Two models standing on the same Ht 1 platform.

[Clement]

Having one of those existential "does it *really* work this way?" kind of moments.

If two models are currently standing 5 inches a part and both on the same piece of Ht 1 Hard Cover (I have bayou walkways), do they count as having cover from each other?

My Reasoning:

1) Both models are standing on a Ht 1 piece of terrain, so vantage point rules do not apply.  As such...

2) LoS is determined between them "Top Down", ignoring the relative height.

3) There is a piece of Hard Cover terrain "between" the two bases (they're standing on it) that is within 1 inch of the target.

 

Thus,  hard cover applies.   Right?

[mythicFOX]

If you want to avoid this, the answer is to define terrain carefully.

Why would a Ht1 raised platform give cover to begin with?  You could just define it as not doing so. Especially as you can actually see under the platform to start with.

You could also reason that the platform is stacked with general cover giving debris, which aren't modeled for practical reasons.

Alternatively you can define <1mm of the edges of the walkway as giving cover, and all of the interior space as not doing so.  At which point the LOS lines will not pass through cover giving terrain when the two models are stood on top of the platform.  Now this would give cover to people stood on the platform when being shot from the ground (if they're within 1" of the edge), but I could argue they're laying prone.

 

I genuinely think 99% of the issues people have with LOS and terrain are solved by taking a practical approach and being prepared to be a little abstract with terrain definitions.  We don't assume our models are permanently stood in the terrain modeled onto their bases, so we shouldn't assume that the terrain modeled onto the table has to be literally representative either.  Lets use our imaginations.  

[Nikodemus]

2 minutes ago, Durza said:

The attacker is within 1" of the terrain being used as cover so it doesn't apply. 

Are you saying cover doesn't apply if attacker is within 1'' of it? Can you quote a rule on that? I'm looking at the admittedly short "Cover" section in the small rulebook page 42 and can't find any indication that attacker's proximity to cover matters at all.

Quote

A model will gain the benefits of cover from a Projectile Attack when any LoS line between the Attacking model and the target model can be drawn through any terrain with the soft or hard cover traits that is within 1” of the target model.

 

[Bengt]

9 hours ago, Clement said:

Having one of those existential "does it *really* work this way?" kind of moments.

If two models are currently standing 5 inches a part and both on the same piece of Ht 1 Hard Cover (I have bayou walkways), do they count as having cover from each other?

My Reasoning:

1) Both models are standing on a Ht 1 piece of terrain, so vantage point rules do not apply.  As such...

2) LoS is determined between them "Top Down", ignoring the relative height.

3) There is a piece of Hard Cover terrain "between" the two bases (they're standing on it) that is within 1 inch of the target.

 

Thus,  hard cover applies.   Right?

Remember that the Vantage point rules is not used if the models are on the same height either. So, by RAW, if any models are standing on top of the same piece of blocking terrain that are the same Ht or taller than them they can not see each other at all. I've never met anyone who wanted to play like that and I wouldn't want to for cover either.

The elevation rules are a shambles and since Aaron if more errata happy I hope he takes page 41 out back, shoots it, burns it and spreads the ashes in four major rivers.

[Ludvig]

As per the current rules I believe you are right. The real question here is do you want to be the player who tries to pull this.

Also: if you intend to use it yourself you need to help your opponent "remember" that if you take any shots against them in similar situations first. If you have previously shot and not reminded them they had cover I would give you a stern warning for cheating/forfeit the game in favour of your opponent. If this ever comes up in one of my tournaments I will make my own errata.

[Durza]

Hmm, maybe I'm misremembering another discussion because thats how I thought it worked but can't find aything to back it up.

[solkan]

1 hour ago, Clement said:

Having one of those existential "does it *really* work this way?" kind of moments.

If two models are currently standing 5 inches a part and both on the same piece of Ht 1 Hard Cover (I have bayou walkways), do they count as having cover from each other?

My Reasoning:

1) Both models are standing on a Ht 1 piece of terrain, so vantage point rules do not apply.  As such...

2) LoS is determined between them "Top Down", ignoring the relative height.

3) There is a piece of Hard Cover terrain "between" the two bases (they're standing on it) that is within 1 inch of the target.

 

Thus,  hard cover applies.   Right?

Right.  Now put two Ht1 models on top of your Ht1 walkway system (Ht1 blocking, hard cover) and check if they can see each other.

Next, stand two Ht2 models on top of a Ht2 wall and try to determine whether  they can see each other.

Can you work out the part where the line of sight rules have pieces unwritten that are required to produce reasonable result?  Or do you need someone to provide links to one of the several previous line of sight threads?

 

[Seadhna]

If someone were to claim something along these lines, I would

a) never play with them again

b ) tell them to go play 40k or Warmahordes

c ) argue that relative to the models the LoS lines never pass through the terrain

d ) never allow models to stand on top of blocking hard cover terrain

[bertmac]

How is it being used as cover if he is on top of it?

[Ludvig]

@Seadhna @bertmac

The terrain rules as written do not take into account if the LoS passes through, over or under the terrain, you check top down and if any LoS passes it and you are within 1" of it you can claim cover.

I might add that no one plays like that.

[Clement]

For the record, while I'm generally the player in my meta known for sticking closest to the rules, I'm also the one who spends games frustrating myself with them when I find odd pot holes like this.

[bertmac]

43 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

@Seadhna @bertmac

The terrain rules as written do not take into account if the LoS passes through, over or under the terrain, you check top down and if any LoS passes it and you are within 1" of it you can claim cover.

I might add that no one plays like that.

But none of the sight lines are obstructed.

[Bakunin]

57 minutes ago, bertmac said:

But none of the sight lines are obstructed.

The rules don't actually check to see if LoS is obstructed, they just check if they pass over the terrain.

[Ludvig]

Quote

Page 41 Line of sight lines (continued from previous page)
"When drawing LoS to an object, the lines are drawn from a “top down” view
ignoring all vertical height."

Quote

Page 42: cover
"A model will gain the benefits of cover from a Projectile Attack when any LoS
line between the Attacking model and the target model can be drawn through any
terrain with the soft or hard cover traits that is within 1” of the target model."

@bertmac The rulebook is quite clear on the matter. Ht is only referenced in determining if you have LoS at all. Cover is granted irrespective of if the LoS lines actually are obstructed as long as they pass the base of the terrain.

The diagram on p 41 is also very clear in pointing this out further to avoid confusion:

"Rasputina has LoS to this Young
Nephilim, because at least one
LoS line can be drawn to it. It
will gain the benefits of the crate's
hard cover, because at least one
LoS Line crosses the base of
the terrain, and the Nephilim is
within 1" of the terrain."

[Bakunin]

mythicFOX has it. We could have true LoS a la WHFB/40k or Flames of War, but then the models would need to be more static and regular in their poses to avoid having arms or other body parts sticking out. Does anyone want to hear "I can draw LoS to the High River Monk's toe, so I'm going to shoot him"? Or we can abstract a lot of it and get more dynamic models and the occasional weird interaction.

The terrain rules demand a good bit of discussion about what traits each piece has and any other game effects that may be involved. Wyrd can't predict every terrain feature we make, so there's a list of general traits and the advice to talk it over before hand. There are some things that could be clarified in the LoS rules, but some table variation is just inevitable.

[Ludvig]

That's not really a fair argument Bakunin. It isn't that far out there to have a terrain system where a model is allowed to add the ht of the terrain it is standing on to the ht it ses to draw LoS. It's not like true LoS is the option anyone here is suggesting. 

An example of wonky rules as they currently are: If i define a ht 1 hill as blocking since I don't want two ht 1 models standing on opposite sides seing each other that means that even if one of them is standing on top of the hill they can't see each other since nothing in the rules allows me to factor in combined model and terrain height or ignore the terrain I am myself standing on. The two models will therefore look like they are seing each other and any reasonable person would assume they saw each other but under current Malifaux rules they can't see each other. If they are both on the hill, nope sorry, still blocking terrain of equal ht to you in the way. If I put my model on a ht 1 terrain piece that didn't block LoS I would assume it could see over other ht1 models standing on the ground since it would now have acombined ht of 2 but nope, not in Malifaux you don't! I'm still ht 1 so I can't see over other ht 1 models.

So now I stand on vantage point terrain instead. The terrain is 2" high and I am ht 1. I am trying to draw LoS to a ht 1 model hiding behind a ht 4 enemy model. Yup! No problem mate, that ht 4 model is on terrain lower than you so you completely ignore it! 

It wouldn't be unreasonable to allow for calculation of combined ht of models and terrain when drawing LoS.

It's also super fun to have low hills when facing ht 1 models with short engagement ranges. Since you only ignore terrain lower than you, not of equal ht when trying to attack in ml. I can position my models on the edges so the other guy can't fit a base in. That means they need to add the ht of the hill when attacking and since that's 1" and I'm a fraction of an inch further in they can never attack me with  attacks even though our models are like 2mm apart.

 

I like that the system is abstract. I dislike how some of those abstractions are ruled.

[Bakunin]

55 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

That's not really a fair argument Bakunin. It isn't that far out there to have a terrain system where a model is allowed to add the ht of the terrain it is standing on to the ht it ses to draw LoS. It's not like true LoS is the option anyone here is suggesting. 

An example of wonky rules as they currently are: If i define a ht 1 hill as blocking since I don't want two ht 1 models standing on opposite sides seing each other that means that even if one of them is standing on top of the hill they can't see each other since nothing in the rules allows me to factor in combined model and terrain height or ignore the terrain I am myself standing on. The two models will therefore look like they are seing each other and any reasonable person would assume they saw each other but under current Malifaux rules they can't see each other. If they are both on the hill, nope sorry, still blocking terrain of equal ht to you in the way. If I put my model on a ht 1 terrain piece that didn't block LoS I would assume it could see over other ht1 models standing on the ground since it would now have acombined ht of 2 but nope, not in Malifaux you don't! I'm still ht 1 so I can't see over other ht 1 models.

So now I stand on vantage point terrain instead. The terrain is 2" high and I am ht 1. I am trying to draw LoS to a ht 1 model hiding behind a ht 4 enemy model. Yup! No problem mate, that ht 4 model is on terrain lower than you so you completely ignore it! 

It wouldn't be unreasonable to allow for calculation of combined ht of models and terrain when drawing LoS.

It's also super fun to have low hills when facing ht 1 models with short engagement ranges. Since you only ignore terrain lower than you, not of equal ht when trying to attack in ml. I can position my models on the edges so the other guy can't fit a base in. That means they need to add the ht of the hill when attacking and since that's 1" and I'm a fraction of an inch further in they can never attack me with  attacks even though our models are like 2mm apart.

 

I like that the system is abstract. I dislike how some of those abstractions are ruled.

Wait, really? I could have sworn that Hts added. Seems that was something I just assumed because why wouldn't it work like that? Though I haven't actually used any terrain that could be stood on yet. WHFB left me with an intense dislike of hills.

Yeah, that should definitely be looked at then. I like the Ht system in general, it allows for cool models without making them a hindrance in play, but some parts might need a bit of work. Seriously, wouldn't just adding the terrain's Ht to the model's for deciding who can see what fix most of these issues?

[Ludvig]

Yeah, it would take a few lines of text to sort out the worst offenders of logic. I absolutely love the abstract style on principle much for the same reasons you state but the current rules are strange as we keep saying.

It's just the ht interactions that lead to most of my tables being entirely 2d in regards to areas you can enter which is a shame.

[Seadhna]

On 20/02/2017 at 9:23 PM, Ludvig said:

@bertmac The rulebook is quite clear on the matter. Ht is only referenced in determining if you have LoS at all. Cover is granted irrespective of if the LoS lines actually are obstructed as long as they pass the base of the terrain.

The diagram on p 41 is also very clear in pointing this out further to avoid confusion:

"Rasputina has LoS to this Young
Nephilim, because at least one
LoS line can be drawn to it. It
will gain the benefits of the crate's
hard cover, because at least one
LoS Line crosses the base of
the terrain, and the Nephilim is
within 1" of the terrain."

Well, in the OP's case the LoS lines never cross the base of the terrain, do they? A walkway could be mounted on pillars.

[Ludvig]

5 hours ago, Seadhna said:

Well, in the OP's case the LoS lines never cross the base of the terrain, do they? A walkway could be mounted on pillars.

I quoted the rulebook where it says you always check LoS from straight above and disregard ht for cover in the same comment I believe. Reread that part, it doesn't matter if the terrain isn't touxhing the table, it provides cover at all hts if it provides it at all.

The base of the terrain from that example picture could probably be seen as analogous to the base of a miniature, so the thing it is mounted on to provide stability or because that actual terrain touches the table all the way through inthat example.

[Ludvig]

On 2017-02-23 at 0:57 AM, Seadhna said:

Well, in the OP's case the LoS lines never cross the base of the terrain, do they? A walkway could be mounted on pillars.

Page 60 in the big rulebook details how all terrain has a base even if it physically isn't touching the board. This base is typically defined by the outemost part of the terrain piece unless agreed otherwise.

[Durza]

The attacker is within 1" of the terrain being used as cover so it doesn't apply. 

Now if it were 2 pieces of terrain then you could claim cover.