That, too. Lol!
Like most things, it is an acquired skill and it takes a lot of intentional practice to visualize it quickly. I've found that it helps to use your fingers to count the squares as you go (whether starting out or on a map where it's tough to clearly see the squares... I'm looking at you, SWB marquee map) to see where the middle is.

I started out with the easiest example as a starting point... and it's the easiest to illustrate. Lol!
So for any example, counting the short way first is easiest, then move your fingers closer 1 square at a time... you'll hit the center soon enough and that'll make it easier to see. If the apex isn't on an intersection on the grid, go to the closest spot of a line and you'll be able to see if it's to the left or right of the intersection... you're more or less making a more mathematical straight line, really.

From what I've noticed, as long as it's a natural progression from the original post (manning not a thread hijack) and it's kept cordial/ positive, there's usually no complaining. I've seen a thread or two that got split or the title changed when the subject gradually changed.

I am reallly bad at drawing lines of fire, yes I know I should just be able to work it out, but I'm really bad at it. So I'm one of those people who uses a line of fire and generally it does a good enough job for me.

Still I feel a little bad about it.

And in answer to your question, probably pretty far if we're all being civil and having a good time?

This is the way I was taught. I'll give credit where credit is due and say it was former world champ (way back in the day...) Luckymusolino who taught it to me. I use a custom string attached to 2 figure dial bases. This usually requires picking up both figs as one base goes in the attackers square and the other goes in the defenders square. If I keep it held once LOS is determined, then I can have the opponet put the defending piece back in to it's correct square then release the base so it retracts (while holding the other base still in the attackers square) then replace said attacker once I lift up the LOS base piece

We use strings for casual play, but modified so actual clix bases are used at either end. That way, it's easier to put it in the middle than just using fingers or something.

In any case, what about the ruling for stealth? I've seen a player trying to attack a character with stealth in hindering terrain. He didn't know it had stealth. Stealthy character's owner agrees to the target, but then before the attacker rolls the dice, owner declares that his character has stealth, so oops, the attacker gets an action token. It wasn't even running shot or something, just an attack within range. Is this acceptable? Seemed scummy to me at the time.

ONCE MORE INTO THE BREACH
I’ve always wanted to man a thread hijack

I think a string line of fire can do a perfectly acceptable job in most cases. You shouldn’t feel bad about it at all.
While it’s not my primary method, it’s one of my tools to quickly show unbelievers that my son’s transit vision and/or my geometry is never wrong.

Technically right? I’m not sure why would get a token for attempting to target.
Acceptable? To me, only if I am Hawkeye having a contest of champions with the grandmaster.

I could almost see if the attacker didn't ask ( although I think I'd mention the figure had stealth if the intention was clear ), but if they asked if the figure was a viable target and the defender agreed that's pretty much lying right?

Stealth blocks hindered lines of fire when it's not the controlling players turn. If your opponent asks aren't you obligated by the rules to state that the line of fire is blocked?

I think that's when I'd call the judge over and put an end to this nonsense. There is no difference between that and asking if the target has a reducer or super senses being told they don't and then after you hit being told "Oh yeah, I just didn't tell you".

If an attack or action is initiated, that constitutes a tokenable action so it'll be applied when the action resolves... that's from the order of how an attack works in the rulebook.

Misrepresenting the game state is cheating as discussed on the first page... if you ask and they say it's clear when it isn't, that's clear cheating.

If you didn't ask, it's technically on you and your opponent only needs to say you can't target the figure when it's targeted if you don't ask.
In friendly games, a take back might be allowed for such an oversight, but that's entirely up to the defender.

You have to be able to draw line of fire first. You could not do that to a character in stealth without improved targeting so no attack would be declared.

You don't draw line of fire until the action is declared. This is why I stated in another thread, people need to be declaring their actions fully and correctly.

That being said, if another viable target is within line of fire, they should be able to be chosen (since giving a character a RANGE action does not require a target in and of itself).

Yeah I asked before I moved the first piece. Then I could tell he was concerned as I moved pieces. I was pushing onto perplex and enhancement. After everything was setup and I said the attacking need x for alot of damage is when judge was called. It was Nationals or Nationals Qualifier cannot remember. Sounds like I was wronged from this thread.

You don't have the hold the string at the middle of the squares. You extend it beyond the squares so that the string intersects the center of both squares. This way makes it so human error isn't an issue: the string is already intersecting the center points of those squares and your fingers are no longer in the way...

Seems pretty clear you can check from the square before the action is declared and like the opponent here was being shady by misrepresenting the game state.

I can draw a picture to explain the geometry. It isn't scary and you don't actually need to know any geometry, just need to be able to count and multiply/divide whole numbers.