Rulebook 2011 - Terrain and Lines of Fire

[WizKidsNECA]

http://wizkidsgames.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Transition-Square-152x300.pngWe are stepping our way through a variety of new mechanics that the 2011 HeroClix Rulebook introduces and today’s topic is terrain. Of all the changes in this new rulebook, I think this is one of the smallest changes that has the most dramatic impact.

HeroClix is one of the “flattest” games you can play. There’s grounded. There’s elevated. And…. That’s it. Maybe, just maybe, you are playing “old school” and you are using soaring rules and you get a third level.

Is it really believable that in all of the maps that we’ve had in HeroClix that all of the buildings and mountains and such have all always been the same altitude? The game needed… more.

Changing Elevations[...]

[Read More on WizKidsGames.com (http://wizkidsgames.com/blog/2011/04/04/rulebook-2011-terrain-and-lines-of-fire/)]

[A_Higher_Level]

I look forward to the upcoming rulebook and the new changes.

Good times! :)


EDIT: Though I am curious if an elevated character on level 3 can draw line of fire to a grounded person on level 1 that is 2 squares away, and the single square between them is level 2.

[Gentlegamer]

Sweet! Now Captain America can shoot shield bullets from the top of several layers of elevation to the bottom!

[switch21]

EDIT: Though I am curious if an elevated character on level 3 can draw line of fire to a grounded person on level 1 that is 2 squares away, and the single square between them is level 2.

That question gets answered.. it's a no.
See the pic/explanation with Thor, Loki, and Enchantress.

[csi]

LOL, one of the smallest changes is adding more levels to terrain? So much for simplifying things.

[switch21]

I think that the elevation rules are cool and represent something that will add to the strategy of the game, but they are by no means simplified, that's for sure! Maybe would've been cool to try as a special map first, before blowing up the whole game mechanic...

[saturnflight]

Fantastic new rules update! Having arrows on the elevation change not only allows for indication of elevation (which should be very cool), but gives clear indication of where the steps are on those less-than-clear visuals. I would love to see this used on all future maps. And now that we have multiple elevations, I bet folks are hating that the Bridge map wasn't held a few more sets...

The knockback rule change is finally simple enough to do that there's no frustrating ambiguities. A lot of words equal what should be a relatively obvious path. I doubt anyone will ever have to go step-by-step through those complexities.

I'm very excited about the dynamic new map options this should give us!

[DeadpoolDX]

I'm excited about the new elevation rules. It should make for some interesting new maps as well as interesting games and maybe some special powers taking advantage of it.

[mif987]

I still don´t understand why Loki wouldn´t be able to see Enchantress. Even if the Level 3 elevation between them would just be 1 square he wouldn´t be able to see her?

And could someone explain this to me? ¨That line of fire will be blocked by any terrain that is higher than level 2 except for the square the target occupies. ¨

[Geof-Force]

I hope there's an update so that flight actually feels like flying other than moving around and carrying. Soaring, while universally derided, was actually the closest thing to it (though why you can't stop on a square of outdoor blocking terrain while soaring high above the sky is beyond me.)

[NeoShazam]

I still don´t understand why Loki wouldn´t be able to see Enchantress. Even if the Level 3 elevation between them would just be 1 square he wouldn´t be able to see her?

And could someone explain this to me? ¨That line of fire will be blocked by any terrain that is higher than level 2 except for the square the target occupies. ¨

The bottom half is just like elevated now. If you have Captain America on the middle of the roof, somebody that is grounded can't target him. But if he's on the edge of that roof than you can target.

The new rules are basically the same thing. Loki is on the edge of 3, if there was no level 2 in between, he could target Enchantress and vice versa.

[Byzantine]

Love the new line of fire, elevation, and knockback rules. Friggin sweet. Granted, i'm a bit terrified at learning new rules for a game that I feel I only recently got some mastery over (started playing with the release of BatB. Don't worry, I only bought HoT stuff during that time), but hey, that's part of the fun, right?

[UltraDRGN]

Woah... that was not... a bit sized chunk of rules. I'll have to read through that again later and see if it all makes sense.

[RSIxidor]

There's not much really changed here.

If you are targeting a character at the next lower or next higher elevation, it works just like grounded/elevated does now.

What I saw that was really all that different: the addition of more than two elevations, the simplified rules for the 'transitional' squares, and the simplified knockback rules.

[Steelmage2000]

What I love is that now indoor blocking terrain can block LOF from an elevated person to a giant or colossal figure (and visa versa). None of this "well you cannot fly, leap/climb or have a giant figure walk over indoot blocking but still it cannot block LOF from an elevated person" nonsense. The game is slowly shaping up and the fixes are fixes that I wanted in the game.

[Neff]

I very much appreciate that they eliminated the difference between stairs and ladders. It was completely unnecessary and, frankly, stupid.

The change to knockback is good too. I never liked the idea of potentially being able to choose which direction the target goes.

[DaeRave]

Nice.
As a mapmaker, I've wanted to do multiple levels of elevation in the past.
I nixed it as I thought even tho it made perfect sense to me, there would be a million questions and it would be better off to just avoid those altogether.

I'm going to capitalize on this ASAP.

[fillonius]

So, the new rules for the edge of stairs/ladders include:

"•Two characters occupying these two squares may make close combat attacks against one another."

OK, I like that we're getting rid of the difference between stairs and ladders - I always found that annoying. My question is, are the two characters next to each other along an elevation border actually adjacent? Since close combat attacks normally require adjacency, this would make sense. But if they are adjacent, why not just say that instead of "may make close combat attacks?" And if they aren't adjacent (for purposes of Defend, Enhancement, etc.), are we just adding even more exceptions to the brand new rules?

[Binnister]

Re: Multiple Elevation Levels

Someone mention Cap already, but Cosmic Spiderman just got *that* much more broken.

...but, all in all, I'm very excited about the rule changes.

[candusima]

I really like these changes!

Now, here's my question: Does this mean that Spider-Hulk's Roof Rip power is going to be used to entrench/isolate characters by grounding the intervening levels of terrain? What about Dum Dum Dugan's Swordfall power?

Definitely7 waiting to see how these are resolved.

[fox007]

hm itll be interestin to see how multiple elevations would come into play

[nbperp]

So, the new rules for the edge of stairs/ladders include:

"•Two characters occupying these two squares may make close combat attacks against one another."

OK, I like that we're getting rid of the difference between stairs and ladders - I always found that annoying. My question is, are the two characters next to each other along an elevation border actually adjacent? Since close combat attacks normally require adjacency, this would make sense. But if they are adjacent, why not just say that instead of "may make close combat attacks?" And if they aren't adjacent (for purposes of Defend, Enhancement, etc.), are we just adding even more exceptions to the brand new rules?

They are not adjacent. Period. the global rule is "2 characters on different elevations are not adjacent." The exception to this rule is allowing characters to close combat against each other at the transition points.

But no enhancement. No defend. No Batman Enemy. No SHIELD. No break away. Nothing. Close combat attacks are allowed (which means you can use CCE, Blades, etc.).

[Behemoth]

They are not adjacent. Period. the global rule is "2 characters on different elevations are not adjacent." The exception to this rule is allowing characters to close combat against each other at the transition points.

But no enhancement. No defend. No Batman Enemy. No SHIELD. No break away. Nothing. Close combat attacks are allowed (which means you can use CCE, Blades, etc.).

Does this mean the article is misquoting the new rules? Normally a close combat attack does not allow a character to use CCE.

[Gentlegamer]

Does this mean the article is misquoting the new rules? Normally a close combat attack does not allow a character to use CCE.
What happens before you make close combat attack? You're given an action of some type. It can be a vanilla Close Combat Action or a Power Action that leads to a close combat attack. CCE is a power action that leads to a close combat attack, +2 damage value for the attack.

[dairoka]

With a basic understanding of geometry, Loki should be able to see Enchantress if she backs away from him one square. If the rules are such that anyone on Level 1 cannot be targeted by anyone above Level 2, then I'll just have to make sure I avoid such maps whenever possible. It might be fun for a minute or two, but I don't think I'm looking forward to it in the long run.

[Uberman]

With a basic understanding of geometry, Loki should be able to see Enchantress if she backs away from him one square. If the rules are such that anyone on Level 1 cannot be targeted by anyone above Level 2, then I'll just have to make sure I avoid such maps whenever possible. It might be fun for a minute or two, but I don't think I'm looking forward to it in the long run.

This is one case where I fully endorse without question rules-logic over 'real' logic. Multi-level shooting would be too much of a bother to word in any way that'd be locked-down properly. If it took this long to finally find wording for knockback [the simplest concept in the game, far as I'm concerned, as long as you just use your head and don't be a rules dink] than something like what you're asking for would be a nightmare.

[Holy Knight]

With a basic understanding of geometry, Loki should be able to see Enchantress if she backs away from him one square.
That's kind of what I was thinking--wouldn't it make sense for vertical LOF to operate like horizontal LOF, just along a different axis? Presumably game design must have thought that would add extra complication, but the way it's described here is rather counter-intuitive. I can forsee it causing a lot of confusion when lines that based on what they represent should be clear, are ruled as blocked.

[JoeGualtieri]

Awesome! Now errata the Bridge so that it makes sense!

[cHaO5]

Not really looking forward to the new elevation levels; if you can't make attacks from more than 1 elevation level difference, what is the point of even having them, other than comic accuracy? It also seems to me that the opportunity to run the clock down on an opponent just got new levels of "annoying" piled on.

As for the new knockback rules, I love the outcome, but was that seriously the best way they could think to word it? Why not: "The knockback path follows the horizontal, vertical, or perfect diagonal path that most closely matches the line of fire drawn to the target. Knockback must always be away from the attacker."

In hindsight, my way sounds cleaner to me, but I'm guessing it's probably just as confusing for others. :\

[broodwarjc]

Think about how cool the heroclix online 3d maps are going to look with multiple elevations!

[mactek0]

I curious about one thing now: whats happens if you know back someone from level 3 to level 1?

[A_Higher_Level]

That question gets answered.. it's a no.
See the pic/explanation with Thor, Loki, and Enchantress.

With a basic understanding of geometry, Loki should be able to see Enchantress if she backs away from him one square. If the rules are such that anyone on Level 1 cannot be targeted by anyone above Level 2, then I'll just have to make sure I avoid such maps whenever possible. It might be fun for a minute or two, but I don't think I'm looking forward to it in the long run.

I was thinking more along the lines of the ruling where Line of Sight cannot cross another square of elevated terrain. If Enchantress and Loki were only 3 squares apart with the center square being a level 2, then level 2 is not considered elevated to level 3, and the next square being level one is not considered elevated to level 2. Mind you, I'm only making a statement here to show where my initial confusion was, and I'm grateful for the clarification. If LOS crosses any square that is of a different elevation than the grounded character it appears to make the LOS blocked.

Realistic?

Certainly not!

Simple and playable?

Most definitely!

So far I can teach the new rules to a younger player and watch them grasp the concept a whole lot faster than with the previous rules.

[tchipley]

Not really looking forward to the new elevation levels; if you can't make attacks from more than 1 elevation level difference, what is the point of even having them, other than comic accuracy? It also seems to me that the opportunity to run the clock down on an opponent just got new levels of "annoying" piled on.

As for the new knockback rules, I love the outcome, but was that seriously the best way they could think to word it? Why not: "The knockback path follows the horizontal, vertical, or perfect diagonal path that most closely matches the line of fire drawn to the target. Knockback must always be away from the attacker."

In hindsight, my way sounds cleaner to me, but I'm guessing it's probably just as confusing for others. :\

I like it because it gives us another dimension to play on.

Maps are where it's at people!

And maybe the ground pounders will get some love.

[nbperp]

Not really looking forward to the new elevation levels; if you can't make attacks from more than 1 elevation level difference, what is the point of even having them, other than comic accuracy? It also seems to me that the opportunity to run the clock down on an opponent just got new levels of "annoying" piled on.

As for the new knockback rules, I love the outcome, but was that seriously the best way they could think to word it? Why not: "The knockback path follows the horizontal, vertical, or perfect diagonal path that most closely matches the line of fire drawn to the target. Knockback must always be away from the attacker."

In hindsight, my way sounds cleaner to me, but I'm guessing it's probably just as confusing for others. :\

I will agree that knock back is one of those sentences that, no matter how many different versions we looked at kept coming back to.... not so pretty. This is the one we ended on. There will come a day when I'll see someone else rephrase it and I'll say "that's so much better". But we ain't there yet.

I curious about one thing now: whats happens if you know back someone from level 3 to level 1?

Same thing that happens from level 3 to level 2. Character is dealt 2 damage. No penalty for falling a larger amount.

[ibeatdrew]

Nice.
As a mapmaker, I've wanted to do multiple levels of elevation in the past.
I nixed it as I thought even tho it made perfect sense to me, there would be a million questions and it would be better off to just avoid those altogether.

I'm going to capitalize on this ASAP.

Good luck.

[Hatut Zeraze]

Alright! These are some good changes. To this day there are some rules that just slip through my mental grasp. These ones make sense and are simple to utilize. I already have these down. Quick! Somebody quiz me!

[insight]

I approve of the simplified knockback rule.
I also approve of the use of numbered elevated levels.

I am not a big fan of :
"The line of fire between Enchantress and Loki travels between levels 2 and 4. That line of fire will be blocked by any terrain that is higher than level 2 except for the square the target occupies. Level 3 is higher than level 2, so it blocks the line of fire."

...but i can appreciate the simplicity, and it is better then not having multiple levels.

When I was 8 or 9 I started playing Classic Battletech, which used multiple elevation levels, which brought up questions about intervening terrain.
We had no trouble, at that age, figuring out if a shot was possible or not, which tells me that it can't be that complicated to include dead zones in the LOF created by intervening terrain.

If dead zones were to be included in this game, here is a way to do it.

The line of fire between Enchantress and Loki travels between levels 2 and 4. That line of fire will be blocked by any intervening elevated terrain along the LOF that is:

1) Higher then the level of both the attacker and the target.

2) Adjacent to, and higher then, the level of the attacker.

3) Adjacent to, and higher then, the level of the target.

This creates a ridge, or dead zone along the cliff face that is safe from snipers. This allows for exciting tactical situations- marines rushing to the sea-wall on D-Day to regroup while protecting themselves from enemy fire. Higher ground becomes more important, as do the ways to attack that higher ground from covered positions.

[Oldguynewbie]

OK, you guys say how much you like additional lvls of elevation, but, imo, this just took my fun little game with super-heroes and made it a wargame. There wasn't any real need to add elevations. For that matter, I've yet to see any of these new rules that I think were "needed". FCCF and NAAT were needed; these aren't. They are unneccesary complications of a formerly simple game. Years ago, when I worked in the WK booth at WWT, part of my spiel for both HC and Pirates was that they were easy to learn and inexpensive to get into. I would say to adults, "You can play this with your kids for years; I can teach a 10yr old how to play in 10 min." And I would. That's simply not possible any longer. And as we lug around massive Players' Guides, we continue to add layer of rules that will ultimately need further clarification. It's gotten old.

BTW, where is the loud group complaining that 2 lvls were inadequate? I really don't buy the arguments of "realism" over abstraction in a game about super-heroes.

And the cynic in me keeps thinking, someone at NECA told the WK guys to go make up some rules changes so that there's a new 2011 rule book to sell. Do we really think starters sold because of the book, or because they had cool figs and sculpts not available anywhere else? It was both. If you want to sell more starters, try not reusing sculpts instead of adding unneeded layers of complexity.

Honestly, sitting here, right now, today, I'm wondering why I'm still buying. This isn't the game I was having fun with. Irrational compulsion is a terrible thing.

[nbperp]

OK, you guys say how much you like additional lvls of elevation, but, imo, this just took my fun little game with super-heroes and made it a wargame. There wasn't any real need to add elevations. For that matter, I've yet to see any of these new rules that I think were "needed". FCCF and NAAT were needed; these aren't. They are unneccesary complications of a formerly simple game. Years ago, when I worked in the WK booth at WWT, part of my spiel for both HC and Pirates was that they were easy to learn and inexpensive to get into. I would say to adults, "You can play this with your kids for years; I can teach a 10yr old how to play in 10 min." And I would. That's simply not possible any longer.

I simply disagree. I can still teach someone enough of HeroClix to get them playing in 10 minutes. Do they know all of the rules? Of course not. But whichever WWT yo were demoing at, you couldn't do it then either. Not with Soaring and team abilities, and so on. Just no way.

But getting people to play the basics? Easy.

And as we lug around massive Players' Guides, we continue to add layer of rules that will ultimately need further clarification. It's gotten old.

I soooo don't want to get into this. If the PG is too much for you, please don't print Part II. It's not for you. It is a deliberate attempt to equip people with all of the existing mechanics in the game. If you don't want that, you can print the guide at 1/3 of the size.

BTW, where is the loud group complaining that 2 lvls were inadequate? I really don't buy the arguments of "realism" over abstraction in a game about super-heroes.

And the cynic in me keeps thinking, someone at NECA told the WK guys to go make up some rules changes so that there's a new 2011 rule book to sell. Do we really think starters sold because of the book, or because they had cool figs and sculpts not available anywhere else? It was both. If you want to sell more starters, try not reusing sculpts instead of adding unneeded layers of complexity.

Very clever. It is indeed the way that WK makes money.

Except that the 2011 rulebook is going to be a free PDF download. Yes, it will be included in product, but that product won't hit the shelves until after GenCon, long after these rules go into effect.

I'll say it again - the rulebook and the PAC are free. They will be linked at the end of the last preview and they (should) be updated on the downloads page shortly after that.

[Equis]

My bet:
1-A map with... around 50 elevation levels.
2-NerdRage!!!!!!!!
3-Every other map released from there: with elevation levels 1 and 2.

Nuff'Said!

[Gentlegamer]

Except that the 2011 rulebook is going to be a free PDF download. Yes, it will be included in product, but that product won't hit the shelves until after GenCon, long after these rules go into effect.The Worlds Championship should not be played under rules that will only have been promulgated for a couple months.

If the retail product containing the new rulebook won't come out until after GenCon, the 2010 rules with its year of clarifications, errata, and familiarity should be used for that 'high level' competition.

[insight]

Updated post 37 with simplified LOF rules for elevated, ala Classic Battletech. Very streamlined, concise, and clear.

[SLVRSR4]

I like it and don't think it's complicated at all. I can see myself as the one to explain it to several people at my venues, but it a nice layer of complexity while at the same time it is going to remain fairly simple.

I like that knockback is going back to the way I USED to play it.

[szude]

The Worlds Championship should not be played under rules that will only have been promulgated for a couple months.

If the retail product containing the new rulebook won't come out until after GenCon, the 2010 rules with its year of clarifications, errata, and familiarity should be used for that 'high level' competition.

The problem with that is it brings in multiple confusions of its own. Then you have some players learning the new "correct" way to play in May '11. They finally get the hang of it around Jul '11, then go to play in Gencon Aug '11. And then what happens? They have to go, "crap, what are the 'old' rules again? I have to go back and re-learn those in order to be on top of my game"

Personally, I say if it's been out for more than a month, everyone everywhere should be going by it. It might have growing pains, but it's better than learning, de-learning and re-learning.

[Gentlegamer]

The problem with that is it brings in multiple confusions of its own. Then you have some players learning the new "correct" way to play in May '11. They finally get the hang of it around Jul '11, then go to play in Gencon Aug '11. And then what happens? They have to go, "crap, what are the 'old' rules again? I have to go back and re-learn those in order to be on top of my game"

Personally, I say if it's been out for more than a month, everyone everywhere should be going by it. It might have growing pains, but it's better than learning, de-learning and re-learning.'High level' players 'training' for GenCon would keep working under the 2010 rules until the final is decided.

In fact, having GenCon each year represent the final of the previous year's "season" and rules makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. Particularly with how "competitive tournament" focused most players seem to be.

[Space Jawa]

Knock back is one of those things that happens in battle that is just so cool. To me, it’s one of the most “comic-book” like activities that happens in the game that isn’t a special power of some kind.

This leaves me even more disappointed that the new knockback rules neither include nor hint at the addition of knockbacked figures having the potential destroy terrain when they get thrown into something. :(

It's just not as "comic-book" like when Hulk smashes someone into a wall and the wall remains standing.

Knockback should cause the map terrain to take damage, dang it!

[incredible]

Nice clarification on knock-back.
Multiple elevations,,, meh.
But nice sneak peek at the new map! ;)

[rowdyoctopus]

I like the multiple elevations, and while it seems ridiculous that a figure on level 3 won't be able to target a figure on level 1 that is 10 spaces away if there is one square of level 2 next to level 3, it keeps the ge simple and easy to explain.

The knockback thing is perfect and easy to explain if you think of the defending figure as the center of two axis and the attacker being in a quadrant.

Glad to see that it looks like indoor/outdoor maps are fixed.

[Ignatz_Mouse]

I like! I like!

I have a map I started that I think I'm going to work in a new level of elevation into.

[Oldguynewbie]

I simply disagree. I can still teach someone enough of HeroClix to get them playing in 10 minutes. Do they know all of the rules? Of course not. But whichever WWT yo were demoing at, you couldn't do it then either. Not with Soaring and team abilities, and so on. Just no way.

But getting people to play the basics? Easy.

OK but that's kinda my point - after the basics you had Soaring and team abilities and not much else (BTW - Soaring out - that was a good call - it made teh game SIMPLER and no one really missed it).



I soooo don't want to get into this. If the PG is too much for you, please don't print Part II. It's not for you. It is a deliberate attempt to equip people with all of the existing mechanics in the game. If you don't want that, you can print the guide at 1/3 of the size.

You're again making the point for me - it's not that it's "too much" for me, it's too much for the game; that such a document is needed (and I agree that it is needed) is illustrating that the game is being overwhelmed by unneeded complexity. That a document to codify "all of the existing mechanics in the game" is needed (and that you'll be adding to it with these and the new theme team rules) illustrates the point I'm making.


Very clever. It is indeed the way that WK makes money.

Except that the 2011 rulebook is going to be a free PDF download. Yes, it will be included in product, but that product won't hit the shelves until after GenCon, long after these rules go into effect.

I'll say it again - the rulebook and the PAC are free. They will be linked at the end of the last preview and they (should) be updated on the downloads page shortly after that.

Good to know. But I guess, if you're not selling them, I see even less reason for the change.

And in case it got lost in my rant and your rebuttal - I'm not challenging the quality of the work or the effort made. This isn't an attack on nbperp. It's a statement of frustration that things that, imo, aren't broken keep getting tinkered with on an annual basis, to little benefit.

[Gentlegamer]

You're again making the point for me - it's not that it's "too much" for me, it's too much for the game; that such a document is needed (and I agree that it is needed) is illustrating that the game is being overwhelmed by unneeded complexity. That a document to codify "all of the existing mechanics in the game" is needed (and that you'll be adding to it with these and the new theme team rules) illustrates the point I'm making.Oldguy is right.

[nbperp]

You're again making the point for me - it's not that it's "too much" for me, it's too much for the game; that such a document is needed (and I agree that it is needed) is illustrating that the game is being overwhelmed by unneeded complexity. That a document to codify "all of the existing mechanics in the game" is needed (and that you'll be adding to it with these and the new theme team rules) illustrates the point I'm making.

Are you asking if it would be better to have a game that had a more complete rulebook, less exceptions, less errors, etc. - I sure don't disagree with that. But you'd need a time machine to be able to change it. You'd need perfect people to be responsible and capable of envisioning every effect in the game today and totally in the future to ensure that everything is built to that one, single, consistent, set of rules.

I'd argue that horse left the barn somewhere around.... Hypertime.

Mind you, I don't disagree, I just don't see a way around it today. And having that should mean that we don't strive for a more streamlined rulebook today.


Good to know. But I guess, if you're not selling them, I see even less reason for the change.

Except that it makes the game more accessible to new players. That it does make a number of things more consistent and stream lined. And it will be sold with a product coming out.

And in case it got lost in my rant and your rebuttal - I'm not challenging the quality of the work or the effort made. This isn't an attack on nbperp. It's a statement of frustration that things that, imo, aren't broken keep getting tinkered with on an annual basis, to little benefit.

I agree with this, especially the end. I would love for this rulebook to remain unchanged for 2012.

[WakandaMan]

Really nice rule changes. These are the kind of simplifications I like to see.

And adding multiple levels of elevation is really neat too. Could make for some fun maps.

[tyroclix]

Pros:
I like the options the maps will be able to provide.

I like the fact you won't be able to park a character on elevated near a ladder and shut down any way of climbing up onto elevated.

Cons:
Makes poorly designed figures that ignore terrain features that much MORE powerful. Yuck!

It is still unclear whether a figure occupying outdoor terrain can target a character occupying indoor terrain if there is no walls or blocking terrain between them. <--- This is a pressing need to know for me for a variety of reasons. 1) because I make maps myself and 2) because my players and I have been playing it wrong since Armor Wars, apparently. I want to teach them the right way but am not sure what that is / will be.

So excited for the PAC I can't wait for tomorrow!

[WakandaMan]

I forsee that mountian map shown in the examples to be really nasty combined the flying Hypersonic characters though. Kinda wish that characters on the edge of an elevation could draw LOF to ALL characters on lower elevations (and vice versa) instead of making it just the elevation below.

Force Blast will also be fun on that map. :)

[Shadowlost]

Wrong time to try and get back into hc. Wow these rules make no sense to me. Kinda embarrassed to say that.

[nbperp]

Pros:
I like the options the maps will be able to provide.

I like the fact you won't be able to park a character on elevated near a ladder and shut down any way of climbing up onto elevated.

Cons:
Makes poorly designed figures that ignore terrain features that much MORE powerful. Yuck!

It is still unclear whether a figure occupying outdoor terrain can target a character occupying indoor terrain if there is no walls or blocking terrain between them. <--- This is a pressing need to know for me for a variety of reasons. 1) because I make maps myself and 2) because my players and I have been playing it wrong since Armor Wars, apparently. I want to teach them the right way but am not sure what that is / will be.

So excited for the PAC I can't wait for tomorrow!

Outdoor to indoor (and vice versa) lines of fire are fine/normal. Understand that indoor walls/blocking terrain are at "every level", so you can't shoot "over" indoor terrain (unless there's an open hall running along your line of fire).

Hope that makes sense...
Norm

[Thunderclese]

I'd just like to point out that characters have been able to close combat attack when standing on both squares of stairs/ladders for a while now.

And I'm interested to see how the multiple elevations play out, it's something I've thought could work for a while.

[Ignatz_Mouse]

I'd just like to point out that characters have been able to close combat attack when standing on both squares of stairs/ladders for a while now.

Stairs yes, ladders no.

[rowdyoctopus]

Wrong time to try and get back into hc. Wow these rules make no sense to me. Kinda embarrassed to say that.

I would think that if you had been out of the game for awhile, getting back into it now would require learning lots of new things whether these rule changes were here or not.

[jtobey]

I fully agree with the LOF rules between multiple levels of terrain. None of you are considering one simple thing. You are all picturing the elevation difference to be the same between all levels (i.e. level 2 is 10 feet higher than level 1; level 3 is 10 feet higher than level 2.) If that were the case then why shouldn't a character on the edge of level 3 be able to see a character that is 10 squares away on level 1?

Simple.

What if level 2 was 1000 feet higher than level level 1; and level 3 was only 10 feet higher than level 2? Your simple geometry would no longer apply. Under the new rules the geometry always correctly applies.

That same simple minded thinking is what doomed Khan vs Kirk. :grin: Whoops.. wrong genre. My bad. :ermm:

[darius_dax1]

LOL, one of the smallest changes is adding more levels to terrain? So much for simplifying things.

I agree with this. This is not a rule that simplifies things. Wasn't really broken and not in need of fixing.

I think that the elevation rules are cool and represent something that will add to the strategy of the game, but they are by no means simplified, that's for sure! Maybe would've been cool to try as a special map first, before blowing up the whole game mechanic...

I would have liked to see this as a special map rule first as well. I think it is neat but I don't think it was needed.

They are not adjacent. Period. the global rule is "2 characters on different elevations are not adjacent." The exception to this rule is allowing characters to close combat against each other at the transition points.

But no enhancement. No defend. No Batman Enemy. No SHIELD. No break away. Nothing. Close combat attacks are allowed (which means you can use CCE, Blades, etc.).

So ranged combat is also allowed? I am pretty sure it is.

The Worlds Championship should not be played under rules that will only have been promulgated for a couple months.

If the retail product containing the new rulebook won't come out until after GenCon, the 2010 rules with its year of clarifications, errata, and familiarity should be used for that 'high level' competition.

Why do you care? Aren't you one of those disorganized play people? ;)

[Gentlegamer]

Why do you care? Aren't you one of those disorganized play people? ;)That's Unorganized Play. :cool:

You know, like the DHC, where the true HeroClix Champion is crowned. ;)

[ibeatdrew]

Training for Gen-Con?

[ibeatdrew]

The Worlds Championship should not be played under rules that will only have been promulgated for a couple months.

If the retail product containing the new rulebook won't come out until after GenCon, the 2010 rules with its year of clarifications, errata, and familiarity should be used for that 'high level' competition.

Not trying to start anything and with all due respect, but if the rules come out soon that will be plenty of time before Gen-Con to prepare. That would be like saying we can't use any figures that come out 2-3 months before Gen-Con because they haven't been circulating enough. So I guess that would exclude the Cap set from getting any play at Gen-Con. As of today Gen-Con is 4 months away. Plenty of time to train.

[tyroclix]

Outdoor to indoor (and vice versa) lines of fire are fine/normal. Understand that indoor walls/blocking terrain are at "every level", so you can't shoot "over" indoor terrain (unless there's an open hall running along your line of fire).

Hope that makes sense...
Norm

Totally does.

But to be extra clear - at this moment (pre-new rulebook) would Green Arrow, standing inside one of the tents on the Carnival Map (flip side of the castle) be able to target an opposing character in the outdoor portion WITHOUT the figure on the outside being able to target Green Arrow in return?

According to another thread, GA could - but I have NEVER played it that way (and this is dating back to Armor Wars' map).

[TheLongestBill]

Quote : Originally Posted by A_Higher_Level
EDIT: Though I am curious if an elevated character on level 3 can draw line of fire to a grounded person on level 1 that is 2 squares away, and the single square between them is level 2.
That question gets answered.. it's a no.
See the pic/explanation with Thor, Loki, and Enchantress.

I was excited when I started to read about this, but, honestly, this ruling along with the knockback ruling are EXTREMELY disappointing. So a 10 range character on elevation 3, next square 2, followed by 9 squares of 1 cannot hit the character on level 1? Ludicrous. Sometimes this game's creators favor simplicity over common sense too much.

[szude]

I fully agree with the LOF rules between multiple levels of terrain. None of you are considering one simple thing. You are all picturing the elevation difference to be the same between all levels (i.e. level 2 is 10 feet higher than level 1; level 3 is 10 feet higher than level 2.) If that were the case then why shouldn't a character on the edge of level 3 be able to see a character that is 10 squares away on level 1?

Simple.

What if level 2 was 1000 feet higher than level level 1; and level 3 was only 10 feet higher than level 2? Your simple geometry would no longer apply. Under the new rules the geometry always correctly applies.

That same simple minded thinking is what doomed Khan vs Kirk. :grin: Whoops.. wrong genre. My bad. :ermm:

I was thinking the same thing, rep.

[szude]

'High level' players 'training' for GenCon would keep working under the 2010 rules until the final is decided.

In fact, having GenCon each year represent the final of the previous year's "season" and rules makes a lot of sense, in my opinion. Particularly with how "competitive tournament" focused most players seem to be.

If they really are 'high level' players, as you single-quote, wouldn't they be capable of grasping some new rules in 3 months?

[szude]

OK, you guys say how much you like additional lvls of elevation, but, imo, this just took my fun little game with super-heroes and made it a wargame. There wasn't any real need to add elevations.

I sort of agree, even though I think the elevations are neat (used to play them with old Battletech). But then I thought about it, and the great thing is, you don't have to play with those maps if you don't want.

Thinking about it a little further, I think it will be easier to do than some map-specific rules like Krakoa and Rooftops. In those cases it's one more thing to remember to do and think about. But really, with multi-vation, you're just really applying the same rules for 1 and 2 to x and x+1.

[szude]

This leaves me even more disappointed that the new knockback rules neither include nor hint at the addition of knockbacked figures having the potential destroy terrain when they get thrown into something. :(

It's just not as "comic-book" like when Hulk smashes someone into a wall and the wall remains standing.

Knockback should cause the map terrain to take damage, dang it!

If you like, imagine that the wall takes 2 damage but remains standing.....

[TheLongestBill]

I fully agree with the LOF rules between multiple levels of terrain. None of you are considering one simple thing. You are all picturing the elevation difference to be the same between all levels (i.e. level 2 is 10 feet higher than level 1; level 3 is 10 feet higher than level 2.) If that were the case then why shouldn't a character on the edge of level 3 be able to see a character that is 10 squares away on level 1?

Simple.

What if level 2 was 1000 feet higher than level level 1; and level 3 was only 10 feet higher than level 2? Your simple geometry would no longer apply. Under the new rules the geometry always correctly applies.

That same simple minded thinking is what doomed Khan vs Kirk. :grin: Whoops.. wrong genre. My bad. :ermm:

Unless level 1 is 10 feet lower than 2, and 3 is 100 feet higher. Then the ruling is absolutely incorrect. We are forced to think "2-dimensionally" as you put it, because the GAME is in two-dimensions. If they wanted to add a height mechanic assuming each different elevation had a different change in height, they could have added it, but when they think "2-dimensionally", and simply say 'higher' or 'lower', a consistency of change is rightly assumed by their labeling levels '1' '2' and '3', (as opposed to levels '0' '1000' and '1010' as they might have been called in your hypothetical scenario). I'm not saying your logic is wrong or anything - I definitely agree with your logic, but I just don't think the speculation that elevation 3 is barely higher than 2 which is a million stories higher than 1 is the status quo reaction to a game mechanic which was done poorly. Oh well, I guess when your goal is to create a "simple" "lifelike" game, you're bound to run into these problems. I think this is my longest post ever? e-five to all readers!

[Gentlegamer]

If they really are 'high level' players, as you single-quote, wouldn't they be capable of grasping some new rules in 3 months?
Last year's championship game was essentially decided in the first round by the second player not realizing a subtle change had been made to the rules.

[Wombatboy]

Think about how cool the heroclix online 3d maps are going to look with multiple elevations!

Heroclix Online? I was thinking more that they might start marketing actual official 3D terrain for maps, like buildings and such.

Woohoo, now I can use my short and tall custom 3D buildings together without homebrew elevation rules! Thanks, WizKids!

[Thunderclese]

Stairs yes, ladders no.

That's what I get for trying to be smart....

We always treated them as one and the same.

[charlesdward]

Nice to see these changes. Multiple elevations - awesome! That's something I've wanted to see for ever. And I like the close combat on ladders change a lot. I remember a game where SI Hercules (my last character) chased my opponent onto a rooftop, only to have him climb down a ladder and block that access point. Then another character of his blocked the other access point, leaving Herc trapped on the roof to be helplessly sniped from the neighboring rooftops. The best the poor guy could do was smash all the blocking terrain on the roof out of impotent rage. Good to see that tactic go the way of the dodo.

[rowdyoctopus]

That's what I get for trying to be smart....

We always treated them as one and the same.

This just reminds me of all the times I have been on the wrong side of rulings. Just last week it was ruled in my game that, essentially, colossals now have the sharpshooter ability. I told my opponent and judge they had it backwards. Colossals can shoot out while based, but cannot target adjacent figs with ranged combat actions. They said I was wrong and I didn't press the issue as I Was new to the venue. I still won the game tho.

Anyway, I guess my point in all of this is that there are so many complexities in this game that it is really easy to get something wrong, not realize it, and play it that way for long periods of time still without realizing you have it wrong.

Hopefully the new rulebook makes this less frequent, at least for people new to the game. Vets will always have to worry about distinguishing between the new and the old.

[Holy Knight]

I fully agree with the LOF rules between multiple levels of terrain. None of you are considering one simple thing. You are all picturing the elevation difference to be the same between all levels (i.e. level 2 is 10 feet higher than level 1; level 3 is 10 feet higher than level 2.) If that were the case then why shouldn't a character on the edge of level 3 be able to see a character that is 10 squares away on level 1?

Simple.

What if level 2 was 1000 feet higher than level level 1; and level 3 was only 10 feet higher than level 2? Your simple geometry would no longer apply. Under the new rules the geometry always correctly applies.

That same simple minded thinking is what doomed Khan vs Kirk. :grin: Whoops.. wrong genre. My bad. :ermm:

Actually, I did consider that, but decided it was irrelevant. If it were supposed to possibly represent elevation changes of vastly different magnitudes, then it should also affect the effective range involved. Insofar as it's assumed to be plausible to still count range in terms of squares despite elevation, they must be considered standardized. This is only strengthened by the fact that movement between levels of elevation is also standardized as taking one point of speed value per square.

[Ultron-16]

Really? multiple elevation?....simplify the game, just so you can add more dumb ideas? Games take too long to play now with all the special powers and such...takes 5 minutes for one attack roll...STOP with the NEW ideas.
btw, NEW Coke was a total bomb!

[nbperp]

So ranged combat is also allowed? I am pretty sure it is.

Yes, ranged combat between 2 characters on opposite sides of a stair/ladder is legit (barring other opposing characters preventing it). Because the 2 characters are not adjacent, they are just allowed to close combat each other.

Quote : Originally Posted by A_Higher_Level
EDIT: Though I am curious if an elevated character on level 3 can draw line of fire to a grounded person on level 1 that is 2 squares away, and the single square between them is level 2.


I was excited when I started to read about this, but, honestly, this ruling along with the knockback ruling are EXTREMELY disappointing. So a 10 range character on elevation 3, next square 2, followed by 9 squares of 1 cannot hit the character on level 1? Ludicrous. Sometimes this game's creators favor simplicity over common sense too much.

This is no different from what we have now.

. . R|B . . . . . . . . T

The Ranged attacker's line of fire to the Target is blocked by the one square of Blocking terrain.

[konasavage]

I'd argue that horse left the barn somewhere around.... Hypertime.

Did the horse have hypersonic speed, poison, impervious and perplex?

[Paradox Factor]

btw, NEW Coke was a total bomb!

Actually, it wasn't the total bomb people think htey rememeber it to be. It actually increased sales at first. It wasn't until a very vocal minority started to be heard that it got the negative reception that people really rememeber. And still new Coke lasted on the market from 1985 until 1992 when it was renamed Coke II. I'd actually suggest reading he Wikipedia page to get a full over view on it. It's actually pretty interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Coke

As for he new rules, I'm withholding judgment until I get to try them in play. I will admit it seems odd at first thought about not being able to shoot over multiple levels of elevation. But to be honest if they made it so you could it would raise rules questions about when can you see the person on a lower elevation. I mean think about it. If your looking down over multiple lips of elevation and someone is adjacent to a lip two elevations down, logically you couldn't see them. Just simple and easier to say you can't do that. I mean, it's not like we don't still have counter logic intuitive rules still kicking around in the game today (I'm looking at you Stealth and adjacency LoS rules)

[dairoka]

Actually, I did consider that, but decided it was irrelevant. If it were supposed to possibly represent elevation changes of vastly different magnitudes, then it should also affect the effective range involved. Insofar as it's assumed to be plausible to still count range in terms of squares despite elevation, they must be considered standardized. This is only strengthened by the fact that movement between levels of elevation is also standardized as taking one point of speed value per square.
Also, The fact that the same movement requirements seem to be in place for moving Lv 1 to 2 as for moving Lv2 to 3 would also support that each elevation is maybe-kinda-sorta-around the same heigt. The Multi-Elevation rules as stated will make things easier, but at the expense of logic and a lot of common sense. So, officially, I will use whatever is printed in the rules, but for casual play, Loki can shoot Enchantress if she backs up...

[dairoka]

Although.... the Multi-Eleveation rules would make a lot of sense on The Bridge map. Someone on the boat can't quite target anyone standing on the bridge towers.... But I still don't like it! New rule bad!!!

[scehaono]

so will we be getting an errata that makes all ladders in past maps to be stairs instead?

[Quebbster]

so will we be getting an errata that makes all ladders in past maps to be stairs instead?

Not necessary, since ladders and stairs will now function the same way.

[TimoSupremo]

I fully agree with the LOF rules between multiple levels of terrain. None of you are considering one simple thing. You are all picturing the elevation difference to be the same between all levels (i.e. level 2 is 10 feet higher than level 1; level 3 is 10 feet higher than level 2.) If that were the case then why shouldn't a character on the edge of level 3 be able to see a character that is 10 squares away on level 1?

Simple.

What if level 2 was 1000 feet higher than level level 1; and level 3 was only 10 feet higher than level 2? Your simple geometry would no longer apply. Under the new rules the geometry always correctly applies.

That same simple minded thinking is what doomed Khan vs Kirk. :grin: Whoops.. wrong genre. My bad. :ermm:

My only question to your post (and your first post ever too...;) Wohoo!!) would be how knockback damage would be assigned in this case?

We could say that for example, one damage be dealt for every 10 feet down that a character is knocked back. Falling 1000 feet will certainly hurt more than falling just 10 feet. In this case being kncked backed from level 2 to level 3 would deal one damage but being knocked backed from level 3 to level 2 would deal 100 damage!!!!.... :o

[macewyndu]

Yes, ranged combat between 2 characters on opposite sides of a stair/ladder is legit (barring other opposing characters preventing it). Because the 2 characters are not adjacent, they are just allowed to close combat each other.



This is no different from what we have now.

. . R|B . . . . . . . . T

The Ranged attacker's line of fire to the Target is blocked by the one square of Blocking terrain.

I know you said that range is allowed if [A] is adjacent to [B] on a stair or ladder. But will the official wording say, that you are allowed to make range and closed combat attack when adjacent to each other on stair or ladder. I'm just afraid that some judges may not allow to make a range attack. Because if the wording. (Because everyone is a rules critic. :ermm:)

[nbperp]

I know you said that range is allowed if [A] is adjacent to [B] on a stair or ladder. But will the official wording say, that you are allowed to make range and closed combat attack when adjacent to each other on stair or ladder. I'm just afraid that some judges may not allow to make a range attack. Because if the wording. (Because everyone is a rules critic. :ermm:)

Here's a direct quote (page 14):

Characters occupying the two squares through which a character can change elevations can make close combat attacks against each other as if they were adjacent.

[macewyndu]

Here's a direct quote (page 14):

So the keyword is can. I just want to make sure, because i know some people would rule against making range attack based on the adjacency. But this help thank you.:grin:

[jackstar7]

So the keyword is can. I just want to make sure, because i know some people would rule against making range attack based on the adjacency. But this help thank you.:grin:

Characters on different elevations are not adjacent. If people don't get that point... you might have bigger problems at your venue! :p


This rule says they can make those CC attacks AS IF they were adjacent, but they aren't because they're on different elevations.

[macewyndu]

Characters on different elevations are not adjacent. If people don't get that point... you might have bigger problems at your venue! :p


This rule says they can make those CC attacks AS IF they were adjacent, but they aren't because they're on different elevations.

Was i talking to you, NO! I clearly ask the RA on this forum. Is that you, not unless you change your name, but i don't think so. So thanks for leaving a sarcastic remark. I guess i have question i will ask your for now on............................................. NOT!!!!!!!!!

[Gentlegamer]

Was i talking to you, NO! I clearly ask the RA on this forum. Is that you, not unless you change your name, but i don't think so. So thanks for leaving a sarcastic remark. I guess i have question i will ask your for now on............................................. NOT!!!!!!!!!What's your beef? jackstar7 told you the correct answer.

Characters on different elevations are not adjacent. Even if the physical squares on the map are adjacent, they are not "adjacent" as defined by HeroClix.

You have to be adjacent to the opposing character to make close combat attacks, EXCEPT if you have a specific ability that allows you to be on different elevations, such as:
Leap/Climb
Giant Size
Colossal Size
Both characters occupy squares of ladder/stair

[macewyndu]

What's your beef? jackstar7 told you the correct answer.

Characters on different elevations are not adjacent. Even if the physical squares on the map are adjacent, they are not "adjacent" as defined by HeroClix.

You have to be adjacent to the opposing character to make close combat attacks, EXCEPT if you have a specific ability that allows you to be on different elevations, such as:
Leap/Climb
Giant Size
Colossal Size
Both characters occupy squares of ladder/stair

He/she didn't have to be so sarcastic about, that all:tired:

[Howard Brock]

This in my opinion is a bad idea....overcomplicating things more. Why fix something that isnt broke? It was fine the way it was...grrr.

[tyroclix]

This in my opinion is a bad idea....overcomplicating things more. Why fix something that isnt broke? It was fine the way it was...grrr.

If WK subscribed to that idea:

A) There would be no Combat Reflexes, EW, Quake, and Earthbound

B) There would be no indoor / outdoor maps

C) There would be no giants, transporters, double based and duo figures

E) No Sharpshooter, Indomitable

F) No Special Powers or ATAs

G) No Alter Egos

H) No Keywords and their bonuses

etc

Lots of things are added to the game to enhance it. Sometimes there are failures and sometimes it works out great.

Lets try it all out before we decide if its really complicated or not so much.

[tyroclix]

My only question to your post (and your first post ever too...;) Wohoo!!) would be how knockback damage would be assigned in this case?

We could say that for example, one damage be dealt for every 10 feet down that a character is knocked back. Falling 1000 feet will certainly hurt more than falling just 10 feet. In this case being kncked backed from level 2 to level 3 would deal one damage but being knocked backed from level 3 to level 2 would deal 100 damage!!!!.... :o

2 things:

A) When a figure changes elevation due to knockback they stop in the first square - so that would likely not change at all.

B) To keep things simple, nbperp has already said in this thread that you still are dealt 2 damage from knockback off elevated irregardless of how "far" you fall.

While it might be less realistic (and less risky to climb up higher) it does make it easy to just say its 2 damage rather than calculating a fall from elevation 3 to elevation 1 - not that its so complicated but its not really needed to get the feel of getting knocked off a building does damage.

And it really is comic-accurate as Juggernaut can fall off a mountain and isn't going to get hurt.

[nbperp]

2 things:

A) When a figure changes elevation due to knockback they stop in the first square - so that would likely not change at all.

Correct

B) To keep things simple, nbperp has already said in this thread that you still are dealt 2 damage from knockback off elevated irregardless of how "far" you fall.

While it might be less realistic (and less risky to climb up higher) it does make it easy to just say its 2 damage rather than calculating a fall from elevation 3 to elevation 1 - not that its so complicated but its not really needed to get the feel of getting knocked off a building does damage.

And it really is comic-accurate as Juggernaut can fall off a mountain and isn't going to get hurt.

It's also just as comic-realistic that with a longer way to fall, the character is going to try other things to slow down their fall, minimizing their damage.

[jackstar7]

He/she didn't have to be so sarcastic about, that all:tired:

Where was the sarcasm?

But hey, sorry for answering your question and trying to do so with some silliness.

I'll remember that the internet is no place for jokes. ( <--- actual sarcasm)

[Jarimy123]

Chick fight!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[IceHot]

Wow I really dont think the new rulebook is as complicated as people want to make it out to be.

If we had the 2011 rulebook today and GD decided to change it to the way things were written in the 2010 rulebook that would be vastly more complicated.

When the rulebook comes out, pick it up and read it with fresh eyes and you should be fine.

Its when you start comparing where we are to where we were that things get confusing.

The new rules really are not any more difficult then the old rules when you take them for what they are.

[IceHot]

Where was the sarcasm?

But hey, sorry for answering your question and trying to do so with some silliness.

I'll remember that the internet is no place for jokes. ( <--- actual sarcasm)

BBBBBMMMMMRRRRPPPPPP!!!!! You are fined one credit for the violation of the Internet Sarcasm Statute - Failure to use Cyan.

[Gentlegamer]

Where was the sarcasm?

But hey, sorry for answering your question and trying to do so with some silliness.

I'll remember that the internet is no place for jokes. ( <--- actual sarcasm)
I ran a scan and can confirm (http://www.hcrealms.com/forum/album.php?albumid=130&pictureid=15535) the sarcasm of this post.

[Steelmage2000]

Wow I really dont think the new rulebook is as complicated as people want to make it out to be.

If we had the 2011 rulebook today and GD decided to change it to the way things were written in the 2010 rulebook that would be vastly more complicated.

When the rulebook comes out, pick it up and read it with fresh eyes and you should be fine.

Its when you start comparing where we are to where we were that things get confusing.

The new rules really are not any more difficult then the old rules when you take them for what they are.

Great point, rep to you. Now if I can get my players at my venue to follow this advice.

[TheLongestBill]

Yes, ranged combat between 2 characters on opposite sides of a stair/ladder is legit (barring other opposing characters preventing it). Because the 2 characters are not adjacent, they are just allowed to close combat each other.



This is no different from what we have now.

. . R|B . . . . . . . . T

The Ranged attacker's line of fire to the Target is blocked by the one square of Blocking terrain.

blocking terrain and elevated terrain are not the same...

[TheLongestBill]

and come on now, jackstar7 is allowed to make sarcastic remarks that imply a certain low level of intelligence on mace's venue's part, but macewyndu is not allowed to reply similarly? just a little hypocritical is all i'm sayin, i mean, just because jackstar's way better at it ... =) jk

[nbperp]

blocking terrain and elevated terrain are not the same...

Sorry if my example wasn't specific enough.

Quick refresher on the dialogue:

So a 10 range character on elevation 3, next square 2, followed by 9 squares of 1 cannot hit the character on level 1? Ludicrous. Sometimes this game's creators favor simplicity over common sense too much.

This is no different from what we have now.

. . R|B . . . . . . . . T

How about this:

. . R .|. . . . . . . . T

Now the Ranged attack is on elevated terrain, one away from the rim. The Target is all the way out. Current rules still hold that LOF as blocked.

[Norb]

The rules deputies are going to hAVE THEIR HANDS FULL.

[TheLongestBill]

Blocking terrain on ground is considered of similar height as elevated (two characters on elevated can shoot over grounded blocking at each other, but line is blocked if either or both are grounded). Not being on the rim of elevated also puts same height terrain between targets... In this new situation, level 2 is below level 3, so I suppose you just meant that the rules act the same as in these situations, true enough, but the logic behind them and the reality of the situation are vastly different. There should be no plausible reason for the level 2 elevation in the situation i described to affect lof or at least follow a different more reasonable set of rules.

[Quebbster]

There should be no plausible reason for the level 2 elevation in the situation i described to affect lof or at least follow a different more reasonable set of rules.
Simplicity is a pretty good reason.
The problem with common sense is that it is not that common. If I have to pick between a rule that is easy to explain and one that is complicated but mimics "real world" logics well, odds are good I'll prefer the simple rule.