It's theoretically possible, yes, but so far I am aware of no ruling that makes a difference between walls and blocking terrain.

So the grounded character has no LOF to the elevated character but vise-a-versa LOF is granted??? That's kinda dumb.

And you can't make an attack to someone on elevated terrain if your adjacent? You have to be one square away.

If a truely logical reason which does not go against the intention of the game can be made, then yes, I could accept that rulling. I am not a legalist; probably comes from my Christian background. Norm made a very clear logical call on why blocking terrain on an indoor map would block line of fire for elevated figures, therefore I have no problem with that ruling.

I do have problems with rules that allow things like...
Hiding behind a hidden (stealth) character.
Being unable to perplex yourself because you are hidden.
Etc, etc.
But even though I disagree completely with allowing the above situations, they have been ruled; based on the rules; to be valid and therefore allowable situations. So if I am willing to accept decissions based on the rules, why are others not willing to accept decissions based on logic?

This one is easy to explain: The Stealthed character is hidden well enough so the attacker cannot get a clear shot, but is still visible enough to obscure line of fire and prevent clear shots against anyone behind him.
Because the premises for your argument are shaky at best. I cannot know for sure whether norm's ruling still stands or not: Therefore, I am forced to go with what is in print. And the print clearly states only elevated terrain features affect line of fire between two elevated figures.
(btw: If I get an answer to what ruling goes I'll pass it on)

To quote normalview: "The rules are the rules, no matter what stories we make up to go along with them."

Nope. Grounded blocking terrain blocks LOF from grounded to elevated targets, period. As in "both ways".

Remember that disregarding special instances (like Stealth), LOF is always a two way street; if character A can't draw LOF to character B, B can't draw it to A.

No. Assuming all normal conditions for LOF are met, there is nothing at all to prevent a character directly under elevated terrain from drawing LOF to an "adjacent" elevated character (using "adjacent" in the loosest sense here, since characters on different elevations aren't actually adjacent).

And characters need to be on the edge of elevated terrain to make a ranged attack to a grouned character??

I hate this game sometimes. And I play for fun. I'd lose my mind playing in tourneys.

Actually, nevermind.

I printed out the new rulebook and am gonna hit that hard tonight.

When you add in the inconsistent ruling on blocking terrain it ceases to be clear or logical.

The rulings:
1)
1 . B . 2

1 and 2 are elevated. The Barrier between them does not block LoF.

2)
1 . .|. 2

1 and 2 are elevated. The wall(|) between them does block LoF.


In either case, fliers and leap climbers cannot move through the designated terrain. This is in the rules to logistically represent that the terrain goes from "floor" to "ceiling" inside.

This same principle was extrapolated without rules to make the "ruling" that the wall would therefore be hig enough to block LoF. I put that in quotes because he specified that it was not an official ruling, but his opinion of how it would probably be ruled by GD.
The same prinicple was not exptrapolated with regard to blocking terrain.

Since the blocking terrain has no rider about being unofficial, and they are both essentially the same situation, I see no reason why the ruling for walls should be given dominance.

As I stated earlier (perhaps on WK), the walls already have plenty of evidence of not going floor to ceiling for other logic issues. If all of the walls are destroyed (think carnival map with Wasteland) the roof still stands and it all remains indoor. These are obviously not load bearing walls.

Quebbster - Huh. I am hidden well enough that you cannot fire at me, but poorly enough that I block your line of fire to someone behind me? If I was hidden like that then there should be a penalty to your attack and not the complete inablility for you to attack.



Harpua - I agree with your logic from the written rules point of veiw, and I can see clearly where this logic is coming from. I have no problem with the logic or the result from the logic. However, this game is trying to imitate battles that would occur in a comic book, and comic books do have a touch of reality in them. From that view, logically, I cannot fire through a support column.

Truely this is a situation that as a Christian I face regularly. How can I follow the law (written rules) with out being under the law (heart of the law)?



All judges are suppose to follow the constitution as their guideline (written rules), but judges often have to interput the meaning of certain laws until Congress clarifies them. A local judge's decision is over ruled by a state judge which is over ruled by a federal judge which is over ruled by a Supreme Court judge, which can only be over ruled by clarification or modification of the constitution; and yes I am being simplistic here. Hopefully you can see the parallels with this and the judging hierarchy that should exist with this game. The judges have to interpet the rules as best they can. The decisions from higher up judges over rules us lower judges. Erata from WK over rules the interpetation of higher up judges.

Since WK has erata the situation I mention about stealth eariler, then I have no problem following their ruling even if I disagree. Since WK has remained silent with regards to the L5 interpetation of indoor blocking terrain, I have not problem following that decission. In both situations, I am following the hierarchy.

He's hidden in a way that you just can't make out who it is. You see a shoulder or something. Yeah, it might be the Joker, but it might be Hank the barber.

It doesn't matter, though, as we have rules for the game, and we are bound by what the rules tell us we can and cannot do.

The rules tell us that we cannot fly over the indoor blockers. This is an exception, explicitly stated to overrule the normal movement rules.

The rules tell us that we can shoot over grounded blockers. There's nothing else in the rules to provide an exception to override this when inside.

You are incorrect that it was a clarification.

If you look at the DC E&C, you will see that the entry for that power is given errata to actually change the power. It was not given a clarification. The power DID allow for multiple attacks. Thus the change was inserted to disallow that.

In this case in order to make it so that LoF is blocked, an actual change would be needed.

Without the plug, though, there's nothing stopping it.

Sorry, they did not clarify E-2 Superman's power. They modified it. Unn, in this case that is the same result. They changed it so it followed the intention of the rule, therefore supporting the decission that was made by an L5 judge.

In regards to "without the plug, though, there's nothing to stop it.", sure there is. The decission of a higher up judge whose decission should over rule mine.


P.S. Sorry, I could have sworn that you were in on that E-2 thread, but obviously I was wrong.

You have a misconception about the role of the L5 judges/rules arb. The rules arb does gets his rulings from the game designers.


I probably was. It depends on the thread you mean. My position on that one was that it did read to give multiple attacks and that errata was needed to fix that if it wasn't supposed to be like that.

With this, again, if it is not supposed to work as written, errata is needed.

There is no floor to ceiling rule. That is the assumption which is made to mentally picture the "why" of the rule given.

Take the JSA map for an example. I've been in plenty of museums with internal walls or partitions which do not extend to the ceiling. I can justify not flying over it because people don't want to trip and knock over priceless artifacts.


The interesting one will come about if we ever get an indoor/outdoor map with elevated against a wall facing out.