.

That is ... it passes through two sides of the zone before reaching the zone border. The side of the zone is the farthest point within the zone, just before the zone stops existing and the zone border is reached. At least that is my interpretation of the terms zone border and side of the zone.

I like this idea. More elegantly put than my earlier screed.

[wtcannonjr]

I am referencing Hagen’s quote of the rule change on walls ... “and the zone border in LoS when you cast the wall spell" ... and I am suggesting that the zone border on the far side of the zone is not in LOS by the wording on the Steep Hill spell card. The zone border is not part of the zone... even the farthest reaches of the zone.

That is ... it passes through two sides of the zone before reaching the zone border. The side of the zone is the farthest point within the zone, just before the zone stops existing and the zone border is reached. At least that is my interpretation of the terms zone border and side of the zone.

I like this idea. More elegantly put than my earlier screed.

Me too. The idea that a "zone side" and a "zone border" are distinct concepts makes the effect of Steep Hill as written feel more 'realistic' to me. This changes my earlier thinking where I was equating a zone side with a zone border.

An official ruling would be nice and if "zone side" is different, then the definition should be added to the Codex.

[Zuberi]

I think the key thing people are forgetting here is that zone borders are one dimensional. They're literally the line between two squares. They have no depth. Or as the codex puts it, they are the "Intersection between two zones." They are where the zones touch.

You are correct that they aren't considered to be in either zone, but they're also not occupying space outside of them. They exist as the intersection of the two zones. They're a line, not a box. Once you cross out of one zone, you're in another. There's no space between. You cross zone borders, you don't enter them.

Walls are the only thing that are able to exist on a border. ON it, not in it. There is no "in".

I will agree that the rules don't explicitly say that this is synonymous with the "side" of a zone, but I honestly can't fathom another interpretation. There are no other edges involved to possibly count as the side of a zone. You never pass a line before reaching the zone border because the border is the ONLY line there.

[wtcannonjr]

I think the key thing people are forgetting here is that zone borders are one dimensional. They're literally the line between two squares. They have no depth. Or as the codex puts it, they are the "Intersection between two zones." They are where the zones touch.

You are correct that they aren't considered to be in either zone, but they're also not occupying space outside of them. They exist as the intersection of the two zones. They're a line, not a box. Once you cross out of one zone, you're in another. There's no space between. You cross zone borders, you don't enter them.

Walls are the only thing that are able to exist on a border. ON it, not in it. There is no "in".

I will agree that the rules don't explicitly say that this is synonymous with the "side" of a zone, but I honestly can't fathom another interpretation. There are no other edges involved to possibly count as the side of a zone. You never pass a line before reaching the zone border because the border is the ONLY line there.

The RAW version 4.0 added a "Step 3: Leaving the Zone Effects" to the Move Action that may give us insight to AW intent. This step allows effects to happen BEFORE encountering a Wall during Creature movement. This suggest some timing 'space' happens when leaving a zone and before entering the zone border where the wall exists. This 'space' could be seen as the 'zone side' mentioned in the Steep Hill spell effect. Since we already have effects that trigger when leaving a zone, but before entering a wall we might extend this logic to include LOS. i.e. we trace line of sight into and out of a zone and LOS can now be blocked by effects as the LOS leaves the zone but before it reaches a wall or zone border.

A ruling from AW would be nice here.

[Zuberi]

You might want to reread the movement rules. You don't leave your zone of origin until step 5, the Move step, which happens after encountering walls. They are very clear that until then you are still within your zone of origin. While resolving the wall step, you are still inside your starting zone and if any effects happen during that step that halt your movement you will remain in your starting zone. You never ENTER the zone border at all. You merely cross it, which happens after encountering walls.

You talk about drawing a line out of a zone before it reaches a zone border. Please show me on the game board exactly where this is at? Where are you drawing the line to that is both outside of the zone and has not yet hit a zone border? Let's actually look at the geometry involved here, because I really can't picture what you're talking about.

If you guys want to talk about Rules as Intended, they were intended to be functional. You are supposed to be able to ACTUALLY trace a line on the board from point A to point B and see whether or not it meets the necessary requirements for Line of Sight. Please show me where the point is at on the board that is outside of the zone but hasn't yet encountered a zone border?

In both RAW and RAI the card is using plain english. The sides of the zone means THE SIDES of the ZONE. Look on the game board, and the lines marking its sides, i.e. the zone borders, are what's being referenced. It's not some great enigma. It's normal english. As long as you haven't crossed two of those lines, steep hill isn't blocking your line of sight. Tracing to a line is not the same as crossing it. This is a really simple problem that you guys are trying to make into something else by imagining there are additional invisible boundaries at play that the rules just neglected to ever mention.

I'm sorry. I know this has started to come off somewhat mean. But I'm not sure how else to be nice about this. You guys don't like how it works thematically, I get that and can agree with where you're coming from. But because of this, you're making up a problem where there is none.

[Arkdeniz]

Since we are talking about Steep Hills, I have a second question.

How high is a Steep Hill?

On the one hand we know that flying creatures have their line of sight blocked by it, but not by walls. So it is clearly higher than a wall.

But on the other hand we also know that it does not provide the Indirect trait, so standing on it does not let a ground creature see over an adjacent wall. So it is clearly lower than a wall.

I know that the magic-infused mage wars arena is a place where physics often seems to work differently to the real world, but just how high is the Steep Hill?

[DaveW]

You talk about drawing a line out of a zone before it reaches a zone border. Please show me on the game board exactly where this is at? Where are you drawing the line to that is both outside of the zone and has not yet hit a zone border? Let's actually look at the geometry involved here, because I really can't picture what you're talking about.

The zone border is not within the zone, therefore it must follow that the zone does not extend into the zone border. The edge of the zone abuts the zone border at its farthest reach, but does not extend into it.

Geometrically, I am thinking of the sum of 1/2 raised to "n" where "n" goes from 1 to infinity... in theory this equals one... however at no time does the sum ever come to one. => You can walk half-way to a point, then half that distance again, then half again and again... but you will never reach that point. As you say, it is a two-dimensional line... having no width you never reach it.

In my mind, it makes sense both geometrically and thematically.

[jacksmack]

On the one hand we know that flying creatures have their line of sight blocked by it, but not by walls. So it is clearly higher than a wall.

You still see flying creatures behind steep hill.

A flying creature has line of sight to all creatures and all creatures have line of sight to a flying creature.

Only obscured breaks what i just said.

edit:
And obscured doesnt really break it. It just does so you cannot target it 2 or more zones away, you actually still have line of sight to the object.

[Zuberi]

Is your argument really that zones extend infitesimally without ever touching the border? And you think this is not only sensible, but somehow functional? Cause I don’t see it. I think you need to get out of the theoretical and look at the board. Zones have an edge. It’s not theoretical, it’s marked with lines. Those lines are the zone borders. If you reach one, you’ve reached the other. Postulating that another secret invisible edge exists that has just never been mentioned before is really sounding like a conspiracy theory.

[Arkdeniz]

On the one hand we know that flying creatures have their line of sight blocked by it, but not by walls. So it is clearly higher than a wall.

You still see flying creatures behind steep hill.

A flying creature has line of sight to all creatures and all creatures have line of sight to a flying creature.

Only obscured breaks what i just said.

edit:
And obscured doesnt really break it. It just does so you cannot target it 2 or more zones away, you actually still have line of sight to the object.

Ah.

I was focussed on the rulebook's section on Walls and LoS that I neglected to read the final sentence of the section on Flying.

So I guess the answer to my initial question is that the Hill is lower than a Wall (small hill, then!) This would also explain why a Wall on the other side of a Hill can be targeted by ranged attacks and spells.

I am still not convinced that you should be able to see the ground immediately on the dead side of the hill in order to cast a Wall. That just seems silly to me.

But I guess I have played games with silly rules before.