Liliths Illusionary Forest and line of site

[feagaur]

I was playing a game last night on vassal with a friend and I had placed Liliths illusionary forest markers in front of his Nikodem crew.

A question came up with line of site when he moved Nik into the right of the "two" forest markers and did his Mwahaha which affected markers that were adjacent to the other forest marker. The question was, if you're stood in one of the forest markers do you get line of site through the other as they're placed as one casting action, or does the other one block line of site as they're two separate counters placed in base contact?

In this case I allowed my friend to reposition his Nik so that he was based in both which cancelled the argument. But for future reference it would be good to know.

 

Thanks

[RobertSirc]

They don't count as one "giant" marker rather they count as two that are adjacent.  

[Sybaris]

Well said sir Robert, and well played because if your friend would have known the issue, he'd likely have positionned his Master where you both agreed to in the first place.

[Tawg]

While I agree with Robert as far as how this would be ruled.

However, if I were playing with friends?  It seems fairly implicit it is a single "entity" for terrain purposes, it just requires two markers to represent the size, and it's easier for Wyrd to continue referencing 50mm bases for the rules point, rather than making up new marker sizes for specific interactions (Like say the I. Forest or the Smoke Bombs from 10T, both being a new "100mm by 50mm base").  I wouldn't make someone touch both to see through them both.  Either is fine, as long as you both establish the rule and understand what you're doing before the game, and it isn't a shock to any player involved, should be just fine.

[Rathpex]

While I agree with Robert as far as how this would be ruled.

However, if I were playing with friends?  It seems fairly implicit it is a single "entity" for terrain purposes, it just requires two markers to represent the size, and it's easier for Wyrd to continue referencing 50mm bases for the rules point, rather than making up new marker sizes for specific interactions (Like say the I. Forest or the Smoke Bombs from 10T, both being a new "100mm by 50mm base").  I wouldn't make someone touch both to see through them both.  Either is fine, as long as you both establish the rule and understand what you're doing before the game, and it isn't a shock to any player involved, should be just fine.

while I agree at where you're going, the rules are fairly clear cut.

lets examine the rules for, terrain perimeter, the ability and terrain traits:

1): each piece of terrain is determined by is base perimeter

2): there are two bases (pieces of terrain) created by the ability. 

3): Dense - you can see into, out of but not through.

 

In application of the above rules:

if you are touching no forests you an see in as far as the opposite edge of one marker. 

If you're touching on marker your line of sight can extend through this said marker until it comes into contact with another object which blocks line of sight (be it a model, building or another forest). 

Should you be standing directly in line with forest one and two, yes you will need to be into the forest enough to be touching the 2nd forest marker to be able to see through it. 

[Tawg]

While I agree with Robert as far as how this would be ruled.

However, if I were playing with friends?  It seems fairly implicit it is a single "entity" for terrain purposes, it just requires two markers to represent the size, and it's easier for Wyrd to continue referencing 50mm bases for the rules point, rather than making up new marker sizes for specific interactions (Like say the I. Forest or the Smoke Bombs from 10T, both being a new "100mm by 50mm base").  I wouldn't make someone touch both to see through them both.  Either is fine, as long as you both establish the rule and understand what you're doing before the game, and it isn't a shock to any player involved, should be just fine.

while I agree at where you're going, the rules are fairly clear cut.

lets examine the rules for, terrain perimeter, the ability and terrain traits:

1): each piece of terrain is determined by is base perimeter

2): there are two bases (pieces of terrain) created by the ability. 

3): Dense - you can see into, out of but not through.

 

In application of the above rules:

if you are touching no forests you an see in as far as the opposite edge of one marker. 

If you're touching on marker your line of sight can extend through this said marker until it comes into contact with another object which blocks line of sight (be it a model, building or another forest). 

Should you be standing directly in line with forest one and two, yes you will need to be into the forest enough to be touching the 2nd forest marker to be able to see through it. 

I refute none of this.

I agreed already in my post, that this is the "rules" way to handle the situation.  But I dare say that the design team of Malifaux did not explicitly balance around those abilities assuming you would be forced to touch both to see through the whole of the forest.  Which is to say, I do not think the design team would ever swoop into this thread and say "But if you allow someone to see through them both, the integrity of the Dual-50mm-Marker abilities is compromised!"

I agree 100% that the rules support this way of playing with them, and that in an engagement (See: Game) with any new player, or in a tournament, I would gladly work under the assumption that this is how the game is to be played, because it is easy enough to back this with rules, and should be the default, if there is any.

But if you ask me, just because that's how the game is written and can be read to the letter does not prohibit you from altering things in an agreed upon manner that all players consent to, which is something I would personally try to at least establish within any personal groups I were to be a part of on a regular basis.  Then, as long as everyone was ok with this, we would all be fine.

I'm just saying that the use of two 50mm bases does not, in my mind, mean they would not have just as well made it a single piece of terrain if it was not cumbersome to do so.  The 50mm bases simply are already part of the game, easily able to be on hand to stand in (And sold in a variety of colors by Wyrd to represent various effects, I use the Transparent Orange for my Smoke Bombs currently), and are an already functioning part of the game system for rules writing.  So the simplest course is to use 50mm bases, rather than make up a myriad of new shapes or dimensions for various effects.

I could be wrong, but I view their use as simply an ease of implementation rather than a strictly important facet in the balance of the game.  I also personally plan to model out side-by-side 50mm Markers that are attached to each other for various effects I use, for the sake of the hobby.  And of course any sensible player will allow use of these, though at times when required to interact with them as individual Markers (Damn that new Father time, moving half of my Smoke Bombs, urrggh), I guess I can proxy in something else if need be.

I'm just saying playing the game the way you want is just as fine as playing by the rules.  Although it's dangerous to do so when you don't understand the underlying rules, and when you are circumventing them, but playing strictly by the rules is not something any game designer worth their salt would ever encourage to the letter.  At least, in my opinion.

[solkan]

While I agree with Robert as far as how this would be ruled.

However, if I were playing with friends?  It seems fairly implicit it is a single "entity" for terrain purposes, it just requires two markers to represent the size, and it's easier for Wyrd to continue referencing 50mm bases for the rules point, rather than making up new marker sizes for specific interactions (Like say the I. Forest or the Smoke Bombs from 10T, both being a new "100mm by 50mm base").  I wouldn't make someone touch both to see through them both.  Either is fine, as long as you both establish the rule and understand what you're doing before the game, and it isn't a shock to any player involved, should be just fine.

while I agree at where you're going, the rules are fairly clear cut.

lets examine the rules for, terrain perimeter, the ability and terrain traits:

1): each piece of terrain is determined by is base perimeter

2): there are two bases (pieces of terrain) created by the ability. 

3): Dense - you can see into, out of but not through.

 

In application of the above rules:

if you are touching no forests you an see in as far as the opposite edge of one marker. 

If you're touching on marker your line of sight can extend through this said marker until it comes into contact with another object which blocks line of sight (be it a model, building or another forest). 

Should you be standing directly in line with forest one and two, yes you will need to be into the forest enough to be touching the 2nd forest marker to be able to see through it. 

I refute none of this.

I agreed already in my post, that this is the "rules" way to handle the situation.  But I dare say that the design team of Malifaux did not explicitly balance around those abilities assuming you would be forced to touch both to see through the whole of the forest.  Which is to say, I do not think the design team would ever swoop into this thread and say "But if you allow someone to see through them both, the integrity of the Dual-50mm-Marker abilities is compromised!"

I agree 100% that the rules support this way of playing with them, and that in an engagement (See: Game) with any new player, or in a tournament, I would gladly work under the assumption that this is how the game is to be played, because it is easy enough to back this with rules, and should be the default, if there is any.

But if you ask me, just because that's how the game is written and can be read to the letter does not prohibit you from altering things in an agreed upon manner that all players consent to, which is something I would personally try to at least establish within any personal groups I were to be a part of on a regular basis.  Then, as long as everyone was ok with this, we would all be fine.

I'm just saying that the use of two 50mm bases does not, in my mind, mean they would not have just as well made it a single piece of terrain if it was not cumbersome to do so.  The 50mm bases simply are already part of the game, easily able to be on hand to stand in (And sold in a variety of colors by Wyrd to represent various effects, I use the Transparent Orange for my Smoke Bombs currently), and are an already functioning part of the game system for rules writing.  So the simplest course is to use 50mm bases, rather than make up a myriad of new shapes or dimensions for various effects.

I could be wrong, but I view their use as simply an ease of implementation rather than a strictly important facet in the balance of the game.  I also personally plan to model out side-by-side 50mm Markers that are attached to each other for various effects I use, for the sake of the hobby.  And of course any sensible player will allow use of these, though at times when required to interact with them as individual Markers (Damn that new Father time, moving half of my Smoke Bombs, urrggh), I guess I can proxy in something else if need be.

I'm just saying playing the game the way you want is just as fine as playing by the rules.  Although it's dangerous to do so when you don't understand the underlying rules, and when you are circumventing them, but playing strictly by the rules is not something any game designer worth their salt would ever encourage to the letter.  At least, in my opinion.

Problem #1:  The inverse you're using to defend your position is false.  The developers are equally unlikely to "swoop into this thread" to make a statement telling you your position is wrong as they are to swoop in an tell you your position is right. 

Problem #2:  Aionus makes you the unreasonable player for trying to avoid using two 50mm markers.

Problem #3:  Conflation of "sensible" with "people who agree with you and dismiss Problem #2".

Problem #4:  Conflation of "There are several possible ways we could have written that rule which would have been perfectly okay" with just arbitrarily choosing to ignore how the particular rules have been written.

For pointed comparison:  Malifaux 2nd edition could have just used true line of sight, or magic cylinders, instead of the simple height comparison rule for intervening blocking terrain.  What happens happens if you switch to true line of sight in the middle of a game, or claim "Any reasonable player would allow me to use true line of sight in a game?"

 

 

 

Edited December 1, 2015 by solkan

[Kadeton]

It's fine to disagree, as long as you're furthering the discussion - I think this one might have run its course. The rules in this case are very clear-cut.

In friendly games, it's fine to play with whatever house rules you and your opponent agree on, and nobody else can claim you're doing it wrong. In a tournament, it's best to play according to the actual rules, and it's not unreasonable for your opponent to expect you to do so.

Carry on.

[RobertSirc]

Here is my thing, playing a game with "home brew" rules is great but when you head out to the public like your local game store or to a tournament you have set yourself up for failure. 

[FleaBag]

Reletively new Malifaux player here. Not sure I'm fully grasping this but here is my question: I am playing Lilith, I have a friendly model in an engagment with an enemy but not in base contact, can I cast illusionary forest in such a way (specifically were the two 50mm forest bases meet, are positioned between my friendly and enemy models) that blocks LOS?

 

I assume LOS would be blocked if the engagment range is wide enough that the forest markers at the smallest point, don't touch either model but are between two. 

But to reiterate is there any other way to block LOS?

[Tawg]

9 hours ago, FleaBag said:

Reletively new Malifaux player here. Not sure I'm fully grasping this but here is my question: I am playing Lilith, I have a friendly model in an engagment with an enemy but not in base contact, can I cast illusionary forest in such a way (specifically were the two 50mm forest bases meet, are positioned between my friendly and enemy models) that blocks LOS?

 

I assume LOS would be blocked if the engagment range is wide enough that the forest markers at the smallest point, don't touch either model but are between two. 

But to reiterate is there any other way to block LOS?

In the example you give, yes an no.  Dense terrain (What the markers are declared by the Ability) only block LoS through them, however if you are touching the item in question you can be seen.  So if the engagement is at 1" up to nearly 2" it's going to be almost impossible to place the 50mm in a way that neither is touching the Marker between them.  However with 3" engagement it should be quite comfortable for you to place the Markers cutting off LoS.  Effectively a 50mm base is about 1.96", so while you theoretically can place it between two models at 2" exactly (Also nearly impossible if you're playing physically), so in a friendly game at the table, I'd really only suggest it if you can easily place the 50mm marker in between the models.  If you have to finagle the models to place the base correctly, it's probably not worth it.

Although, that is placing the largest part of the 50mm between the models, and I just realized that you're asking if you can place the part where the two markers touch between the models.  In which case, it's very likely that it will fit, depending on the base size of the engaged models.  So yeah, if you can place it where the markers are not touching either model, but the Markers touch each other right where a direct like might pass through for LoS, that will be blocked.

Like..

..o...

()()

.O...

If you take the parenthesis as the Markers and the 'o's as model bases, then LoS can not be drawn through the point where the two Markers meet.  If that is the question.

[FleaBag]

11 hours ago, Tawg said:

In the example you give, yes an no.  Dense terrain (What the markers are declared by the Ability) only block LoS through them, however if you are touching the item in question you can be seen.  So if the engagement is at 1" up to nearly 2" it's going to be almost impossible to place the 50mm in a way that neither is touching the Marker between them.  However with 3" engagement it should be quite comfortable for you to place the Markers cutting off LoS.  Effectively a 50mm base is about 1.96", so while you theoretically can place it between two models at 2" exactly (Also nearly impossible if you're playing physically), so in a friendly game at the table, I'd really only suggest it if you can easily place the 50mm marker in between the models.  If you have to finagle the models to place the base correctly, it's probably not worth it.

Although, that is placing the largest part of the 50mm between the models, and I just realized that you're asking if you can place the part where the two markers touch between the models.  In which case, it's very likely that it will fit, depending on the base size of the engaged models.  So yeah, if you can place it where the markers are not touching either model, but the Markers touch each other right where a direct like might pass through for LoS, that will be blocked.

Like..

..o...

()()

.O...

If you take the parenthesis as the Markers and the 'o's as model bases, then LoS can not be drawn through the point where the two Markers meet.  If that is the question.

Thanks you. I wasnt at home when I thought about it is I didn't have any physical pieces to test it out, I appreciate the leg work. This opportunity may seldom appear but if it does itll be a nice thing to pull out of my pocket. 

[CLOAKS]

Thank you for the clarification! This exact situation occurred my first time ever playing Lilith on tuesday, I think it will be more common than we think haha. It works well with Nekima in the crew because her MI 3" range makes it come up fairly often, and can be a nice way to give her a little more protection (If you tend to overextend her like I do).