Here's the link all.  Confirmed a few suspicions and discusses line of sight.

www.fantasyflightgames.com/edge_news.asp

I like the fact that they provide "mini" links to click on to see additional cards, info, etc.

Getting more excited, although the lack of extra dice to buff with has me concerned. It seems that additional damage caused comes from weapon text as opposed to more dice…which actually sounds just fine with me. Take out a lot of the randomness although the dreaded "X" is ever present.

I was hoping they'd do something to change up the X factor.  The X on the old die liked me way too much.  The game continues to sound great despite this.

Looks like there's a bug in the rules.  In the Line of Sight example, it says that you can trace from any corner to any corner.  In the picture, it says that Jain Fairwood can't attack that zombie.  Actually, it appears she can.  She can draw a line from her bottom left corner to the target's bottom right corner.  That should have the line go between the rocks and therefore, she can see it.

rshelley said:

She can't see the bottom-right corner of the zombie, though.  That's what's important.

"In short, rather than tracking "center to center" (from the center of the attacker's space to the center of the target space), line of sight is now traced "corner to corner" (from any corner of the attacker's space to any corner of the target space)."

Maybe any doesn't really mean any?

rshelley said:

It does mean any.  But you still have to be able to trace an uninterrupted line between the two corners that you choose.  If you choose the zombie's lower-right corner, you cannot trace an uninterrupted line, and so the attack is invalid.

I don't see what is difficult to understand about this.

I'm not trying to be obtuse here, i'm just a very literal person (a mathematician).  I now understand what you're describing and yes, that works.  It just came off as confusing at first because i read "any corner" from both attacker and target, and given your explanation (which i'm guessing is correct), there is never a case where "any" corner can be used with a single target.  It's only ever two corners that can be used.  Now again, i understand that depending on where the target is, you might in fact use different corners resulting in choosing any of them.  All i'm saying now is, it was confusing.  And if i got confused, i'm guessing someone else will as well.  So, good to know it's not a bug, but i see a clarification coming…well, hopefully.

Thanks for the explanation.

Bleached Lizard said:

What is interrupting the line? the monster itself? So she can't hit the monster because it's in the way?

I might be misunderstanding something here but with a line from her bottom left to monster bottom right it goes a similar route as Leoric's line so I can't see why she can't hit the monster as well.

rshelley said:

Actually, three corners.  It's only the ones facing directly away from your opponent that won't be used (baring special abilities).

And you should see the "discussion" that's already raging on BGG.

 I understand the problem at hand here and if my link works, the blue line is the LoS issue at hand here (if my link works correctly)

KronikAlkoholik said:

KronikAlkoholik said:

I can see "so I can't hit the monster because the monster's in the way?" will become the most-said phrase when explain the rules to D2E!  

The line from Leoric isn't passing through anything.  The line you propose from Jain is - it passes through the monster.

The way I explained it over on BGG is like this: imagine attacking each point on the monster's square from a point on your square represents a different thing thematically:-

From your square:

The point facing the monster: firing straight ahead.

The point on the hero's left as facing the monster: leaning to the left to shoot.

The point on the hero's right: leaning to the right to shoot.

The point facing away from the monster: ????

Targeting the monster's square:

The point facing your hero: hitting the monster's front.

The point on the monster's left as facing your hero: hitting the monster on its left side.

The point on the monster's right as facing your hero: hitting the monster on its right side.

The point facing away from your hero: ????

I leave it up to you to figure out what the question marks could possibly represent.  Basically what we have now is a primitive form of "facing" for the figures.  The entries with the question marks represent impossible shots.

Wouldn't it actually be two corners since both back corners of the zombie are directly opposite in relation to the character in question? 

I just may end up using the old LOS rules for the new edition as the monster blocking its own LOS makes little sense to me.

gforce200 said:

I was speaking in general, not about that specific example.  If all the walls and rubble weren't in the way, Jain could target the zombie from three of her corners to three of the zombie's corners.

gforce200 said:

It seems to make sense that one would only use the two closest corners of the attacker and target. It would be silly to attack from a rear corner if it made the uninterrupted LoS besides your own character model being in the way.

If there is no resolution for this new rule, I'll probably make a house rule for two-three closest corners to the target closest two-three corners as well.

Coldmoonrising said:

Except that this ignores the mathematical utility of a system where you can target "any corner of the target space": the angle of attack for the corner(s) that are not "facing" the attacker can be no greater and no less than the maximum and minimum angles of the corner spaces that are "facing" the attacker.
Put more simply - it helps simulate attacking the center of the target. 

Targeting the closest two-three corners simulates a system, where you can target the tip of a creatures nose, or the furthest protrusion of it's rear end, but not it's center mass - it's dumb. 

At a bare minimum, the discussions here and here prove that the example given is terrible, and, at a minimum, the blue line in the link from your earlier post should be explicitly addressed.