Can a model block LOS to another model?

[Mike3838]

Picture three models all having the same base size, say 30mm.

 

Position them in a straight line on the tabletop - or as close to a straight line as you can.

 

A ----- B ----- C

 

Can model A see model C?

 

In a theoretical sense, it's possible for Model B to be exactly positioned such that no lines can be drawn between A and C.

 

In a practical sense, no matter where you position B, there will still be a *tiny* amount of Model A visible from the perspective of Model C. It's probably just a hair, but it just isn't possible to physically place Model B in *exactly* the right place to block all possible lines.

 

Obviously if different base sizes are involved, the question is simpler, but 30mm/30mm/30mm is the most common one we see in games.

 

I see two options:

 

1) Models can never block line of sight between two other models that have the same base size. It isn't physically possible.

 

2) I can put a model down in "approximately" the right place to block LOS, and declare that I have moved him to a LOS blocking position, which although not physically possible, is perfectly fine in a more abstract sense. We deal in abstractions in Malifaux all the time.

 

Has anybody thought about this as much as me? Are there standard conventions in place?

[Mike3838]

I disagree that lines are possible in perfect alignment - in perfect alignment it is impossible to draw a line between A and C that doesn't touch B first and therefore get blocked

 

Even if that "touching" is only a tangent, that is the exact same amount of "touching" that the line will do to the attacker and target models.

[Unifiedshoe]

Option 1 is correct.

 

If models a-b-c are the same size, then it's not possible in any way for model B to block LOS to either. If they are not perfectly lined up, one base edge will be blocked and the other will be visible. If they are perfectly aligned, BOTH base edges of A, B, and C will be visible to all three models.

[Dracomax]

practically, it is really difficult, if not impossible for models of the same base size to block LOS in that fashion.

 

Rules wise, they do so, if you cannot draw LOS without passing through the bases. Anyone not "that guy" will excuse situations in which they cannot use some straight tool to show unimpeded LOS. Stating "it is not possilble because it will always be some distance off, even if only in nanometers" is bad form.

 

That being said, Ht is a much bigger factor. If model B is Ht 1 and Model A or C are Ht 2, Model B can never block LOS.

[Lysis]

I have thought about this from time to time as well, and have sided that, for ease of play and good comradery, that a single 30mm base won't block LoS between 2 other models on 30mm bases without the help of terrain or a 4th model.  It just isn't worth the debate at the price of fun.

 

However... as a TO, I have a cheap-o laser level from a hardware store to settle any disputes.  If a player can place a model with such high accuracy on the fly in a game setting (yes, i would demand it be physically placed perfectly if they are going to make this claim of blocking LoS), then I'd let the laser speak for itself - blocked would be blocked.

[Ratty]

I had it come up in a game last night... From eye line as we don't use lazers if it could get a shot off it would have been on such a tiny amount of the base as to not be viewable by eye, so we both went meh, no shot...

But with pre-measuring I can see no reason you couldn't move a model up and say "I'm placing this model to block line of sight to this model from X-Model". You know if there is line of sight when you place the model due to pre-measuring, similar to when placing models in a wood you can say I'm placing it so it's within 3" of this edge in case nudging happens before it's next activation, or so it can see out to do a shot (So all you are really saving is time, who wants to see a player with a lazer pointer move a model back and forward until it's perfectly lined up for 10 minutes).

[Unifiedshoe]

I disagree that lines are possible in perfect alignment - in perfect alignment it is impossible to draw a line between A and C that doesn't touch B first and therefore get blocked

 

Even if that "touching" is only a tangent, that is the exact same amount of "touching" that the line will do to the attacker and target models.

 

This isn't open for debate, it's a fact. If three circles of the same size are in perfect alignment, you will be able to draw parallel lines that touch all three models bases on both sides. Just go draw it in paint or something to see what I'm talking about. That same line that touches the first circles base also touches the second and third circles, meaning that circles 1 and 3 "see" each other. In order for the middle circle to block 1 from 3 and vice versa, it would have to interrupt the line. It clearly doesn't, since the line continues to touch all three circles.

[Ratty]

An infinitesimal thin line will either pass through the circle or not be touching. As it states that you draw line "between the models", the line must be generated from within the circle of the first base and end within the circle of the second base. AS such if perfectly aligned must pass through the 3rd base.

[Unifiedshoe]

[Dracomax]

This isn't open for debate, it's a fact. If three circles of the same size are in perfect alignment, you will be able to draw parallel lines that touch all three models bases on both sides. Just go draw it in paint or something to see what I'm talking about. That same line that touches the first circles base also touches the second and third circles, meaning that circles 1 and 3 "see" each other. In order for the middle circle to block 1 from 3 and vice versa, it would have to interrupt the line. It clearly doesn't, since the line continues to touch all three circles.

Actually, it means they don't, because there is no part of the line that touches A and C which does not also touch B.

 Therefore, B blocks LOS on that line.

[Dirial]

Yeah, what Dracomax said. Even if the lines are tangents, which per definition touch a circle in only one point, they touch all 3 circles. Since they can't pass through the models base, the line would end there.

[HalcyonSeraph]

This isn't open for debate, it's a fact. If three circles of the same size are in perfect alignment, you will be able to draw parallel lines that touch all three models bases on both sides. Just go draw it in paint or something to see what I'm talking about. That same line that touches the first circles base also touches the second and third circles, meaning that circles 1 and 3 "see" each other. In order for the middle circle to block 1 from 3 and vice versa, it would have to interrupt the line. It clearly doesn't, since the line continues to touch all three circles.

 

The debate part is whether a a line that tangentially touches a base is "passing through" that base.

[DeleteAccount]

I had it come up in a game last night... From eye line as we don't use lazers if it could get a shot off it would have been on such a tiny amount of the base as to not be viewable by eye, so we both went meh, no shot...

But with pre-measuring I can see no reason you couldn't move a model up and say "I'm placing this model to block line of sight to this model from X-Model". You know if there is line of sight when you place the model due to pre-measuring, similar to when placing models in a wood you can say I'm placing it so it's within 3" of this edge in case nudging happens before it's next activation, or so it can see out to do a shot (So all you are really saving is time, who wants to see a player with a lazer pointer move a model back and forward until it's perfectly lined up for 10 minutes).

This is pretty much the logic I apply, we verbally agree that "it's placed in such a way as to be perfectly aligned" and roll with it since it can be perfectly done with premeasuring, but we don't want to fiddle with it for 15 minutes to get it perfect.

[Ratty]

It says draw a line between the Attacker and the Target. not draw a tangential line. I would read "between" as originating from within the Attackers base and ending within the Target base.

[Godgolden]

As above I simply agree after moving my model with my opponent that the LOS is blocked, helps avoid any confusion later with models getting knocked etc.

 

I am yet to meet someone who has issues with a same base size blocking LOS to another, intact everyone I have played in tourneys (not many mind) seem more than happy to get along, swings both ways after all, fun is always the goal.

[CrouchingMoose]

As another solution, if you and your opponent can't reach a gentleman's argeement on it and you don't want to waste time with a laser level, would be to get a square (the tool, not the shape) from some store that sells office supplies. At that point, if the ruler is touching both A and C, then B is moved until it is also touching the square, the models would be about as close to perfectly aligned as humanly possible with out some kind of digital aid. That's one of the things I've started to bring with me as a backup to my laser level (which is great for on the fly checking, but not for arguments). It's very hard to argue that stuff isn't lined up when a too designed for making straight lines says it is.

[Mike3838]

It sounds like different people have different conventions. Some play that LOS can be blocked, some play that it can't.

In a competitive setting, this is a potential issue surely.

Does it need ruling on?

[Dirial]

There are two different questions here: How do I align the models (question of etiquette) and is it at all possible (does a tangent provide LoS)?

 

I think only the 2nd one needs a ruling, since that is the one with some disagreement shown in this thread.

[Mike3838]

I agree, if it's allowed to align the models then it makes sense, as Ratty says, to just declare the alignment rather than spending a long time physically positioning a model.

Whether or not it is allowed has *massive* implications though...

[Ratty]

Well if you consider the line and the edge of the base to have no width, then the line has to either be outside or inside the base. If it's outside then it's not valid for LoS checking, if it's inside then it's possible to place a model so it blocks it. The whole Tangential argument suggests you have a line which has width and where only part of that width is inside the circle of the base, which is in no way suggested by how the rule is written.

 

 

Taking this to the extreme, if the line has width and only has to touch the outside of the base.. things like this becomes possible..

 

[HalcyonSeraph]

Well if you consider the line and the edge of the base to have no width, then the line has to either be outside or inside the base. If it's outside then it's not valid for LoS checking, if it's inside then it's possible to place a model so it blocks it. The whole Tangential argument suggests you have a line which has width and where only part of that width is inside the circle of the base, which is in no way suggested by how the rule is written.

 

 

Taking this to the extreme, if the line has width and only has to touch the outside of the base.. things like this becomes possible..

 

 

No, it doesn't suggest you have a line that has width. It suggests that a line can be touching a circle without bisecting that circle. Which it can. Tangents exist. 

[Ratty]

Tangents exist, but if they are touching the circle and they have no width they are also within the bounds of the circle. Lets say we take the circle x²+y²=1 and the line x=1. The point (1,0) lies in both the line and the circle. Now if you add the Circle (y+3)²+x²=1, the line would intercept it at (1,-3) and therefore be stopped, so it couldn't continue onto the Circle (y+8)²+x²=1.

The same is true of the like x=-1 where is intersects with the intervening circle at (-1,-3).

All the rules say is if a LoS line intersects with an object or model it is blocked, which it is obvious in this situation it is doing.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Yeah, but the bases of models do not have theoretical zero width. They are physical objects. The difference between touching something and bisecting it is relevant when we're talking about an actual base.

[dgraz]

Wow.

[AverageBoss]

I saw this exact same LoS argument pop up on the Warma/Hordes forums with the exact same arguments on both sides (that game and Malifaux have very similar LoS rules at their core). In the end, it came down to a moderator ruling, followed by an FAQ.

 

Of course their ruling directly contradicted a LoS example in their main rulebook that has yet to be amended, which technically makes both right at the same time for them .

[solkan]

For the sake of comparison, the rules officials for another popular game have ruled essentially:

1.  In the absence of pre-measuring, it's impossible or impractical to line of three models perfectly so that the middle model blocks both tangent lines and isn't off my a fraction of an inch.

2.  If the two players have decided to stipulate or otherwise agree that the middle model is positioned perfectly so that it does block both tangent lines, then it's no longer an issue.

3.  If the two players can't agree on either option #1 or option #2, they have a sportsmanship problem and not a rules problem.

 

That game system happens to lack pre-measuring, so the official decree was option #1.  With the disclaimer that "Look, if you've already agreed on option #2 with the person you're actually playing with, you don't have anything to argue about.  Get back to playing already!" 

 

Personally, I think pre-measuring makes option #2 feasible.  At worst, you end up asking "Do you agree that this position will block line of sight between these two models?  If not, how should I adjust it?"