Yes.filler filler

I hate this ruling.

Let me 'splain.

"A ranged combat attack can be used to destroy a wall segment but only if a single line of fire can be drawn to the center of the square on the other side of the wall segment that also crosses the square adjacent to the wall segment."

I can't destroy the wall between 1 and 2.
. . .|. . .
. . .|. . .
. . 1|2 . .
. . . . . .
. C . . . .
. . . . . .

I can't destroy the wall between 2 and 3.
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . 2 . .
. . . 3 . .
. C . . . .
. . . . . .

How can I suddenly destroy either one when they're combined?
. . .|. . .
. . .|. . .
. . 1|2 . .
. . . 3 . .
. C . . . .
. . . . . .


It is what it is, but I don't have to like it.

I guess you could look at it as if you were to shoot either singularly, there would be a better chance to miss the single wall on the end of it.
Where as if it's a corner, you're probably not going to miss.
Shooting a line opposed to shooting a 90deg angle.

Hmm...can I target multiple blocking terrain squares and destroy them if my damage was high enough? Say a six to destroy two, a nine(!) to destroy three?

That's fine.

Even a 4 damage guy with two targets can try and roll a critical hit.* Divide up your 4 as 2 and 2 and the +1 to damage dealt demolishes both. If you don't get the 12, you can still destroy one of them.



* - Rolling for critical hit against terrain is another ruling I hate.

because combined they're connected and block LOF so something gets hit... while the other examples with only one wall clears the end of that wall?

Wow, I didn't know what I was getting into with that question. All good information thanks orange guys.

So in the previous post above, 1,2 and 3 represent figures and they block line of fire to a wall?

I think 1 and 2 are just open squares. Harpua labeled them as such so he could refer to those particular squares.

No. Those are just squares numbered for identification.

I think the rule for targetting walls should be changed to be the area behind the direct line... just like it is with knockback... so in Harpua's second example where it's:
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . 2 . .
. . . 3 . .
. C . . . .
. . . . . .

it should be (I hope I edited that correctly):
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . 2 .
. . . 3 . .
. C . . . .
. . . . . .

in that case, the LOF does cross and hits the wall.

Actually, that's how I thought the rule worked.

I'm not sure which wall you're trying to destroy in your diagram.

If it's the wall below the 2, then it will not work because the LOF will cross (and be blocked by) the wall above the 3. If you meant the wall above the 3, then you can destroy it, but I'm not clear on how that's different from the first diagram in your post.

Yes, I meant the wall above 3.

The first diagram was from Harpua's example and he stated that the wall between 2 and 3 cannot be destroyed because targetting 2 clears that wall.

I put 2 in the 2nd diagram to show that targetting that square allows it to cross the wall above square 3