Quick LOS question

[jux]

So, starting out with my first attempt with PG, Elsenborn Ridge, first scenario. Map 25:
http://boardgamegeek.com/image/692932/pa...born-ridge
(See the map on higher resolution)

The map is different side on the scenario, but let's look at it as it is in the picture, from top down. So I have 20m hills and they are covered with light woods. Enemy comes from the north side of the map and my men are positioned on the hill and on the slope hex.

So my units are in hexes:
A: 0705
B: 0704

Enemies are at:
C: 0703
D: 0702
E: 0701

Is there LOS and are they spotted (visibility is 6 hexes):
A-C; A-D; A-E?
B-C; B-D; B-E?
C-A, C-B?
D-A, D-B?

You can answer in short A-C(T,F), meaning LOS=true, spotted=false.
Thanks

[Poor Yorek]

So my units are in hexes:
A: 0705
B: 0704

Enemies are at:
C: 0703
D: 0702
E: 0701

Welcome. Had to LOL at the notion of a "quick" LOS question in PG.

A-C: spotted & LOS. C is in limiting terrain, but within three hexes and one hex of light woods does not block LOS.

A-D: target in limiting terrain; within three hexes, but there are two hexes of light woods intervening, one at 40-m (0704) and one at 20-m (0703). The viewer is at 20-m and the target at 0-m. I would read 3rd Ed rule 8.36 as suggesting LOS is blocked as neither unit is HIGHER than the lower of the two light woods.

A-E: target in clear at 0-m, but two hexes of 20-m and one of 40-m light woods intervene. As the spotter is at 20-m, I would interpret 8.36 as above.

I should say in fairness that there might be alternative interpretations here (for which the game is somewhat notorious), but this is my $0.02. Also note: http://www.pg-hq.com/annotated-rules.php#Rule8.0

B-C: LOS and spotted

B-D: LOS and spotted

B-E: LOS is blocked by two hexes of light woods at 20-m and neither unit is higher.

All above assumes DF or AT fire. In 3rd Ed., there was a notion that one can spot for BF from the height of the trees, so that BF arising from 0705 would spot from effectively 40-m (and could see 0701).

I think that 4th Ed. precluded that by the wording regarding spotting from towns (woods being conspicuously absent) at extended elevation, but :hrugs::

[jux]

Yeah, I was wanting to make it quick, but then other uncertainties piled up and I ended up with this excersice with a logic truth table

The very same problem appears to be a classic already as it was asked in BGG as well:
http://boardgamegeek.com/thread/762463/s...on-w-image

But thank you for the answer, it will take many tries to master all the LOS/Spotting rules in PG. Stand by for more

[jux]

Ok, one thing is seems strange to me - ability to spot from A to C. As B is the slope hex and A is not, how come the A sees down the hill? What about hex 0706 (considering it is on 20m elevation) - can it also see the hex "C" the same way?

[Poor Yorek]

Ok, one thing is seems strange to me - ability to spot from A to C. As B is the slope hex and A is not, how come the A sees down the hill? What about hex 0706 (considering it is on 20m elevation) - can it also see the hex "C" the same way?

Jux,

Limiting terrain as such does not block LOS - though some types might. So in 3rd Ed., slopes and interior hills allow one to hide/conceal oneself in that hex, but, in principle, the hex itself can be spotted if nothing intervenes. Thus, on an interior hill, but otherwise clear terrain (in 3rd Ed) one could spot and have LoS to hexes three apart; but could not spot, but would have LoS to hexes four or more apart. If one of those units fired, and had a spotted marker placed on it, it could now be seen at ranges of 4+ even in a hill/contour hex as long as nothing intervenes LoS.

Regular woods both allows one to "hide" - Limiting Terrain - but also blocks LoS up to +20m above the baseline height. Two hexes of light woods attain the same effect (that is, block LoS, though light woods is LT allowing one to "hide").

So for example, I can't see one of my neighbors in his otherwise clear front yard because the lot between us is woods (blocks LOS but not in LT). On the other hand, my neighbor across the street can hide in his woods or foliage (in LT) although I can see across the road into his lot (have LoS).

Does that address your question?

[jux]

Does that address your question?

Sorry, the last question was actually about elevation, not light woods.
I try to illustrate my question:

Code:

_1____2
      \
       \_3_______

So I understand how [2] has LOS to [3] as [2] is standing on the slope. but I am assuming that [1] should not have visibility to [3] because the elevation is blocking.

So that can illustrate why I don't understand how A has LOS to C in the example above (regardless of light woods).

[Hugmenot]

Hills are not modeled as plateaux in PG.

The Line of Sight from A to C is not blocked by the elevation line because the elevation line does not meet "one or more slope hexes of the same elevation as the higher unit lies between the two hexes and the slope hex is closer (not equidistant) to the lower unit than the higher one".

I wish AVP would post a Daily Content about LoS from hills because it would be easier to visualize.

[Poor Yorek]

Sorry, the last question was actually about elevation, not light woods.

Jux,

My segue with Light Woods was merely to illustrate the difference between LT that does block LOS (woods) and that which does not (elevation lines). So it was to the point or, at least, was meant to be.

The quick reply is that your drawing is not to appropriate scale. The elevation changes are 20-m over a distance of 200-m; are thus much more gentle than your drawing; and do not of themselves block LoS. Further, the Rules or TEC somewhere says that elevation lines are not "sudden" changes in elevation (there are some rules for "steep slopes" in Cassino and SoI I believe). So, in any case, a unit can spot from lower/higher elevation to higher/lower if (a) within three hexes or (b) a spotted marker is on the target in either case as long as LoS is not blocked.

As as example, I'm looking out a 2nd floor office window and could see someone across a quad somewhat far back on the roof of a 4-story building.

PY

[Poor Yorek]

"one or more slope hexes of the same elevation as the higher unit lies between the two hexes and the slope hex is closer (not equidistant) to the lower unit than the higher one".

Daniel, just for clarification, this is the 4th edition wording if I'm not mistaken, is it not?

[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.