LOS on slopes

[Grognard Gunny]

Well said, Blackcloud!

GG

[treadasaurusrex]

The example that Col. Sonichu provided, depicts a set of US halftrack units firing from the opposite (lee-side) slopes of a hill at a target that is 4 hexes away on the opposite side of the firing unit's hill mass, and down one contour line, to boot. I don't think that in this circumstance, the firing units have line of sight to the German paras, but I agree that the rule and the examples provided are unclear and confusing.

Maybe I played too much PanzerBlitz s a child, since those map boards were very clear about LOS being blocked by hill crests. The art on PG maps don't differentiate the crests.

[cjsiam]

Blackcloud, I'm confused....
The rule (as Peter reviewed it in this case) says they DO have LOS...and there is NO reverse slope option here....

You seem to be saying that they DO NOT have LOS----that Reverse slope protection/cover is available---and that is NOT what
  was assessed by Peter (correctly according to RAW).....

Am I missing something? (again)?
cj

[Blackcloud6]

Blackcloud, I'm confused....
The rule (as Peter reviewed it in this case) says they DO have LOS...and there is NO reverse slope option here....

You seem to be saying that they DO NOT have LOS----that Reverse slope protection/cover is available---and that is NOT what
  was assessed by Peter (correctly according to RAW).....

Am I missing something? (again)?

 
No, you are not missing something, for some reason I read the rule backwards. (and I'm humble enough to admit when I make a mistake, Treaddino will like that statement, lol)  I read it from the online rules and the print is small and I'm getting old and that is my excuse.  But my general argument is the same, there is nothing wrong with the rule, I'll just reverse my argument.  The designer intended to allow you to fire from crests and in order to do reverse slope defense you need to establish the crest line and move back from it until you are not seen.

Here is my overall crux of the macro-problem, it seems to me, too many players are fighting the rule and trying to force them to play the way they want them too.  Frankly, I think this is a huge problem here on PG-HQ, especially with some members who appear to push their desired rule changes and house rules.    Here is the bottom line, if you want to have a game series that is going to have extensive FtF and online play, the rules have to be standard.

[Tubac52]

Kind Gentlemen,

 This is certainly confusing, and I thank Col. Sonichu for surfacing this matter for clarification. The 4th edition rules should be thoroughly reviewed and edited, and better illustrations are needed as has been mentioned in this thread. I salute all of you for sharing your interpretations with those of us just learning the sometimes subtle nuances of playing this complex (for me) game.
 For what it's worth, I think that the US halftracks in question can't see, or fire, at the German Fallschirmjagers from their position on what would be the reverse (opposite) side of that hill slope 4 hexes (800 meters) away. Maybe that's too realistic for the game designer to model with this kind of map art? IMHO, it would be clearer if the maps were like those in the old PanzerBlitz game, as others have said.

[plloyd1010]

For what it's worth, I think that the US halftracks in question can't see, or fire, at the German Fallschirmjagers from their position on what would be the reverse (opposite) side of that hill slope 4 hexes (800 meters) away.

A conclusion that a couple others seem to have come too. Your statement is more direct, something that I appreciate in an opening remark. But it also throws down an gauntlet. Disregarding the reality of hills (I see hills all the time in Colorado.), have you got a justification within the rules?

[Blackcloud6]

. Disregarding the reality of hills (I see hills all the time in Colorado.),

This is an interesting aspect of the problem of trying to make 3D real terrain work in 2D map and keep it simple.  A friend and I once took the Last Chance for Victory game maps to Gettysburg to compare the maps to the actual terrain.  LCV has three levels of rules to use for LoS in the game, the latter one being very complex.  We were struck by how accurate the map and how in the gently rolling terrain how much you could see from standing n the reverse of a crest.   So, once again, the answer becomes "it depends."  It depends on the type of hills, their slope, their height, the vegetation and so on.    It comes down to what the designer decided to do.
 

have you got a justification within the rules?

This!   The rules rule.  At the end of the day, we have to play by the rules of the game.  The designer of the PG LoS rules made a decision that units can fire from the reverse side of what we perceive is to be the crest.   And it really does not matter why he did so.  It simply could have been done for simplicity's sake or it may also be a "design for effect.  And, as I suspect, it is a combination of the two and there maybe many other reasons.   

I admit, the rule is not fully intuitive because our eyes and brain see the units on what we perceive to be on the back side of the slope and thus we make the very same error I made earlier in the thread.  But, as I recall, I usually reread the LoS spotting rules and examples whenever I play in such terrain.  It takes a few seconds, y the brain cells are refreshed, and one can then go on and play and play accurately.

I say this to many a new ASL players: don't fight the rulebook, fight the enemy!  The same can be said for PG.  Your gaming experience will be better, IMHO.  And PG is not nearly as complex as ASL.