http://blog.naver.com/catosal/110141895826

please, check this Pic.


it's about LOF passing through elevated terrain.

thanks in advance.

You cannot get a clear LoF from Captain Marvel to Joker in that picture, as it crosses the intersection point of the two spaces of elevated terrain, making it a blocked LoF.

thank you so much. I played wrong...

No problem. For what it's worth, I don't agree with the ruling, but it's the one we've been given.

don't feel bad i don't agree with it myself

Eh, using the intersection rules it makes things simpler if you use the same rules for all LoF through intersections.

You may disagree with the idea, but the intersection ruling has taken the complexity out of these kinds of questions. Take the Icons starter indoor map where you had this:

2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 1|1 1 1 1
1 1|1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1

The 2s represent elevated terrain and the 1s are grounded. The blue numbers are characters occupying squares trying to draw a line of fire to each other. Is this a legal line of fire? The answer at the time (and this is years before I was RA) was that "yes", there was a clear line of fire there.

So let's see how this started to get weird. First, let's have both characters move one square to the right and add an elevated square of blocking terrain (barrier):


2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 B 2 2
1 1|1 1 1 1
1 1|1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1

Anyone have any problem with this line of fire? You shouldn't. This line of fire has always been clear.

But now let's have the characters move back to the left and keep the terrain in the picture:


2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 B 2 2 2
1 1|1 1 1 1
1 1|1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1

If you want to talk about weirdness, this is weird intersection rules got started. Everyone's instinct was that this line of fire should be blocked, but no one could see a way that the rules prohibited it.

Add another square of blocking terrain and, under the old rules, the following was clear as well:


2 2 2 2 2 2
2 2 2 2 2 2
1 B|1 1 1 1
1 1|1 1 1 1
1 1 1 1 1 1

When the rulebook was revised (in 2010, I believe), we introduced the idea of "Intersections" and that any intersection allows line of fire as per whichever of the 2 squares was more in favor of the attacker.

In the case of the "inside pocket" as pictured in the link above, you have to look at how the 2 squares at the intersection point affect the line of fire.

C .|. . . .
.|. . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . J

If the line of fire from the elevated character crossed either of the other squares of elevated terrain (in an attempt to draw a line of fire to the grounded character J), then the line of fire would be blocked. Therefore, the intersection of those two squares is also blocked.

The challenge with all rules is that most of the time, you can find a scenario where the metaphor for the gaming breaks down. Most commonly, this is something like "why can I punch someone with stealth, but I can't outwit them?" The ultimate goal of rules is to provide a framework for the game that can be easily learned and consistently applied.

C'mon man? Why'd you have to go and use an Asian stereotype in your picture? That just makes it hilarious.

While I agree that this instance seems counter-intuitive from a "that should work"/real-world logic point of view, it's a minor consequence of making the LOF rules much simpler and easier to understand as rules.
Where simple to explain/easy to understand rules conflict with realistic depiction of events, you need to be very careful in weighing the value of realism as it effects the complexity of the game.
In the interest of "realism" we could also use "balance" to determine LOF from grounded to elevated, where a figure X squares away from the edge could then see X squares away from the edge at the other elevation (and vice versa.) But the additional complexity isn't worth the added realism, IMO.

I had to go back and look again.
Haaahaaaahaaaahaa!! Regal!!!!!

How about this one?

C|B|. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.|B|. . . .
. . . . . J

There is no intersection, but the straight shot line itself can be seen as going between two Blocking terrain features on it's diagonal path. You can replace the blocking with figures for a non sharp shooter, etc...

It looks like the line of fire will be blocked by the upper B. If J was one more square to the left it would be clear.

MikeTheRed is correct, but I suspect you meant the following (as did he in his reply):

C|B|. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
.|B|. . . .
. . . . J .

The intersection rule applies to each INDIVIDUAL intersection. In the above example, EACH intersection is clear, although some of them are adjacent to blocking terrain. But as along as all squares and intersections between you and the target is clear, then the line of fire is clear.

The intent for the above image is to have C and J to be on a straight diagonal line with One blocking terrain feature blocking LOS off to one side of the diagonal, and the other blocking LOS to the other side of the diagonal, but where the blocking features themselves do not actually intersect.

I guess if you simply remove the | and underscores and look at it like this instead, it might make more sense...


C B . . . .
. . . . . .
. B . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . J .

Wow, that's a blocked LOF? Wish I knew that at my IG tourney. Got blasted right through that intersection!