Version 5 rules - LOS examples 5 and 7

[Jeff Berrier]

Could someone please explain the difference between the illustrated LOS examples 5 and 7 on page 55 of the V5.0 core rules? They seem the same, but example 5 states that LOS is degraded, but not degraded in example 7. In example 5 both units are on level 0 with a level 0 obstacle (brush). I example 7 both units are on upper level of buildings (level 1) and the rubble between them rises to level 1. So, in both cases the units and obstacle are all at an equal level, but in one of them LOS is degraded and in the other it is not. This is confusing, and the explanations seem to state the exact same thing.

 

[Thommygunner]

Think of it this way. They are on a upper levels. The rubble comes up to their feet. They can shoot at each other, over the rubble, without the rubble degrading their shots.

Now if there was a unit on the ground floors of the same hexes, then fire from upper level G2 to Lower level J3 would be degraded by the rubble, as would shots from upper level J3 to lower level G2, and visa-versa, all around.

I think I got that right.

 

[Jeff Berrier]

Thanks for the reply. That’s how I was conceptualizing it for example 7 with the buildings and rubble, and that makes sense to me. But could the same logic not apply to LOS example 5? I assume that the brush being a level 0 (per terrain height) means that it’s very short—perhaps knee high? If that’s the case, why would that degrade LOS? I guess I could possibly see that. What really confuses me is the wording directly above the illustrations. Page 55, above LOS example 5:

“Blocking/degrading terrain obstacle that rise to the same hex level (and/or are as per terrain height on TEC) as both the attacker’s and target’s hex blocks/degrades LOS.”

above LOS example 7:

“LOS traced over blocking/degrading terrain obstacles that rise to an equal to or lower total hex level than both attacker’s and the target’s hex level is not blocked/degraded.”

These two situations sound almost exactly the same, but one degrades/blocks, the other doesn’t. Maybe there’s just something I’m missing, though.

Your example seems to refer to the shadow effect of an obstacle on a lower elevation/height unit behind it. That part makes sense.

 

[Jeff Berrier]

I’m wondering if perhaps the key to this is that the obstacle height of brush, per TEC is “Per Terrain Height” and not a specific level. But then again, both paragraphs I referenced mention “rise to the same hex level” or “to an equal to or lower level.” So, it’s the wording that doesn’t make much sense.

 

[Thommygunner]

I think playability has overruled realism in the rules. To keep it simple, a hex is either clear, degrading or an obstacle. A hex may be a different terrain type to different units, depending on the line of sight(LOS). The thing to keep in mind though, that if LOS dictates that a hex is degrading or an obstacle, treat the entire hex that way. For degrading terrain-visualize a camo net completely covering the hex, for obstacles-visualize a hex shaped building that fills the hex in all three dimensions.

Please consider the below as a 2D side view. A through D are units. The # is a hex with degrading/blocking terrain. Each unit is in a separate hex or hex locations. Units A and B are in a building with an upper level in A1. The # is degrading/blocking terrain in A2 and is only at level 0. A3 contains units C and D. The 0 represents clear, no degrading or blocking terrain at that level(the word processing vaguaries caused me to put the 0 in as a physical place holder to keep the columns aligned):


A 0 C - Level 1
B # D - Level 0
A A A
1 2 3


example 5: B firing at D, or D firing at B. B and D are at the same level of the degrading/blocking terrain, so firing through degrading/blocking terrain rules apply.

example 7: A firing at C, or C firing at A . They are above #, the level 0 terrain, so fire is not degraded/blocked.

Again, B firing at C(and visa versa), or A firing at D(visa versa) would also get the degraded/blocked treatment as appropriate.

Does this help?

 

[Jeff Berrier]

That makes sense. Even if it sounds confusing, I can just remember this particular example and that this would also apply in a similar situation (to example 5) with obstacles that have a “Per terrain height” level, such as rice paddies in Heroes of the Nam. I appreciate the input and your example.

 

[Stéphane Tanguay]

Yes, the wording could be better (and english not being my first langage, I won't suggest any rewording) but the examples are correct. The top of the brushes is actually higher then the attacker/defender level, while the top of the rubbles is exactly at the same levek than the attacker/defender.

 

[Ben2013]

I had a tough time figuring out the difference between these two examples as well. I eventually figured out that the difference must be the fact that brush is reflected as an obstacle that is "per terrain height" (i.e. sitting on the terrain's height but still not reaching to the next level) compared to an obstacle rising to same level as the units (which I take to mean to the level of the floor they are standing on). So thanks for asking this question Jeff. It helped to confirm my own interpretation arrived at after quite a bit of mental visualization.

 

[fulgar]

sorry for my english.
there is another way to visualize the situation. Example 5 , the two squads have their feet on the ground floor (level 0) and their eyes at the level 1.
Their eyes are at the same level than the top of the brush (they can't see over the brush). Example 7 the two squads have their feet at the level 1 of the buildings and their eyes approximately at a level 2. Then the level of their eyes are above the top of the rubble which is at a level1. They can see over the rubble. Does it help ?