Wall(s) and Steep Hill

[ClockWork]

1 2 3                    1 2 3
4 5 6                    4 5 6
7 8 9                    7 8 9

I remember this game has some Tom-foolery with corners/intersections and LOS. In the 2 examples above, each number represents a zone in the arena, 5 is the zone containing the hill, and the underlines below 4 and 5 represent walls that block LOS.

Can a non-flying object target another non-flying object in zone 4, from 7,8, or 9 in either example?

In the first example( left side, 1 wall); can a non-flying object target another non-flying object in zone 6, from zone 7 or 8?

[DaveW]

1 2 3                    1 2 3
4 5 6                    4 5 6
7 8 9                    7 8 9

I remember this game has some Tom-foolery with corners/intersections and LOS. In the 2 examples above, each number represents a zone in the arena, 5 is the zone containing the hill, and the underlines below 4 and 5 represent walls that block LOS.

Can a non-flying object target another non-flying object in zone 4, from 7,8, or 9 in either example?

The wall blocks 7-4, the hill blocks 9-4 (goes through two sides), but neither blocks 8-4.

In the first example( left side, 1 wall); can a non-flying object target another non-flying object in zone 6, from zone 7 or 8?

The hill blocks 7-6 but not 8-6 (just as 8-4 is not blocked).

Dave

[Puddnhead]

I concur with Dave.  That's how I would rule it as Steep Hill specifically says it only blocks line of sight traveling through sides of its zone.  (We have ruled that if you were to try and see from zone 7 to zone 3 it would also be blocked).

[DaveW]

I concur with Dave.  That's how I would rule it as Steep Hill specifically says it only blocks line of sight traveling through sides of its zone.  (We have ruled that if you were to try and see from zone 7 to zone 3 it would also be blocked).

Maybe the OP isn't aware of the wording controversy.... Since LOS for the hill is blocked if it passes through two sides of the zone in which the hill exists, and since zone 7 to zone 3 would pass through two corners (not through any sides!), read as written, you might argue that the hill does not block LOS in that case (which is "realistically" absurd). Many folks are house-ruling it (and the rule is popping up in tournament settings) that the hill blocks LOS on opposite corners also.

[ClockWork]

Yucky, its still ruled that way. My group does steep hill with house rules. Most of our players find it weird that there is a 1 pixel opening in every corner that none of the adjacent boundaries actually touch. Some would say crossing through an intersection of 4 lines is to cross through the 4 lines.

[DaveW]

Yucky, its still ruled that way. My group does steep hill with house rules. Most of our players find it weird that there is a 1 pixel opening in every corner that none of the adjacent boundaries actually touch. Some would say crossing through an intersection of 4 lines is to cross through the 4 lines.

Unless you play a mathematician I guess

[ClockWork]

I thought the mathematician would say they would touch, and the philosopher would ponder the space between.

[Zuberi]

Yucky, its still ruled that way. My group does steep hill with house rules. Most of our players find it weird that there is a 1 pixel opening in every corner that none of the adjacent boundaries actually touch. Some would say crossing through an intersection of 4 lines is to cross through the 4 lines.

See, though, this ruling would mean that a diagonal zone could not see into the zone containing the steep hill itself. Because crossing the corner would be crossing two sides of the steep hill. But if we count it as not crossing any sides, we end up with the previous absurdity mentioned. But if we count it as crossing some of the sides, then which side is it crossing? That question could impact the way we treat walls if we want to remain consistent. Perhaps corners should themselves be counted as a "side" of the zone independent of the other sides? I think that last is my favorite solution.