If you target a Great Size character on an outdoor map where LOF crosses over/through 2 or more pieces of Blocking Terrain, and the attacker has IT:Destroys Blocking, what happens? Technically, since the IT ability is not optional, and doesn't allow for you to ever draw LOF through more than 1 piece, it seems that you wouldn't be able to target with an attack at all. Has this ever been addressed by Wizkids? The IT should probably say 'may', or even better, Great Size should say 'are not affected' instead of 'are not blocked'.

LoF drawn to and from Great Size characters are not blocked by blocking terrain. So even if IT:B would only allow you to destroy/see thru the first blocking terrain square, you should not have the LoF blocked, because the target is huge.

The LoF won't be blocked, but will destroy a single square/wall along it.

This was my initial reaction, and probably the way it 'should' be played, and the attacker would get to choose which piece of blocking to destroy. However, I wasn't so sure after looking into it closer.

Though Elevated Terrain and corresponding rules give a 3d 'illusion', this game is functionally and effectively 2d. There is no drawing LOF 'over' something, it always goes 'through' everything, and the rules determine how those things affect LOF, or even 'if' they affect LOF in certain circumstances. The only thing Great Size does is negate the rule that LOF is blocked in this situation, but it doesn't change the fact that LOF is still being drawn 'through' those squares.

Additionally, IT:DB imposes it's own restriction that you are only able to draw LOF through 1 piece of blocking, and this limitation is on the actual drawing of the LOF. You can't even, for example, draw LOF through 2 blocking and say LOF is blocked, because you couldn't even draw that LOF to begin with. Likewise, Great Size saying LOF is not blocked by blocking is moot, as you can't even draw that LOF to begin with.

I'll be perfectly honest, I cannot figure out what you're even try to argue here.

IT: Blocking is not imposing any limitations, it provides an exception to the normal LoF rules, much like Great Size. If you have both, then the result is what I posted in my previous answer.

Not sure if this is the difference, but I'm referring to IM:Destroys Blocking.
As far as I knew, this wasn't optional, as if you had both this and IT:Blocking, you couldn't choose not to destroy if I remember correctly. It might be an over-literal interpretation, I just wanted to see how it played out.

You draw the line of fire thru the first blocking terrain... then the line gets blocked by the second one... but the target has Great Size, which means the LoF is not blocked by that second one.

What's so hard here?

The issue is not whether the second Blocking would block LOF. It's a question of whether you are permitted to draw LOF at all. Just like characters that can't have LOF drawn to them by their effect used to not be able to be attacked by PW. It's a 2 step process, though we often regard it as a single step. First, draw LOF, second, determine it's state. Some effects can prevent even the drawing of the LOF, regardless of whether it would or would not be hindered/blocked.

So the question is whether IT:DB restricts your ability to only draw LOF if a single piece of Blocking is involved. However, to dig into this deep, then one could say a character with IT:DB 'must' draw LOF through 1 piece of blocking, as 0 is not 1.

Ultimately, though we understand how it 'should' be played, parsing out the fine details leaves some questions on how some rules/effects might interact. I think IT:DB itself needs a cleaner definition, because as is, it only says you 'can draw LOF' through that blocking, but not that LOF is not blocked. Are these the same thing? Maybe. The rulebook on page 12 states you draw LOF and if it crosses Blocking, it is blocked, but then the rulebook on page 21 states that Blocking prevents LOF from being drawn, but then in the same segment, states that this 'undrawn' LOF would be blocked. There should be a clearer distinction between 'drawing LOF' and 'LOF state'.

Relevant clarification regarding IT:DB on the WIN:

So, it doesn't actually do anything in this scenario.

I'm wondering if that means they changed their mind grin a question I asked a while ago in regards to flyers (with IM: outdoor blocking that gained IM:DB)... at the time, they said you couldn't ignore one of them and not destroy the terrain... now you can choose which IM/IT to use if 2 of them overlap. Good to know!
Well... unless they're only making that ruling for targeting... I asked out of curiosity now.

I never even thought about the interaction. Nice little fact to keep in mind. Glad I was this!

I thought one time a while back there was a ruling like this for IT, but maybe it was this one regarding IM.

Adding the link for the current ruling for as long as it exists:
https://win.wizkids.com/bb/viewtopic...a523a7b#p33036

I don't think there is much issue regarding my earlier concern of targeting through multiple blocking, I think it is sufficiently, though minimally, addressed by stating they can draw LOF through multiple windows.
However, I can see this interpreted either way regarding whether you get to destroy one blocking or none.

If they had said "the terrain must otherwise block line of fire", then it would be clear that you wouldn't destroy anything in this scenario. However, they said "the terrain itself", which could be taken to mean "aside from any other effects". This wording could be meant to handle Windows, and Special Terrain that may be classified as blocking but does not block LOF, or other Terrain that may be planned but does not exist yet.

But on the other hand, just simply saying that it means LOF must be blocked by a square with all 'other'(non-IT:DB) effects in play, in order to qualify to be destroyed, would generally adhere closer to real-world logic. I'd like to say it's not something that comes up often, but with the current meta filled with Colossal Retaliators and Cyclops call-ins to target them, it's bound to pop up, and choosing to allow or disallow the destroying of a piece of blocking could produce a real strategic advantages/disadvantage.

Assume a character has both "IT: Destroy Blocking" and "IT: Blocking":

1. Would anything get destroyed if it drew a LoF through a single piece of blocking?

2. What if it drew a LoF though multiple pieces of blocking? Would one get destroyed then?
2.1 If yes, which one? The first one or the attacker's choice?

3. Does the old ruling of "IM: Destroy Blocking" being non-optional, even on a flier, still stand? (So if they have both "IM: Destroy Blocking" and "IM: Blocking", they can't avoid destroying any blocking they move through)

For 1 and 2, that was already answered by the WIN post above, it's not destroyed.
For 3, that's exactly whey I asked the WIN as I said above as well.

There are two possible interpretations of what the WIN ruling said:

1. IT:DB only kicks in as a last resort, if nothing else prevents the LoF from being blocked.

2. IT:DB can't destroy terrain that is not normally (by default) blocking for LoF, e.g. windows. It could still destroy standard blocking terrain regardless of whether the user has IT:B or not.

The ruling is about windows, so I don't think it's clear which interpretation is correct.