Jump to content

Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'elevation'.



More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


Categories

  • Wyrd News
  • Games
    • Malifaux 2E
    • Through the Breach
    • Puppet Wars Unstitched
    • Evil Baby Orphanage
    • Jetpack Unicorn
    • Showdown
    • Kings of Artifice

Forums

  • Forum News & Rules
    • Wyrd Announcements
    • Wyrd Board Help and Code of Conduct
    • Community Events
    • Wyrd Events
  • Discussions and Interests
    • News, Reviews, & Discussion
    • The Hobby Room
  • Malifaux
    • Faction Discussion
    • Malifaux Discussion
    • Malifaux Rules Discussion
  • Through the Breach
    • TTB Discussion
    • Player Creations
    • [Campaign] - The Obsidian Gate
  • The Other Side
    • TOS - Discussion
    • TOS - Allegiances
    • The Other Side Rules Discussion
  • Other Games
    • Board Games
    • Card Games
  • Super Secret Forum
  • The131's Upcoming events

Blogs

There are no results to display.

There are no results to display.


Find results in...

Find results that contain...


Date Created

  • Start

    End


Last Updated

  • Start

    End


Filter by number of...

Joined

  • Start

    End


Group


Website URL


Skype


Location


Interests


Biography:


Location:

Found 8 results

  1. Hi guys, quite knew to Malifaux, so maybe you could help me out with my two noob questions: Scenario - 1'' ht Elevation I stumbled across the elevation rules for LoS, see the attached picture. To my understanding there is line of sight between the left model (ht 3'') and the target model. But there seems to be no line of sight between the right model - The blocking object's height is NOT lower than the attacker or target's height. Even though you would think otherwise as both attackers practically reach the same height level. Therefore it seems like the 1'' ht elevation of the right model gets totally ignored for LoS, correct? Or do people actually measure from ground level instead? Scenario B - Elevated Markers When a marker gets placed on a small obstacle (ht 1'') like in the picture attached - What are my options on interacting with that marker? I assume models cannot interact from ground level, even with base contact to the obstacle. So to my understanding it is mandatory to climb up, stand on the marker to provide actual base contact and then interact, right?
  2. le_sphinx

    Charge from elevation

    Hey guys, Yesterday I had a situation with charge from elavation. So how it should be resolved in general? Does it work the same way as model climbing during charge? So the model need to go down and then go straight forward to its target? The picture from my situation is in attached files. So Sybelle (marked red) would like to charge Belle (marked blue). If she should go down at first and go straight after, it is impossible, because she has to step on Necropunk (marked green). Let's consider that the only one straight way to Belle is to go through Necropunk. Can she charge Belle or not?
  3. Thimblesage

    Models blocking markers

    Discussion came up at a tournament whether models can block LoS to markers specifically when a 40mm Ht:2 model stood on top a corpse marker to block Reva from drawing LoS. I was in favor that it does block LoS until someone laid out a good argument against. FAQ #45 often gets quoted to support that a <30mm models can block LoS to 30mm markers however, I now believe this FAQ was only discussing base size mechanics and not addressing Ht: mechanics at all. According to the Elevation mechanics on PG:43 of the big, if the intervening models has a Ht: lower than the attacker, then the blocking model is ignored for LoS quality. This means that in Reva's case only Ht:3 models can block corpse markers while on top of the marker. Is this correct? what do you think?
  4. In our club we've just ran our first tournament and had some LoS issues. after discussion (actually, after tournament) we've found that rules said nothing in regards "from which point terrain height should be measured when drawing LoS". Looks like rules assumed measuring height of terrain on start of the game. And nothing in rules said about "relative" height of different terrain piece (except case when 2 models standing on terrain of equal height, but this rule looks bizzare too) For our local meta we've decided to measure terrain height from point where lower model is standing. Here is why: 1) It's a popular case from forums: By RAW - G1 and G2 cannot see each other. But if we measure terrain height from point where lower model is standing we are fixing these two Gamins 2) Another popular case: By RAW - G1 and G2 doesn't see each other again. Since "If the acting model and the target model are both on vantage point terrain with the same Height, LoS is drawn normally." And normally - Ht2 terrain blocking LoS between Ht1 and Ht1 models. But, if we are measuring terrain Height from point where Lower model is standing - there is actually no terrain between these 2 models 3) Not popular, but possible situation. Blue square on this image is a "river", on bottom of which models can stand, 2" deep: By RAW - in Malifaux there are no such deep rivers. Ht cannot be "below 0". And there are 2 possible conclusions, both of them are actually bad/contr-intuitive: 1) Ignore such terrain feature either by banning tables with rivers/holes/etc. on it, or let models stand on top of this terrain (put something inside of this "hole", make a "bridges"), or not allow model to be pushed/moved inside. 2) Measure terrain from bottom of this "river", effectively making all terrain around river Vantage Points, 2ht (which is... bizzare, no one can shoot) If we are measuring terrain height from point where lower terain stands - this river have Ht0. Which is perfect. 4) It's a new scenario, that I haven't found anywhere on forums/faq/etc. By RAW Rasputina can't see Snowstorm (and vice versa), because all LoS from base to base are passing through Blocking terrain. (Snowstorm is HT3 model, so they can always ignore terrain lower than HT3, and when measuring LoS for Vantage point - it's equal or lower, but HT4 is higher, hence HT4 terrain cannot be ignored) But if we measure terrain Height from point where SnowStorm standing - elevation of Rasputina became Ht2 - and Ht2 will be ignored (it will be Hard Cover anyway) So, basically there are two questions: 1) Is my RAW is correct, and by RAW all heights are broken if both acting model and target stand on Vantage Point / Elevation 2) Is our "home rule" actually a homerule, and if yes - does it make sense to you?
  5. Thimblesage

    Melee Range and Elevation

    So how does Elevation affect Engagement Range. I have listed a couple example scenarios below according to how I think the rules read but I would love reassurance in case I have misinterpreted anything. There are a few things to define first before delving into my examples. Opposed Duels LoS Terrain Height Measurement Elevation Opposed Duels: The Three Opposed Duels I'm familiar with are Melee (Ml), Shoot (Sh) and Cast (Ca). In Malifaux there isn't a distinction between Ranged attacks and Melee Attacks. Rather, all Sh, Ca and Ml Attack Actions have range association for each attack and require LoS Line of Sight: All Ml attack actions must have LoS or else they cannot legally be t Terrain traits: Most Terrain Traits only affect Sh Attack Actions. Ml Attacks while requiring LoS are not affected by fate modifying Terrain Traits like hard cover, and soft cover but still must abide by traits like blocking and dense otherwise melee would ignore things like intervening walls. Height: the Ht mechanic restricts LoS when there is an intervening Model or piece of Terrain that has the same Ht or greater than the tallest model, (either Attacking or the Target model.) This is not true when Vantage Point mechanics are in effect. Measurement: So in Malifaux there seems to be the golden rule of always measuring from the top down: In Addition, Malifaux seems to hold to the "Sticky" Rule, where if something is exactly then it is legal, takes effect, succeeds, happens, or just is. So if a model is Exactly 2" away and has a 2" melee, then it is considered engaged: (on a side note this is why I believe that a Ht:2 model cannot squeeze under a Ht:2 doorway) Elevation: So instead of strictly adhering to the Golden Rule(Top Down), measurements take the elevation difference into account. So below are my examples, please let me know if they are correct. A Ht:2 model is behind a Ht:2 fence, there is a Ht:2 enemy model on the other side of the fence. The models are 1" apart. Model-A has a 2" . The models are not engaged because neither can draw LoS due to the intervening fence. A Ht:3 model is behind a Ht:2 fence, there is a Ht:1 enemy model on the other side of the fence. The models are 1" apart. Model-A has a 2" . Models are engaged because the Ht:3 model is taller than the intervening fence A Ht:3 model is behind a Ht:2 fence, there is a Ht:1 enemy model on the other side of the fence. The models are exactly 2" apart. Model-A has a 2" . Models are engaged because model-A's engagement range is 2" and each model is exactly 2" away which is within range A Ht:2 Lilitu is in Base Contact with a Ht:4 Building. There is a Ht:1 Mechanical Dove in base contact of the ledge of the building. Models are engaged because Lilitu engagement range is 4" and each model is exactly 4" away (though measured vertically) A Ht:4 Chompy Bits is 1" away from a Ht:3 Building. There is a Ht:2 Young Nephilim, 2" from the ledge of the building. Models are engaged because Chompy Bits has a Ht Greater than the elevation difference so measuring from the top-down, models are 3" apart, which is within Chompy Bits 3" engagement range A Ht:2 Young Nephilim is 1" away from a Ht:3 Building. There is a Ht:2 Young Nephilim, 2" from the ledge of the building. Models are NOT engaged because the Young Nephilim (the lower model) may not ignore terrain differences and is effectively 5" away from the Young Nephilim on the building. the Ht:2 Young Nephilim atop the building measures from the top-down as is effectively 3" away, still outside his engagement range. A Ht:4 Chompy Bits is in Base Contact with a Ht:3 Building. There is a Ht:1 Mechanical Dove 2" away from the edge of the building. The models are NOT engaged. Chompy Bits is within his engagement Range however the mechanical dove is not within his Ht distance away from the edge and because of Vantage Point mechanics now cannot ignore the ledge and cannot draw LoS
  6. Isolated or codependent mechanics? So I have never had any difficulty when determining melee range and whether I could legally make an attack. usually with engagement ranges typically being 1"-2" its rare that conditions or restrictions would intervene the engaged models and cause problems. However, there are some cases that arise which I would love to clarify. The relationship of Melee range and Engagement is somewhat ambiguous. Is engagement an individual mechanic and wholly distinct unto itself, or is it one of the many attributes of melee and just a slick term of being within range of close melee. The idiosyncrasy of engagement is that it acts like a condition, (but is not a condition to be clear) for the purposed of determining things like: disengaging strikes, shooting into engagement, interact action limitations. On the other hand engagement seems dependent on melee and simple a quality of melee, nothing more. This being important because I cannot find melee restrictions or conditions in the rules, at least not in the clarity that shooting and casting rules and restrictions have. it's odd that I cannot find something to the effect of, "A model may make a melee attack action if: X,Y,Z" Thankfully I don't see a malfunction in the rules that would need the clarification but the question still stands, Can a model make a melee attack action if: The model is within it's range The model is engaged So one possible logic loops might be: A.) Models have engagement range equal to their longest range Close (y) Attack B.) Model A cannot place a scheme marker because he is engaged with enemy Model B C.) However, Model B becomes Paralyzed which paralyzed models cannot engage enemy models, (unless in base to base contact with an enemy as per question 25 in the FAQ's ) ~.) Can Model A now place a scheme marker? Yes, Model B has been paralyzed and can no longer engage Model A No, Model B has an engagement of 0" but Model A is still within his close range and therefore is still engaged because engagement "goes both ways"
  7. A Ht1 model (e.g. guild hound) is hidden behind a Ht2 terrain. An enemy ht1 model (e.g. Burt Jebsen) is standing on a ht2 cliff (vantage point), and another Ht3 enemy model (e.g. Lucas McCabe) on the ground, same level as the guild hound in question. Based on the elevation and vantage point rules, it seems to me that McCabe can draw LoS to guild hound, while Jebsen can't. Is that so?
  8. This seems like an elementary question and would be surprised if it hasn't been answered already but here goes: do models with Flight or Incorporeal only spend movement for vertical distance when their end point results in a change in elevation? For example, a model with Flight moves 3" plus any horizontal distance to get on a Ht 3 rock. Would the model still have to spend 3" of vertical movement if it just "flew over" the rock and ended up on the other side? I'm sure this would make more sense with a picture but i don't know how to make one, sorry.
×