LOS Question

[Jankomatic]

Two questions here and sorry if my ASL is spilling over:

French are on level 1 of the building.
Units in I5 are spotted just because they are in open ground right?

Is LOS degraded by 1 for this shot because of the Orchards in K5? I thought yes for sure, but after reading the LOS stuff again it specifically says DIRECTLY behind the obstacle and all examples only show directly behind. I would hope that it is degraded, I mean the shot is definitely going through a degrading terrain hex.

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Yes, they are spotted because they are in open ground.

Yes, provided LOS touch the orchard symbiol (and it does seem), the LOS/shot is degraded in your example because the German are in the two-hex shadow of the orchard. Why two hex? Because the French are one hex away from the orchard. Here are the relevant rules sections, the second in particular::

Units in a hex at a level EQUAL TO the total obstacle height of a blocking/degrading- terrain hex can see and fire over it into hexes at a LOWER level than the total obstacle height of said blocking/ degrading terrain hex; but, Level-1, -2 and -3 blocking/degrading terrain obstacles cast a one-hex shadow that blocks/degrades LOS to units located directly behind them.

In addition, the number of hexes in between the firer’s hex and the hex containing the obstacle (not counting each) is added to the length of the cast shadow..

Note that the tree-lined road does not interfere, as it only cast one-hex degrading shadow in this situation so the French are actually firing over it

 

[Jankomatic]

that blocks/degrades LOS to units located directly behind them.

My issue with the example was what I quoted above. It says DIRECTLY behind, so that just means as long as string touches the unit is DIRECTLY behind?

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Not sure I understand your question. For me, directly behind means any hex past the interfering (degrading/blocking) hex that can be reached (center to center) by the LOS string while said sting still cross some of the art in the interfering hex. In your example, J6 is obviously directly behind but so are I5 and I6, because the shadow cast is 2 hexes long. Note that J7 would not, because the string does not touch the orchard silhouette.

 

[Jankomatic]

Directly is a modifying word, why not just say behind. All the examples in the rulebook show what I would consider directly. These all below are DIRECTLY behind to me. I wish they would have let someone newer to the game read the new rulebook to point out "issues" like this.

 

[Jankomatic]

And what you are saying Stephane I completely agree with, that is how I originally interpreted the rule. We then noticed that word directly and second guessed ourselves.

 

[Qwirz]

Stephane,
IS this addition in the 5.0 rules version?

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

No this is coming straight from the actual core rules, page 27 in the modern ruels, 28 in WW2

 

[Jeff Lewis]

Directly behind means just that. Stephane has pointed out all the relevant rules. The LOS is degraded. The target hex is within the two-hex shadow "directly" behind the Orchard. Whether the shadow is one hex or 10, the word 'directly' is just their to emphasize behind the intervening obstacle.

 

[Jankomatic]

Again, reading the rule is very straightforward until you get to the word directly AND all your examples in the rulebook show what I and others reading the rule for the first time would deem the word directly to mean. IMO, the word doesn't need to be there at all.

 

[Jeff Lewis]

Again, reading the rule is very straightforward until you get to the word directly AND all your examples in the rulebook show what I and others reading the rule for the first time would deem the word directly to mean. IMO, the word doesn't need to be there at all.

Well, v4.1 has been out for about 3 or 4 years, and you are the first to find the word choice here to be disconcerting. Further, more than 30 people have read v5.0, many of them ASL people who are playing LnLT for the first time, and no one has raised this concern over adverb usage. Most adverbs are unnecessary, I'll grant you that; but in a rules context, where people often need modifying words to provide emphasis and confirmation, they are sometimes needed. If it pleases you, however, I'm happy to remove it from v5.0.

 

[Jankomatic]

Sorry, you seem to be taking some offense at my question I apologize if so. I have also played ASL for 20+ years and I am also just coming to the LnL system because I have friends that don't want to learn ASL. When I read a rule normally all the words have meaning. If you can't see my point in the wording and the examples there is no other way for me to explain the "issue". If you can explain why directly is needed in this context I will shut up and move along. There is no need to change any rule though, my question was answered (in the way I assumed was correct all along). I was merely explaining why we thought directly might mean something.

 

[Jeff Lewis]

Sorry, you seem to be taking some offense at my question I apologize if so. I have also played ASL for 20+ years and I am also just coming to the LnL system because I have friends that don't want to learn ASL. When I read a rule normally all the words have meaning. If you can't see my point in the wording and the examples there is no other way for me to explain the "issue". If you can explain why directly is needed in this context I will shut up and move along. There is no need to change any rule though, my question was answered (in the way I assumed was correct all along). I was merely explaining why we thought directly might mean something.

No offense taken, and I'm sorry you misread my comment as such; it was not intended to be a rebuke, just the anecdotal evidence on the matter to date. It's clear you understand the rule, so I don't know why you are putting so much effort in to the usage of one word, which I've now twice explained its usage: it's to provide emphasis. I respect your opinion, and have stated that I'm happy to delete the word--and even concur that it is an unnecessary word; but gamers, in my experience, prefer more to less when it comes to description. At LnLP, we actually listen to our customers, and, as a result, scores of revisions have been made to the v5.0 rules. In this case, the rule doesn't change one way or the other if I delete the word. But if one person thinks something needs to be changed, we listen, we act. Period. End of story. Now is the time to speak up, for in another week or so (or less) v5.0 will be completed. It has been a HUGE undertaking, and I'm not planning on revisiting the rules any time soon; I, and I think everyone else, would prefer that my time is spent developing and designing new games. It's our desire that the v5.0 rules, and the additional resources contained within it, put the rules and basic gameplay to bed. (One can hope.)

 

[Jankomatic]

What are the chances of getting to read 5.0 before the full publishing? Maybe another set of new eyes could be helpful.

 

[Norm]

Jankomatic, it is difficult to term this without perhaps sounding rude and that is not what I want, my comment is simply being pragmatic, but doubtless will sound rude. My understanding is that the rules are virtually ready to go, a good number of eyes have seen them to get them this far, but the new text is fairly wordy and at this point in time, someone who can expend as much effort on one word that is neither here-nor-there as per this thread, is perhaps not the person best suited at this particular point in time to help get these particular rules over the final hurdle. The team in place who have worked together are best placed for that and an external influence to that might be counter-productive. I however am just a punter, so cannot speak for the company.

 

[Jankomatic]

I see what you are saying Norm. No rudeness detected. Of course in my mind, I am the exact person to let read the rulebook at this point.
One word is all it takes to change what a rule is really trying to say though. Maybe this is the game of make of the rules what you will, being new I have no real idea. Other games I play do not take this route. I guess I REALLY care that I play by the rules as intended AND as written.

The curious part to me is that as Jeff said, no one has mentioned this since the 4.1 rules were released. So this is how I see it:
1. People played before 4.1 and just already knew the rule.
2. People just assumed directly meant nothing as I originally did and played correctly.
3. People play it wrong and DO count the word directly to mean something as the examples show.

Especially if someone is new to Wargames I would bet they would read that rule and go with Option 3. I know the two people I am learning the game with both felt I was wrong and that directly meant directly. Both of whom are newish to hex and counter games.

I have played many tactical games through the years so see everything via those lenses and I believe I can normally discern the intent of a rule. The rules should be written for someone who has never played this game OR any game like it IMO.