TheZombieGame.com Forums

Here's a diagram with a few hypothetical things going on to demonstrate:



In this situation, lets say circles are targeting squares and squares are targeting circles.

The colored ovals I've placed on walls indicates which walls are ignored by the circle models, due to their being adjacent to those walls.

In like manner, the colored rectangles I've placed on walls indicate which walls are ignored by the square models, due to their being adjacent to those walls.

The green and orange situations seems to be well defined in the existing rules. Green circle can target green square because she (circle) is adjacent to both of the walls. Green square cannot target green circle, because he (square) is adjacent to neither.

Orange is the opposite situation. Orange circle can't target orange square because she (circle) isn't adjacent to either wall, but orange square can see through either wall to target orange circle because he (square) is adjacent to both.

The blue situation also seems fairly straight forward. There is a clear line of sight between the blue circle and square, they could easily target each other. (They can also see thru the walls into the building, but that's a moot point if they're targeting each other. As an aside though, blue square could target either the red square or the red circle, but blue circle CANNOT target red square because it would have to pass through a second (non-adjacent) wall in order to do so.)

But the REAL question, the dispute which I'm trying to settle...

Can red circle target red square? The walls protrude onto the INSIDE of the squares, so there's a nubbin in the way making it so there's not a clear line of sight from the center of red circle's space to the center of red square's place. I said no, but my co-players said yes. (I reasoned that walls are depicted on one side of the grid line or the other for a reason, otherwise they would just straddle the line half way. The line drawn from the center of the one space to the other clearly passes thru both of the walls, only one of which she (red circle) is eligible to see through.)

A similar situation is for a wall that favors one side of the gridline turning the corner and favoring the other side of the gridline after that, demonstrated through grey on this diagram. I think grey circle can clearly target grey square because it only has to pass through its own wall. Grey square, however, has to pass through the portion of grey circle's square which contains the wall that only grey circle can see through, therefore, grey square does not have line of sight to grey circle.

Can someone give a clear ruling on this one way or the other and a reference or reason for it?

Look at the LNOE rulebook page 13 (PDF: http://www.flyingfrog.net/lastnightonear...k_web.pdf) and your answer is covered. Bottom right image. Notice the gray boxes show "no line of sight" and the white boxes show "line of sight".

There's no difference at all between blue, red and gray situations.

You may be thinking of the "corner walls" rule (p20) that only applies inside the manor house.

(05-19-2015 01:22 PM)mqstout Wrote: [ -> ]Look at the LNOE rulebook page 13 (PDF: http://www.flyingfrog.net/lastnightonear...k_web.pdf) and your answer is covered. Bottom right image. Notice the gray boxes show "no line of sight" and the white boxes show "line of sight".

There's no difference at all between blue, red and gray situations.

You may be thinking of the "corner walls" rule (p20) that only applies inside the manor house.

Ok so just to double check - there is no difference between a wall depending on which side of a grid line it falls on, it's purely cosmetic and the walls may just as well have been drawn on the board straddling the grid lines and it would all behave the same?

Thanks!!

In my ongoing attempts to understand the full intention behind the rules of this amazing game, I have had a moment of clarity. Jason Hill said middle of square to middle of square does NOT matter. It's the unobstructed shortest walking path.

I give you four examples:



Example A: Hero cannot shoot Zed using red path because a door counts as a wall, and you can't see through a wall when you aren't adjacent to it. Hero cannot shoot Zed using orange path because it is not the shortest path.

Example B: Hero cannot shoot Zed with red path because orange path is shorter. Orange path is obstructed and there is no other path of only 2 spaces to reach the Zombie.

Example C: There are two possible paths from Hero to Zed in only two moves. Since one of them is not obstructed, the Hero can shoot it.

Example D: This one is the one which I think may incite controversy. There are two possible paths from Hero to Zed in two moves. Since they are both equal, and one of them is not obstructed, the Hero can shoot it.

Am I right? Comments? :-)

I think the initial question was answered, so I don't have anything further to add there. However, I am not sure I agree with your most recent diagrams, Jeff.

Let's take D as an example. From what you illustrate, yes, there is an unobstructed path. However, you have to think of it in a real world sort of setting. If you were standing in that sort of arrangement, you could not see the zombie. You cannot see diagonally past a wall like that. You also could not shoot the zombie.... you know, unless maybe you have some sort of awesome gun that can actually shoot around corners like that. LOL! If the path is unobstructed, there Hero could walk there, sure, but you can't see of range attack the zombie.

That being said, the other thing that has me slightly confused about your diagrams....

Is this supposed to be one building? If so, wouldn't the clear path you are showing actually be another wall? Or at least there would be another wall elsewhere? The heroes have to get into a building via the door (unless they have a card allowing otherwise).

StayPuft, sorry, it was a hypothetical example which doesn't exist in the stock maps, but here is a real board example of an equivalent situation to what I was attempting to get at with example D in the previous illustration:



If Hero is trying to shoot Zed1, with a Range: 3 weapon, using a straight line (Red) it obviously can't shoot through the wall closest to Zed1 to do so, but there is a distance 3 path using diagonals that does get there (Green.)

Compare this with Hero shooting Zed2, also a distance 3 path using a diagonal (Blue.)

I believe a reasonable ruling should be that when using a ranged weapon it can't ever boomerang or backtrack on itself. "It can zig but it can't zig-zag." It may use only one type of diagonal and may not use any straight directions that oppose the diagonal's direction. If a "northeast" diagonal is used, you cannot also use a "northwest" as part of the same shot, nor travel to the "west" in the same shot.

Seeing it on an example example of the board helps a lot. Technically, based on it being a game and not real life, you could argue that blue and green both work since they are unobstructed paths within the range of the weapon.

Personally, I still lean towards saying neither green nor blue should work.

You could maybe argue a possibility for blue going to Zombie 2. I tend to think you still wouldn't be able to see that zombie, but you could argue maybe at the right angle, you could see it around the corner of your building. However, green going to Zombie 1, I'd think definitely not. After all, your view to that particular zombie would be completely blocked by the wall in front of which you are standing, and even if that wall weren't there, the zombie itself is also right in front of a wall that would block your view of it anyway.

Just my opinion, though. It is a game, so sometimes you can opt to go with what is more fun instead of necessarily always just defaulting to what makes sense in a real world application. I still personally side with saying you can't shoot either zombie in the example, but that doesn't mean you can't do it the way that works for you and your group.

StayPuft,

I know this has been posted elsewhere, but for the sake of those reading along in this thread I just wanted to repeat Jason C. Hill's official answer on Line of Sight from September 18, 2007:

Quote:When checking for Line of Sight, you do not need to worry about center of space to center of space. You can either see a space or not (because it is on a grid, you can count out the squares). In the upcoming expanded FAQ/Errata on the official website, there will be an additional diagram to help out with odd situations.

As for the Truck, it does not officially block sight (if you want to make a house rule you may, but as written, only walls block sight).

- Jason

Jason C. Hill
Flying Frog Productions

(The reference to the Truck is because a poster in that same thread suggested that the Truck in "Escape in the Truck" may block line of sight.)

So it isn't center-to-center, and he says "Because it is on a grid you can count out the squares." So when you say "I tend to think you still wouldn't be able to see that zombie, but you could argue maybe at the right angle, you could see it around the corner of your building" I am inclined to think this doesn't matter in Rules as Written (though using your own house rules, by all means!), but according to Jason it doesn't seem to be a point-to-point Line of Sight, it rather has to do with counting squares of movement somehow. He is a bit vague. And, I don't see that he has ever produced the promised diagram. :-)

Well this is certainly a new one I haven't seen come up in the entire lifetime of the game! I don't see actual rules preventing you from "Wanted spin" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanted_%282008_film%29) your bullets, and I guess if you were to play 100% RAW without a logic filter, they'd be doable until the Frogs post otherwise...

ACTUALLY! Original diagrams in the original rulebooks to which I referred. Bottom right one shows exactly the scenario in your shot above: Hero adjacent to to a building. The gray fog shows you can't shoot behind the building.

The key word missing in the rules for ranged attack written rules is "straight" (same thing you previously mentioned with zig-sag, jeff), but their example images still bar this chicanery.