by Robin
In my case, I overcame the first reactions about the 2nd edition LOS rules.They certainly are not "silly" and even the fact that the target can block itself the LOS can find acceptable explanations - c.f other threads on the topic.
Speaking of silliness would mean that FFG did not give a thought about that new way of evaluating the LOS (which is certainly not the case).
But, for sure, those rules are counterintuitive, and they can present a psychological obstacle vs. one's idea of "reality".
All games do use abstractions.
E.g. moving and shooting diagonally is the same - when it comes to evaluating distances : the diagonal distance being 1.414213562373095 times the orthongonal - as moving and shooting orthogonally, which is an absurdity.
One could call that view of things a "silliness" with even better reasons.
Perhaps the fact is that LOS seems more easy to simulate and that does create the psychological reaction. But I do believe it is about as abstract as the orthogonal-diagonal equivalence (hey, the Eagle eyes Wilkdlander power allows to fire through friendly figures but not enemy ones! That is "absurd"!).
If one can integrate that this is just a game with many simplifications to make it playable, the LOS rules are not a great problem.
So I play using those 2nd edition rules, and things work fine.
I explained them (and the strange exceptions) to quite a number of different players, and there was no debate about them.
But, perhaps, is it due to the fact that none were transiting from D1 to D2.
However, I think that choosing center to center LOS would not change a lot the game, as marginal situations don't occur that frequently.
Tactics are about adaptation and the factors that play into a quests results are so abundant that the LOS variant is only one among many.
