Models on terrain

[Incarias]

When a model is placed on top of terrain, is the Ht of the terrain added to that of the model for LoS purposes?

 

Example 1:

There are three boxes (Ht3, Blocking, Impassable, Climbable) in a row. Seamus is on top of the first, and Misaki is on the third. Every line between the two crosses over he middle box. Do the two models have LoS to each other?

 

Example 2:

Two Malifaux Rats (Ht1) are in base to base contact on top of a wall (Ht1, Blocking, Impassable, Climbable). On the respective side of the wall, on ground level, is Nix and a Rotten Belle. Evey line between Nix and the Belle cross over one of the Rats' bases. Do NIx and the Belle have LoS to each other?

 

In M1E, it was explicitly stated that Ht values were added together for these purposes, but I cannot find a similar rule in M2E. Is it there, and if so, where?

[egoon]

As far as I've been able to understand, standing on a piece of terrain does not increase your 'effective' Ht. With the exception of Vantage points, and I admit to not quite understanding those rules.

[Joel]

Check out the rules for vantage points.

[ArcticPangolin]

Had Hans shooting from Ht 3 terrain, over another intervening Ht 3 terrain, at Mounted McCabe on Ht 1 terrain. Realised afterwards that, as we understood the rules, he would not have been able to see McCabe, as the LoS lines drawn from base to base would have passed through the intervening Ht 3 terrain.

 

Definitely a 1.5 -> M2E moment.

[Incarias]

Check out the rules for vantage points.

 

Ah, but when two models are on separate pieces of Vantage Point terrain of equal Ht, LoS is "drawn normally", is it not? (Seriously, I'm working from memory, here...)

[Fetid Strumpet]

You are not alone in your confusion. The LoS rules in regards to how they work when models are on anything but the same level are very confusing, and given how often they are asked about could really do with their own section in the FAQ.

[Ikvar]

You are not alone in your confusion. The LoS rules in regards to how they work when models are on anything but the same level are very confusing, and given how often they are asked about could really do with their own section in the FAQ.

 

I completely agree, it is the only thing I can still have a hard time understanding during a game, to an extend where I would rather just avoid hills etc as much as possible :/

[Wild Razor]

The vantage point rules are perhaps the most confusing for everyone, at least in the group I play with.  From what I can determine reading it, if you are on Ht 1 terrain, you may as well be at ground level, and you do not add the terrain you are on to your Ht.  Once the terrain hits Ht 2 then things change because then the vantage point rules take effect.  The way it reads, it's the "base" of the terrain that matters then, because you start drawing lines on a diagonal as per the p41 diagram.  The biggest issues I have with the vantage point rules is they focus fully on the acting model and determining LOS and Cover from the perspective of the model atop the vantage point.  They are ambiguous or totally absent in regards to the reverse.  There are no examples or rules that seem to cover a model at ground level trying to determine LOS and cover to a target on a vantage point.  The way it reads as written a model on a vantage point can shoot down, but can't be shot back up at.  The only rules as written exception to this I can find is if the Ht of the model trying to attack an enemy on a vantage point is greater than the Ht of the vantage point terrain itself.  And this problem becomes worse when you have vantage points of differing Ht values, after all a model on Ht 2 vantage point terrain cannot draw lines on a diagonal from it's base to the base of a model on Ht 3 vantage point terrain without passing in some way through the Ht 3 terrain the model is on, meaning no matter what the Ht of the model on the Ht 3 terrain is, or for that matter the Ht of the model on the Ht 2 terrain, you can't shoot it.  

 

Further the rather confusing line for LOS through terrain about being "within the terrain's Ht" is quite an ambiguous factor (especially if you are trying to shoot at a model on a higher vantage point).  Unless you consider the actual design of the terrain model to define it's height exactly as the real eye sees it, how does one determine this.  Since the Ht value is an abstract this seems a rather convoluted way to rule it.  

 

If anything needs to be clarified more it's how terrain Ht and the models atop it determine LOS and Cover.  It's the only part of the rulebook that I think needs revision or an FAQ added.

[Thaarup]

The vantage point rules are perhaps the most confusing for everyone, at least in the group I play with.  From what I can determine reading it, if you are on Ht 1 terrain, you may as well be at ground level, and you do not add the terrain you are on to your Ht.  Once the terrain hits Ht 2 then things change because then the vantage point rules take effect.  The way it reads, it's the "base" of the terrain that matters then, because you start drawing lines on a diagonal as per the p41 diagram.  The biggest issues I have with the vantage point rules is they focus fully on the acting model and determining LOS and Cover from the perspective of the model atop the vantage point.  They are ambiguous or totally absent in regards to the reverse.  There are no examples or rules that seem to cover a model at ground level trying to determine LOS and cover to a target on a vantage point.  The way it reads as written a model on a vantage point can shoot down, but can't be shot back up at.  The only rules as written exception to this I can find is if the Ht of the model trying to attack an enemy on a vantage point is greater than the Ht of the vantage point terrain itself.  And this problem becomes worse when you have vantage points of differing Ht values, after all a model on Ht 2 vantage point terrain cannot draw lines on a diagonal from it's base to the base of a model on Ht 3 vantage point terrain without passing in some way through the Ht 3 terrain the model is on, meaning no matter what the Ht of the model on the Ht 3 terrain is, or for that matter the Ht of the model on the Ht 2 terrain, you can't shoot it.  

 

Further the rather confusing line for LOS through terrain about being "within the terrain's Ht" is quite an ambiguous factor (especially if you are trying to shoot at a model on a higher vantage point).  Unless you consider the actual design of the terrain model to define it's height exactly as the real eye sees it, how does one determine this.  Since the Ht value is an abstract this seems a rather convoluted way to rule it.  

 

If anything needs to be clarified more it's how terrain Ht and the models atop it determine LOS and Cover.  It's the only part of the rulebook that I think needs revision or an FAQ added.

 

I think that there somewhere in the rules are a rule about LoS that goes something like this "if one model has LoS to another model then the reverse is also true". So if a model with vantage point to another model that model also have LoS to the model with vantage point. LoS goes both ways so to speak.

[Ausplosions]

Razor, Height of a terrain piece is not ambiguous. It has a Ht value agreed upon before you begin play.

[Wild Razor]

Razor, Height of a terrain piece is not ambiguous. It has a Ht value agreed upon before you begin play.

 

I did not say ambiguous, I used the word abstract which is exactly what it is, it's a number that represents an abstract value since like models the real world dimensions and heights aren't the "in game" heights.  Which is why there is ambiguity in determining if a line of sight crosses a base "within" the height of the model, because how do you convert the abstract Ht value into a real world measurable factor?  The Vantage point rules require you to be able to do this without explaining how such is determined. 

 

Also to Thaarup, if that rule you reference is in the book, I cannot find it, if you can provide it's location I'd appreciate it.  

[Thaarup]

Hmm, not sure what happened, but my earlier reply has gone missing.

Instead of going through it all again I will try making a short version..

 

@Wild Razor;

1. Have you looked at the second line page 41, under the V. Point topic? It is something about the rules applying to both a target at V. Point or a model using V. Point to target another model?

 

2. Haveyou looked at the example at the bottom of the page (More specific Rasputina vs Lilith)?

 

3. I can´t remember where I did read that "rule" but I will try finding it. 

[Adran]

The book never says that if one has line of site then the other does, but only because some models have special rules that can effect their sight.

But if you ignore individual model rules then there is no situation where one model can see the other and not been seen itself.

 

Vantage point rules do state that they apply for both drawing line of sight From the vantage point and to the vantage point (As Thaarup says with a reference)

[Ikvar]

The book never says that if one has line of site then the other does, but only because some models have special rules that can effect their sight.

But if you ignore individual model rules then there is no situation where one model can see the other and not been seen itself.

 

Vantage point rules do state that they apply for both drawing line of sight From the vantage point and to the vantage point (As Thaarup says with a reference)

 

There really should be a place in the book where it is written though, I think there would be a lot less confusion if the basic rule was clear for everyone "If you can see the enemy, the enemy can also see you". Of course there a models that ignores this basic rule, just as there are many other basic Malifaux rules that can be broken with different models, but it will always specifically state this on the models stat card...

[Adran]

The line of sight rules are basically you drawing a line between A and B. The  same rules are used to draw a line between B and A.

Unsurprisingly, the same line can be drawn in both cases, and it will pass through the same pieces of terrain.

 

Writting that rule in the book would have made the phrasing for all the abilities that affect line of sight much more clunky as they all explained how they break this basic rule.