Quick LOS question

[Hugmenot]

Correct, it is the 4th edition wording.

Hills plays different in 4th edition and, and in my opinion. it makes more sense.

Hills are no longer limiting terrain generally favor the attacker because he can spot and engage the defender from further away than 3 hexes even if the defender has yet to fire. But not always because a strict interpretation of the 3rd edition rules, a defender was able to be not spotted again if he moved more than 3 hexes away from an attacker on the same hill.

Hills can create blind spots if a defender does not set up on the elevation line or in an hill hex next to an an elevation line. I've enjoyed the extra options this provided in the scenarios I played.

I would have liked something that stated that units at a lower or same elevation as a dug-in unit cannot spot the latter if more than 5 hexes away or until the defender fires, but with no clue if my suggestion has any basis on realism.

==

I like 4th edition rules better than the 3rd edition rules. Two complaints only and both related to fields.

1. Entrenchments in fields only offer a -1 shift against DF if it's in a field (a limiting terrain). I am not sure whether this was the intent or it was an oversight when the DF modifier was written.
2. You cannot see my Tiger tank if it moves in a field 4 hexes away from your troops but you can see it from through 10 field hexes if it moves in an open hex beyond the field within normal spotting range. I have a really hard time understanding this situation. I wish "Units can trace LOS through two field hexes but cannot trace LOS through three or more field hexes" or something like that.