Vantage point, additional terrain and LOS

[Finwe8]

Hello,

I had a game yesterday with a friend and at some point we were actually pretty confused about LOS in a certain situation:

a ) Modal 1. with HT 2 stands on Terrain with HT 3 and vantage point rule applies.

b )Terrain piece with HT 3 stands between Model 1. and Model 2.

c ) Model 2. with HT2 stands on HT0 and wants to shoot Model 1.

 

Does it have LOS?

 

Maybe I try some asci art:

 

 

1.

1.

O          I

O          I                                              2.

O______I__________________________2.

 

As you can see depending on the distances one could easily draw a LOS line in 'reality' BUT the rules go as follows:

 

1. Models between the acting and target model which are below the vantage point model are ignored

-> Irrelevant

 

 

2. Terrain that is equal to or less than the HT of the lower model is ignored for LOS

-> Not the case, both relevant terrain pieces are higher than Model 2.

 

 

3.Any LOS lines which pass over the base of blocking terrain (which isn't otherwise ignored) at a point within the terrain's HT are considered blocking.

-> Thats the big question. 'At a point within the terrain's HT'

 

(May very well be a language problem, in that case have a cookie and sorry for the long post)

Interpretations:

 

1. The Terrain piece I is only relevant if it is it's HT (3) or less from Model 2. apart

 

2. Terrain I has to be at least 3 away of Terrain O.

-> That's what I would read if i read strictly but I do not find that this makes sense in any way

 

 

We ended up with doing the inverse vantage point calculation. Intervening Terrain is HT 3. Model 2. is HT 2 -> Model 2. has to be 3''-2''=1'' away from Terrain I.

[Myyrä]

This is the rule which is exactly the rule handling the given problem and this 'at a point within the terrain's Ht' is the passage in question, which is ambiguous to me.

Time for another one of Myyrä's epic paint pictures:

 

Let both terrain pieces A and B be Ht2.

You would ignore terrain piece A, because the LoS line isn't within 2" of the ground when crossing the terrain's base. You would not ignore terrain piece B, because the LoS line is within two inches of the ground when crossing its base.

 

(Terrain piece B would be ignored because of a different rule if the lower model is Ht2 though.)

[Dirial]

The diagonal LoS to model 2's base would pass the terrain, I think. As the terrain is not ignored, there would be no LoS.  There is no way to connect the bases with a line that wouldn't pass the blocking terrain.

 

This was a quick interpretation with just p. 41. I hope I don't forget something here...

[AoS]

If the model 1 with HT 2" it isn't within 2" of the ledge then there isn't LoS.

[Dirial]

If the model 1 with HT 2" it isn't within 2" of the ledge then there isn't LoS.

 

I think they accounted for that, as he said that the Vantage Point rule is in effect.

[AoS]

I think they accounted for that, as he said that the Vantage Point rule is in effect.

 

Yep sorry, I wanted to say I would count the second Ht 3" terrain piece as a part of the first one, so if the model 1 was within 2" of the ledge of the 2nd terrain piece, he could ignore it.

 

Anyway in page 43 you have a picture of this same situation with Raspu and the Young Nephilim. They just draw LoS base to base. Guess this is how it works.

 

So the the model 1 and 2 have no LoS.

[Finwe8]

Thanks for the answers so far!

 

 

Anyway in page 43 you have a picture of this same situation with Raspu and the Young Nephilim. They just draw LoS base to base. Guess this is how it works.

 

So the the model 1 and 2 have no LoS.

 

Your assumption here is that the distances between O, I and 2. do not affect anything. I am not fully convinced here for two reasons:

First, the following snippet: 'At a point within the terrain's HT' (p.42 elevation rules, diagonal exceptions). Whats that  for? For your interpretation the sentence would make much more sense without this snippet!?

Any LOS lines which pass over the base of blocking terrain (which isn't otherwise ignored) at a point within the terrain's HT are considered blocking.

Second, this can get quite redicules. Imagine 2. is Hans and Hans is 31'' away from Terrain I and the distance between I and O would be 4''. In realtiy Hans could shoot nearly into the foot of Model 1..

 

 

 

 

 

The diagonal LoS to model 2's base would pass the terrain, I think. As the terrain is not ignored, there would be no LoS.  There is no way to connect the bases with a line that wouldn't pass the blocking terrain.

 

I do not see any reference to the base of any involved model in the elevation rules. And as were calculating in a top down manner aside from these elevation rules I don't know why we should do different than normaly? Or to turn it arround: I can shoot over HT 1 crates if I am HT 2 although I can't connect LOS lines to the base.

 

One thing I took into account all the time implicitly is on page 40. there is a definition of 'within':

 

 

When an Action States that an object must be within a distance, if any protion of that object's base is at that distance or closer it is considered within the stated distance.

[Dirial]

I do not see any reference to the base of any involved model in the elevation rules. And as were calculating in a top down manner aside from these elevation rules I don't know why we should do different than normaly? Or to turn it arround: I can shoot over HT 1 crates if I am HT 2 although I can't connect LOS lines to the base.

 

Every measurement in Malifaux is always done base to base, but usually from a top down view, so it is in fact just the way you just said. The image on p. 41, big rulebook, explaining the Vantage Point rules, shows explicitly how the LoS are drawn from base to base.

[Bengt]

Yeah, the example clearly shows that you draw the side view lines from base to base, so models sort of see with the feet.

 

As for distance mattering, it doesn't if you are trying to see past something the same Ht as the terrain you are standing on. But if you're standing on something taller it does matter, as it will slip under those side view lines if it's close enough the model on taller terrain.

[AnythingBut]

As far as I can tell (and have always played it as such) :

If you are on a vantage point and within your models height from the edge you can see down.

You draw a diagonal line between the lip of the vantage point and your targets base (or vice versa), if it passes through terrain which you have defined as blocking you have to check the height of it and compare it to the Ht of the model on the ground.

If the Ht of the terrain is equal to or smaller than the target on the ground you ignore it for LoS but can still gain cover if within 1".

If the Ht of the terrain in greater than the model on the ground you don't have LoS and cannot target them.

So presumably if you were shooting UP at the model on the vantage point you would do the same check for LoS (as if the model on the vantage point can see the model on the ground the same much be true looking from the opposite side.

And then presumably as long as there is no scatter terrain up on the vantage point to hide behind the model up there would get no cover if they were the target.

[Finwe8]

After thinking a little bit more about the rules:

 

Any LOS lines which pass over the base of blocking terrain (which isn't otherwise ignored) at a point within the terrain's HT are considered blocking.

 

 

When an Action States that an object must be within a distance, if any portion of that object's base is at that distance or closer it is considered within the stated distance.

 

I am tending to go with the interpretation that real diagonal lines are drawn. "pass over...  at a point within the HT are considered blocking".

 

Now the question would be from which height.

Base to base would not make much sense to me as that would mean that it makes no difference if the participating models are HT 1 or HT 2 (in the given example).

So I personally would go with the models height (the actual height stated on the stat card).

Thats actually not that hard to measure as its just a straight line and it is also a probably more rare case.

 

Thanks everyone on your valuable input.

If you have more I would be pleased to hear it.

[SuperFly TNT]

No rulebook handy as I'm at work but isn't there a blurb on the diagram with Raspy & Lilith that that if the elevated model is within it's HT of the edge of terrain, it doesn't block LoS? So even if the target model was within the HT of the vantage point it wouldn't block LoS, or at least that's how I've interpreted it.

[solkan]

After thinking a little bit more about the rules:

 

 

 

I am tending to go with the interpretation that real diagonal lines are drawn. "pass over...  at a point within the HT are considered blocking".

 

Now the question would be from which height.

Base to base would not make much sense to me as that would mean that it makes no difference if the participating models are HT 1 or HT 2 (in the given example).

So I personally would go with the models height (the actual height stated on the stat card).

Thats actually not that hard to measure as its just a straight line and it is also a probably more rare case.

 

There's that nice diagram in the rulebook illustrating vantage point line of sight that has the lines drawn explicitly from base to base.

And there are two rules quotes concerning drawing line of sight between models:

 

To determine LoS from a model to a target, the players will draw a series of imaginary straight lines from the acting model to the target model. These LoS lines are drawn from anywhere on the acting model's base to anywhere on the target's base.

 

There are no model volumes or magic cylinders involved.  That's why the instructions for drawing line of sight vertically have to tell you what terrain to ignore:

 

Drawing LoS lines diagonally is similar to drawing them normally, with a few exceptions:

•Models between the acting and target model which are below the vantage point model are ignored.

•Terrain that is equal to or less than the Ht of the lower model is ignored for LoS (but not cover).

•Any LoS lines which pass over the base of blocking terrain (which isn't otherwise ignored) at a point within the terrain's Ht are considered blocked.

[Finwe8]

Hmm there are a lot of opionions on that topic but nobody up to now could explain to me the third rule of the elevation rules in such a way that I am content with the explanation.

 

 

Any LoS lines which pass over the base of blocking terrain (which isn't otherwise ignored) at a point within the terrain's Ht are considered blocked.

 

This is the rule which is exactly the rule handling the given problem and this 'at a point within the terrain's Ht' is the passage in question, which is ambiguous to me.

 

 

Every measurement in Malifaux is always done base to base, but usually from a top down view, so it is in fact just the way you just said. The image on p. 41, big rulebook, explaining the Vantage Point rules, shows explicitly how the LoS are drawn from base to base.

Point taken. Still, does that answer my question? Whats now with terrain I?

 

 

No rulebook handy as I'm at work but isn't there a blurb on the diagram with Raspy & Lilith that that if the elevated model is within it's HT of the edge of terrain, it doesn't block LoS? So even if the target model was within the HT of the vantage point it wouldn't block LoS, or at least that's how I've interpreted it.

 

Absolutly correct but not the problem of this question The vantage point rule is applying and not a problem here .

 

 

There are no model volumes or magic cylinders involved.  That's why the instructions for drawing line of sight vertically have to tell you what terrain to ignore:

 

Thats what I am hoping/asking for! So which terrain am I ingoring based on 'at a point within the terrain's Ht' ?

[Dirial]

[Finwe8]

Fits to the rule! I take that one Thanks a lot Myrrä.

Although I am wondering that the height of the involved models is not changing anything.

[Myyrä]

Although I am wondering that the height of the involved models is not changing anything.

It changes some things. Just not that thing.

[Okruszek]

In the book we can read: Terrain that is equal to or less than the Ht of the lower model is ignored for
LoS (but not cover). What about such sitiuation? It seams that model on vantage point will have LOS to lower model, but the lower model will have cover:

 

[Myyrä]

In the book we can read: Terrain that is equal to or less than the Ht of the lower model is ignored for
LoS (but not cover). What about such sitiuation? It seams that model on vantage point will have LOS to lower model, but the lower model will have cover:

 

Yes.

[Okruszek]

What about such situation, does model A have line of site to model C? Or do we only count vantage point from 2 inches up and if model is standing on hill/barrel (smth) that is lower than 2 inches we count him as he would stand on the ground instead. 

[Bengt]

What about such situation, does model A have line of site to model C? Or do we only count vantage point from 2 inches up and if model is standing on hill/barrel (smth) that is lower than 2 inches we count him as he would stand on the ground instead. 

 

Only terrain that is Ht 2 or higher can use the Vantage rules, page 41, "Vantage Points" section. So treat it exactly as if the models were standing on the ground.

Edited October 15, 2015 by Bengt

[Okruszek]

What about such situation, does model A have line of site to model C? Or do we only count vantage point from 2 inches up and if model is standing on hill/barrel (smth) that is lower than 2 inches we count him as he would stand on the ground instead. 

 

Only terrain that is Ht 2 or higher can use the Vantage rules, page 41, "Vantage Points" section. So treat it exactly as if the models were standing on the ground.

Just as I was playing. Thank you very much for fast answer

[Okruszek]

One more question because I can't find solution in book. Sorry for so many annoing questions about it

Does Ht2 model A have LOS to the small Ht1 model standing behind the Ht1 crate? There are some rules that specify it? And if model A would be Ht3 will he have LOS to the small model?

[solkan]

One more question because I can't find solution in book. Sorry for so many annoing questions about it

Does Ht2 model A have LOS to the small Ht1 model standing behind the Ht1 crate? There are some rules that specify it? And if model A would be Ht3 will he have LOS to the small model?

See the definition of Blocking and the line of sight rules (Core Rulebook, page 41).

The Ht of the acting model, target, and intervening objects can effect whether or not the acting model has LoS. If the blocking object (terrain or model) between the Attacker and target has Ht lower than the Attacker or target's Ht, then the blocking object is ignored for LoS quality (but not cover).

Because that statement is a little bit dense, here's how it unpacks:

From the Ht2 model:  "If the blocking object ... has Ht lower than the Attacker's Ht, then the blocking object is ignored for LoS quality [but can still grant cover]"

or from the Ht1 model:  "If the blocking object has Ht lower than the target's Ht, then the blocking object is ignored for LoS quality [but can still grant cover]"

In other words:  Is it shorter than the target or the attacker?  Then you can see through it.

And it works the same way whether you're dealing with a model or blocking terrain.

 

Edited October 15, 2015 by solkan