LoS behind a wall that is same height

[Verdeloth]

A game i played yesterday my opponent

wanted to use his enslaved nephelim to

use shackle on one of his minions behind a ht 1 wall,

the enslaved nephelim is ht 1 and was standing 4 " away from the wall

and his minion is ht 2 and was standing 4" behind the wall on the other side.

 

We ended up and agree on that he could not see his mate behind the wall.

 

its true ?

 

if his minion behind the wall would have stand 1" behind the wall and his head would stick up behind it

then it would been in LoS right ?

[Ausplosions]

Pretty sure it is. You ignore terrain if it has less Ht than either the attack or the target.

Now, that works differently than it does for Vantage Points. With Vantage Points, you only get to ignore terrain that is equal to or less than the Ht of the lower model. On the other hand, you get to ignore any models between the two who are below the Vantage Point model.

Which means all of the following is true:

-A Ht 3 model, on the ground, can see a Ht 1 model hiding behind a Ht 2 wall, but cannot see a Ht 1 model hiding behind a Ht 3 wall.

-A Ht 3 model, on the ground, can see a Ht 1 model hiding behind a Ht 2 model, but cannot see a Ht 1 model hiding behind a Ht 3 model.

-A Ht 2 model, on Ht 2 terrain, cannot see a Ht 1 model hiding behind a Ht 2 wall.

-A Ht 2 model, on Ht 2 terrain, can see a Ht 1 model hiding behind a Ht 3 model.

I do get that abstractions are definitely an important tool here, but a bit more consistency between the two scenarios may have been worthwhile.

Why are you quoting me? I agree with you.

[Mike3838]

In my area, and in any events I run a ht1 wall is impassible, climb-able, and blocking. If you want over it you have to climb it, which means if you try to push through it it stops you. The was a thread where others posted their own interpretations, with there seeming to be an even mix of those who rule walls as impassible and others who rule them just as severe and blocking, but not impassible.

The answer therefore is that it depends on how you and your opponent or your TO defines the terrain.

 

I find this situation a little concerning. Walls are very common on tables everywhere. Shouldn't there be an accepted definition given to us by Wyrd so that players from different metas can play each other without having to reinterpret a very common/important rule before every single game? A 50/50 opinion split is going to lead to the maximum possible amount of disagreements. (Incidentally I've never seen a tournament pack yet in which the TO defined the terrain for players, it's always been a matter of discussion between the two players at the start of the game, which may lead to situations like in the example that follows)

 

If I'm *playing* a very Push intensive crew, I might be arguing for Walls to not be impassable. If I'm *facing* a very Push intensive crew, I might be arguing for the opposite. How are players meant to reach an agreement in such situation? Flip for it? Seems a rather large impact on the game that follows is being left up to a single card flip. And a card flip that could come up differently in the very next game!

 

Please Wyrd - can we have some clarity on what traits should be applied to walls, and then everyone can be on the same page?

[Verdeloth]

On page 61 in the big book there is a black text box of common terrain traits for walls. Uneven ground. Grove of trees. Hills. Cliffs and structures

[RagingRodian]

Why are you quoting me? I agree with you.

It's the purple dinosaur avatar. People can't resist a happy, singing dinosaur.

[Math Mathonwy]

At a certain point, if you want dynamic models and poses not to have a mechanical disadvantage you have to accept some level of abstraction. Especially in a game as terrain heavy as Malifaux. If a model of yours is in the center of a table covered in terrain, exactly how are you going to determine the model's view to even see what he can see?

To be fair, there are other possible systems than Malifaux abstraction and True LOS. You could, for example, use a silhouette template for different size minis that you can use to check how a model should appear when checking LOS if your sculpt and/or basing is a bit extreme. Or you can have terrain casting "shadows" depending on height that allow shorter models to hide in from taller models.

That said I do like the Malifaux system and have absolutely no problem with it.

[Morgan Vening]

To be fair, there are other possible systems than Malifaux abstraction and True LOS. You could, for example, use a silhouette template for different size minis that you can use to check how a model should appear when checking LOS if your sculpt and/or basing is a bit extreme. Or you can have terrain casting "shadows" depending on height that allow shorter models to hide in from taller models.

Silhouette can be incredibly clunky, but Shadow LOS isn't difficult to wrap your head around after experiencing it, but it can be a PITA to put it into words simply.

[Myth]

Why are you quoting me? I agree with you.

 

Saxif was complaining about a Ht 4 model being able to easily see a Ht 1 Gremlin hiding behind a Ht 3 wall. It sounded like you were saying that wasn't how it worked. If I misread your response, my bad! This definitely is the area of the rules where I've seen the most confusion and conflict over how it works, and how it should work...

[Fetid Strumpet]

Math, both those systems you mention are abstract systems. I didn't mean to convey that the current MALIFAUX Los system is THE abstract system, but at base when you are designing a Los system you have 2 options, true Los, or to abstract the system. How you abstract the system has an almost infinite potential, but at base those are the two options. And in any abstract system you WILL have cases crop up that create counter intuitive examples of sight.

That was my point.

[dgraz]

These LoS questions pop up periodically...and even though the questions have all been answered numerous times, I'm not surprised that the thread has gone on this long.

 

The LoS mechanic is probably the weakest mechanic in the rules in my opinion. Some of it is a little wonky and tough to wrap your mind around (Vantage points) but once you do, you can play it. The mechanic works, just could have been a little tighter.....when compared to the rest of the book which is very tight it seems lacking.

 

I miss the shadow rule.....and we have a bit of it in the opposite direction...that a model standing on a building can't be seen if they aren't within their Ht of the edge.....I wish walls would have gotten a similar treatment. I think it would go a long way to avoid this confusion that stems from the mechanic being counter-intuitive in some cases.

[Dracomax]

Saxif was complaining about a Ht 4 model being able to easily see a Ht 1 Gremlin hiding behind a Ht 3 wall. It sounded like you were saying that wasn't how it worked. If I misread your response, my bad! This definitely is the area of the rules where I've seen the most confusion and conflict over how it works, and how it should work...

While I understand the impulse to argue with anything that someone wearing that purple thing as an avatar says, a careful reading suggests that he was actually disagreeing with Saxif's assertion that it should block LOS. Honestly, I think your misunderstanding may have been a symptom of Ausplosion's tendency to give the simplest, shortest answer he can most of the time—which even when I agree with what he says, often does not explain why he says what he does.

 

At any rate, He, and you are definitely right. And honestly, it does work that way to some extent in real life, simply because of parallax. The farther you are away from an object, the more you can see around it on all sides. If anything, the Height 4 model would be fine, but the gremlin would be unable to fire back. Personally, I'm just as glad we don't have to deal with dozenz of different varieties of cover, like 80% cover or such. Abstraction allows us to play the game rather than argue about real life, or spend large amounts of time calculating for often relatively minor actions.

 

Also, it works both ways, you can target your own people under those circumstances too.

 

also, :+fate to Fetid's statement.

[The Godlyness]

:+fate to Fetid's statement.

Let me help you with that.

[Dracomax]

Let me help you with that.

You know, it helps if I put the + in...at least I didn't put the = in. again.....

[deValmont]

Would this clear it up?

 

'If a model is within its height of a piece of blocking terrain which is 2HT or more taller than the model, it does not have line of sight to it or from it through the terrain.'

 

 That wouldn't affect the current LoS rules but it would prevent odd situations like the Gremlin/Avatar one mentioned above.

[Ausplosions]

There isn't anything wrong with the way it works now though really is there?

[deValmont]

Not really, if you're not bothered by the abstractions. I was just trying to think of a way of making it a little less abstract and a little more like TLoS, with only one extra line of rules. More of an exercise in laconicism than anything else.