Line of Sight and Vantage Points

[chryspainthemum]

The rules for vantage points and line of sight include:

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

My question is two fold:

1. Does 'below' in this case mean 'less height' or 'equal and less height'? For example, if a Ht 2 model is on Ht 2 terrain (so total Ht 4), can it see over a Ht 4 model (targetting, say, a Ht 2 model behind the Ht 4 model)?

2. Does 'below' mean comparing bases or comparing Hts? For example, if a Ht2 model is on Ht 1 terrain (total Ht 3), can it see over a Ht 4 model (since the bases are below) or not (since the total Ht is less than the imposing model).

 

Thanks for the clarification!

[Bengt]

You never add together Ht in M2E. So a Ht 2 model standing on Ht 2 terrain is not considered to be Ht 4 in any way.

As for Vantage points, you determine "below" by comparing the Ht of the terrain they are standing on.

[solkan]

The issue when you start dealing with multi-level terrain is that there are some spots that the game mechanics don't really address, and some spots where the game mechanics don't work how you might expect them to.

Put some blocking terrain pieces (walls, so that the models can stand on top of them) on the table, a mix of Ht 2, Ht3, H4 and Ht5.  Start putting models on the H2 and Ht3 terrain pieces and start asking which of the other blocking terrain pieces they can see across.  To get Blocking to work right, you sort of have to consider the relative Ht values of all of the other terrain pieces relative to the piece the model is standing on top of, rather than the Ht value compared to the ground.  So when you're standing on top of a Ht3 wall in this scenario, all of those terrain pieces become RHt -1, RHt 0, RHt 1 and RHt 2 (RHt = Relative Height); and the ground's at relative -3.

In other words, this definition in the rulebook:

Quote

Blocking - Objects with the blocking trait cannot be seen through, and therefore block LoS (see pg. 40) if the Ht of the terrain is equal to or greater than the Ht of the models attempting to see through it.

should, at the least say

Quote

Blocking - Objects with the blocking trait cannot be seen through, and therefore block LoS (see pg. 40) if the Ht of the object is equal to or greater than the Ht of the models attempting to see through it.

because it's dealing with more than just terrain, and to be consistent with the paragraph in Elevation:

Quote

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).

But to correct it to deal with a multi-level table, it really should say:

Quote

Blocking - Objects with the blocking trait cannot be seen through, and therefore block LoS (see pg. 40) if the relative Ht of the object is equal to or greater than the relative Ht of the models attempting to see through it.

because the paragraph in Elevation makes more sense if it's dealing with relative height of the blocking object:

Quote

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 a relative Ht lower than the Attacker or target's Ht, then the blocking object is ignored for LoS quality (but not cover).

 

I think that produces something that makes sense for positive (or zero) relative Ht values--Ht X model drawing line of sight to Ht Y model across Blocking Object with Ht Z, all greater or equal to 0.  Then the vantage point system ends up being for dealing with things with negative relative Ht values.  Of course, that's keeping in mind that the things drawing line of sight all Ht values of 1 to 3 and are drawing line of sight from their relative position.  And the transition between the two frameworks is a bit bumpy.

 

[Adran]

I would say that the model has to have a ht lower than the Vantage point to be a model that is below the vantage point Model.

So if you are on a Ht 2 vantage point, you get to automatically ignore all ht 1 models. You would need to be on a ht 5 vantage point  terrain to automatically see over all ht 4 models between you and the target

[Bengt]

4 minutes ago, Thimblesage said:

This seems to directory conflict with the relative height mechanic, am I missing something?

Also, I'm not sure why there is even a diagonal line tracing mechanic at all. 4th grade math would have us know that ANY object that has the same length I.e Ht, would break the hypotenuse. So why even have the ambiguous mechanic?

If Solkan's "Relative height" is supposed to be derived from the official rules I can't see it. I assumed it was a thought experiment/house rule to deal with some of the unintuitive aspects of M2E's elevation rules.

The diagonal lines come into effect when you have an intervening object that is not ignored and the vantage point is sufficiently tall. E.g. Ht 3 obstruction, both models are Ht 2, vantage is Ht 5. If we place the Ht 3 obstruction really close to the Ht 5 vantage it wont break the diagonal. If we move it closer to the model standing on the ground it will eventually break the diagonal.

[chryspainthemum]

So the ht 2 model standing on ht 2 terrain cannot see over the ht 4 model because you only compare the ht of the terrain? Does that mean a ht 2 model standing on ht 3 terrain cannot see over the ht 4 either? What about ht 4 terrain vs the ht 4 model?

 

Just trying to get clairifed here.

[Lakshman]

Models are ignored if they stand below the vantage point, it doesn't matter if they're ht 2 or ht 4. Only thing you need to take into account is other terrain pieces.

[chryspainthemum]

14 minutes ago, Lakshman said:

Models are ignored if they stand below the vantage point, it doesn't matter if they're ht 2 or ht 4. Only thing you need to take into account is other terrain pieces.

And this is comparing base location, not actual model right? If the base rests below the vantage point, then the model is ignored? Does this mean that a Ht 1 model on height 1 terrain ignores the ht 4 model for drawing los?

[Lakshman]

IIRC, vantage point rule comes into play beginning from ht2 terrains.

[chryspainthemum]

1 hour ago, Lakshman said:

IIRC, vantage point rule comes into play beginning from ht2 terrains.

Ok, so would a ht 1 model standing on ht 2 terrain ignore an imposing ht 4 model for drawing los?

[chryspainthemum]

50 minutes ago, Adran said:

I would say that the model has to have a ht lower than the Vantage point to be a model that is below the vantage point Model.

So if you are on a Ht 2 vantage point, you get to automatically ignore all ht 1 models. You would need to be on a ht 5 vantage point  terrain to automatically see over all ht 4 models between you and the target

This is what is intuitive and makes sense to me, but I'm trying to find the rules to support this. At the moment the rules are written differently for terrain and models, which is... Frustrating.

[solkan]

20 minutes ago, Omenbringer said:

It is best to just avoid Elevation and Vantage Point Terrain in this edition (or just use Vassal for all your games). The rules don't really make sense nor was it really a design priority for the game (which is unfortunate). For friendly games just house rule some stuff that makes sense.

How can you consider that good advice for anyone?  That's like telling someone "Oh, don't bother trying to use the terrain rules.  I'm sure you won't want to use walls or anything..." 

As far as I can tell, the problem with the terrain rules is that there's a large portion of rules that written by implication instead of being spelled out.  For example, how it makes sense to define a wall as climbable and impassible because the traits apply to different parts of the terrain item.  Or the whole thing about standing on top of impassible terrain items instead of standing in them. 

 

[Flib Jib]

I just want to add that I see a lot of mistakes occur because people confuse cover for blocking.  Cover is Cover, Blocking is blocking. Both use line tracing both are completely separate from one another. Cover only affects the flip mechanics during an attack giving the defender a buff. Blocking is part of the Line of Sight mechanics and only determines whether a ranged action can be legally taken but has no effect on flips. 

I’ve seen several negative flips taken because:

The attacker was 1” from soft cover.

The defender was 1’ behind another model, which in general models don’t have either soft or hard cover attributes.

I’ve also seen attack actions denied because the opponent clamed soft cover broke line of sight. E.g., the ‘Creeping Fog’ aura the Stitched together has is a 4’ soft cover bubble and ONLY soft cover, it does not break LoS. 

Summarized mechanics are: 

Cover: only affects the DEFENDER if the defending model is 1” from terrain, (soft, or hard) 

Blocking: a LoS mechanic that affects weather a ranged action can legally be taken. If an Object, (friendly/enemy model, or terrain,) is ANYWHERE on the board positioned in a way that no straight line can be traced (becomes more complex when Vantage Point mechanics occur) from the origin to the target.

[Bengt]

3 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

To Clarify, Bengt’s point of Cumulative Height of both model and terrain is only true when determining Vantage Point Mechanics.  If a 2” model is standing on a 1” box, it doesn’t have a Vantage Point but can now be targeted by a 2” model behind a 2” Blocking Object, an action that would have been illegal if the model on the box were on the ground and only relative height 2

No. You never add together Ht in M2E, there just isn't any rule like that in the book. A model standing on a Ht 1 object is treated exactly like it was standing on the ground for LoS purposes.

3 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

Here’s an example of how Vantage Point might decrease your LoS.

I have a 4” model standing on the ‘ground’ (Ht:0) so all objects that are 3” or less don’t block my LoS. However, let’s say this model is on a 2” Vantage Point. Now, as long as I’m within 4” of the edge, I have only 2” LoS, significantly less than 4”  

When on vantage points you use the normal rules with the exceptions listed, there is no exceptions to ignoring objects that has less Ht than the model on the vantage point. So a Ht 4 model still ignores all Ht 3 and lesser objects.

[solkan]

3 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

So here’s my big concern with a specific counterintuitive mechanic that I follow and hope it correct. Please let me know if I am playing according to the rules.

Vantage points can actually decrease LoS in some cases.

 

First, two points:

1.  The transition between the two line of sight mechanics is clunky.

2.  I don't mind that the value of a model's Ht stat is a bit more significant than the model's elevation as far as seeing around things or being seen. 

3 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

I have a 4” model standing on the ‘ground’ (Ht:0) so all objects that are 3” or less don’t block my LoS. However, let’s say this model is on a 2” Vantage Point. Now, as long as I’m within 4” of the edge, I have only 2” LoS, significantly less than 4”  

Have another look at the vantage point rules.  Note the absence of anything referring to the Ht of the model attempting to draw line of sight, and concentration on the Ht of the non-vantage point model:

Quote

•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.
•Cover is determined normally.

"Models between the acting and target model which are below the vantage point model are ignored".  If we try to translate that into Relative Ht, it becomes something like "Models between the acting and target model which have Relative Ht less than the acting model are ignored."  So the 2+2 model ignores the same amount of models as the 4+0 model. 

Whether a Ht3+0 wall is ignored (for blocking purposes) depends on physical geometry.  I'm going to just refer back to the first to points in this post.  A Ht3 model draws line of sight to more things than a Ht2 model does.

Quote

To Clarify, Bengt’s point of Cumulative Height of both model and terrain is only true when determining Vantage Point Mechanics.  If a 2” model is standing on a 1” box, it doesn’t have a Vantage Point but can now be targeted by a 2” model behind a 2” Blocking Object, an action that would have been illegal if the model on the box were on the ground and only relative height 2

I'm confused by what you're trying to say.  It appears to be something along the lines of "If we reject your Relative Ht conjecture, then the Relative Ht results don't apply."  Because the Vantage Point mechanics apply when the acting model is on Ht 2 or greater terrain, that means that the "normal" line of sight mechanics apply to the +/-1 situation.

In other words, the point of the Relative Ht mechanics is exactly pointing out that a Ht2 model standing on a Ht 1 wall is expected to have line of sight to a Ht 2 object past a Ht2 blocking object.  You might as well claim that Ht1 model standing on top of a Ht1 wall can't draw line of sight to a Ht1 model on the ground. 

[Flib Jib]

1 hour ago, Bengt said:

If Solkan's "Relative height" is supposed to be derived from the official rules I can't see it. I assumed it was a thought experiment/house rule to deal with some of the unintuitive aspects of M2E's elevation rules.

The diagonal lines come into effect when you have an intervening object that is not ignored and the vantage point is sufficiently tall. E.g. Ht 3 obstruction, both models are Ht 2, vantage is Ht 5. If we place the Ht 3 obstruction really close to the Ht 5 vantage it wont break the diagonal. If we move it closer to the model standing on the ground it will eventually break the diagonal.

This make more sense now, thanks. Yeah I think the relative ht was just a thought excersize.

So here is a scenario to illustrate the mechanics and see if I have it down.

All scenarios are just to clarify LoS and not cover so please forgive me if I forget to mention any cover mechanic.

 

A Ht:3 model is targeting a Ht:2 model behind a Ht: 2 wall, the action is legal because the tallest model is taller than the intervening wall. 

 

A Ht:2 model is targeting a Ht:1 model behind a Ht: 2 wall, the action is illegal because the intervening wall is 'as tall or taller' than the tallest model.

 

A model is atop a Ht:3 cliff and is targeting a Ht: 2 model behind a Ht:2 wall. the action is legal because the wall is 'the same Ht or shorter' than the targeted model and is therefor ignored. 

 

A model is atop a Ht:2 cliff and is targeting a Ht: 3 model model behind a Ht: 3 wall. the action is illlegal because the wall is 'the same Ht or shorter' than the targeted model but not below the vantage point And therefor is not ignored. 

 

A model atop a Ht:5 cliff is targeting a Ht:1 model behind a Ht:4 model. The action is legal because the intervening MODEL is 'below the Ht:5 cliff and therefore ignored.

 

A model atop a Ht:4 cliff is targeting a Ht:2 model behind a Ht:4 model. The action is May or may not be legal because the intervening MODEL is NOT 'below the Ht:4 cliff and therefore NOT ignored and might or might not block diagonal LoS. 

 

A model atop a Ht:5 cliff is targeting a model that is atop a Ht:2 box. There is a Ht:4 model between which is ignored because it is 'below the (attackers) vantage point.' There is a Ht:2 wall that is ignored because it is 'the same hieght or less' than the defenders vantage point. And therefore the action is legal.

 

A model is atop a Ht:3 box and is targeting a model atop a Ht:3 box behind a Ht:3 object. The action is illegal because both models are on the same Ht: vantage point as each other and therefore apply the normal LoS mechanics.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Bengt]

7 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

A model is atop a Ht:2 cliff and is targeting a Ht: 3 model model behind a Ht: 3 wall. the action is illlegal because the wall is 'the same Ht or shorter' than the targeted model but not below the vantage point And therefor is not ignored. 

You only need one clause to be fulfilled to ignore an object. So in this case there is LoS.

 

7 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

A model atop a Ht:4 cliff is targeting a Ht:2 model behind a Ht:4 model. The action is May or may not be legal because the intervening MODEL is NOT 'below the Ht:4 cliff and therefore NOT ignored and might or might not block diagonal LoS. 

The blocking models Ht is not relevant as no reference to Ht is made in that clause, just the fact that it is located below the model on the vantage lets you ignore it. So there is always LoS here.

[Ogre_man]

del

[Flib Jib]

 

On 5/11/2016 at 4:51 AM, solkan said:

The issue when you start dealing with multi-level terrain is that there are some spots that the game mechanics don't really address, and some spots where the game mechanics don't work how you might expect them to.

Put some blocking terrain pieces (walls, so that the models can stand on top of them) on the table, a mix of Ht 2, Ht3, H4 and Ht5.  Start putting models on the H2 and Ht3 terrain pieces and start asking which of the other blocking terrain pieces they can see across.  To get Blocking to work right, you sort of have to consider the relative Ht values of all of the other terrain pieces relative to the piece the model is standing on top of, rather than the Ht value compared to the ground.  So when you're standing on top of a Ht3 wall in this scenario, all of those terrain pieces become RHt -1, RHt 0, RHt 1 and RHt 2 (RHt = Relative Height); and the ground's at relative -3.

In other words, this definition in the rulebook:

should, at the least say

because it's dealing with more than just terrain, and to be consistent with the paragraph in Elevation:

But to correct it to deal with a multi-level table, it really should say:

because the paragraph in Elevation makes more sense if it's dealing with relative height of the blocking object:

 

I think that produces something that makes sense for positive (or zero) relative Ht values--Ht X model drawing line of sight to Ht Y model across Blocking Object with Ht Z, all greater or equal to 0.  Then the vantage point system ends up being for dealing with things with negative relative Ht values.  Of course, that's keeping in mind that the things drawing line of sight all Ht values of 1 to 3 and are drawing line of sight from their relative position.  And the transition between the two frameworks is a bit bumpy.

 

I love your relative height mechanic trick; it really helps with the math while keeping the rules intact.

If I may, I would like to get some clarification and see if I am playing correctly.

Objects block LoS if it has equal or greater than height than either the attacker or defender.  I know the wording is lengthy for clarity purposes but I like to summarize by looking at the tallest model and comparing it to the height of the object. Is this a good way of thinking about blocking? Are there any foreseen circumstances where I would get into trouble?

So here’s my big concern with a specific counterintuitive mechanic that I follow and hope it correct. Please let me know if I am playing according to the rules.

Vantage points can actually decrease LoS in some cases. To quote Bengt who I think has it correct,

On 5/10/2016 at 11:10 PM, Bengt said:

You never add together Ht in M2E. So a Ht 2 model standing on Ht 2 terrain is not considered to be Ht 4 in any way.

As for Vantage points, you determine "below" by comparing the Ht of the terrain they are standing on.

Vantage Point vs. non-Vantage Point.

Non-VP: A Models Ht is considered when drawing LoS against blocking objects

VP: a model’s height is only compared to the distance from an edge and is not added to a total height but diametrically determines whether the model is either IN or OUT of LoS when in close proximity to a Vantage Point ledge.

Here’s an example of how Vantage Point might decrease your LoS.

I have a 4” model standing on the ‘ground’ (Ht:0) so all objects that are 3” or less don’t block my LoS. However, let’s say this model is on a 2” Vantage Point. Now, as long as I’m within 4” of the edge, I have only 2” LoS, significantly less than 4”  

To Clarify, Bengt’s point of Cumulative Height of both model and terrain is only true when determining Vantage Point Mechanics.  If a 2” model is standing on a 1” box, it doesn’t have a Vantage Point but can now be targeted by a 2” model behind a 2” Blocking Object, an action that would have been illegal if the model on the box were on the ground and only relative height 2

[Flib Jib]

27 minutes ago, solkan said:

2.  I don't mind that the value of a model's Ht stat is a bit more significant than the model's elevation as far as seeing around things or being seen. 

I don't know what you mean.

 

30 minutes ago, solkan said:

Have another look at the vantage point rules.  Note the absence of anything referring to the Ht of the model attempting to draw line of sight, and concentration on the Ht of the non-vantage point model:

I see that the focus is on the targeted model and intervening objects. It now seems vantage points allows equal ht: objects to now be ignored as long as they are less than the ht of the vantage point. But I don't see how this resolves my point. I am getting conflicting messages between your relative height mechanic and what Bengt has to say, read his comment.

 

39 minutes ago, Bengt said:

When on vantage points you use the normal rules with the exceptions listed, there is no exceptions to ignoring objects that has less Ht than the model on the vantage point. 

I don't think this is correct, I think that vantage point mechanics are the exception to ignoring objects. I just don't know how they work without contradicting other rules. 

 

And on Bengts comment, he says,

1 hour ago, Bengt said:

No. You never add together Ht in M2E, there just isn't any rule like that in the book. A model standing on a Ht 1 object is treated exactly like it was standing on the ground for LoS purposes. 

This seems to directory conflict with the relative height mechanic, am I missing something?

Also, I'm not sure why there is even a diagonal line tracing mechanic at all. 4th grade math would have us know that ANY object that has the same length I.e Ht, would break the hypotenuse. So why even have the ambiguous mechanic?

[Omenbringer]

2 hours ago, chryspainthemum said:

This is what is intuitive and makes sense to me, but I'm trying to find the rules to support this. At the moment the rules are written differently for terrain and models, which is... Frustrating.

It is best to just avoid Elevation and Vantage Point Terrain in this edition (or just use Vassal for all your games). The rules don't really make sense nor was it really a design priority for the game (which is unfortunate). For friendly games just house rule some stuff that makes sense.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Yeah, I'd picked up an old Terraclips set a few months back, and since we had what we thought was really easy terrain (modular rectangles with some overhangs from porches and the like, designed for malifaux) and were getting back into the game after a bit of a break, we read really closely into the terrain section since it had always been something we skimmed over, and it was horribly confusing. After playing a few games this way, a friend tried the game for the first time, and thought the game was in beta, the elevation LOS rules were so strange. A few games later, we dropped elevation entirely and haven't tried to bring it back.

I'd second trying a very height-diverse table before saying that you shouldn't recommend avoiding it.

[SpiralngCadavr]

15 minutes ago, Omenbringer said:

It is best to just avoid Elevation and Vantage Point Terrain in this edition (or just use Vassal for all your games). The rules don't really make sense nor was it really a design priority for the game (which is unfortunate). For friendly games just house rule some stuff that makes sense.

Yeah, it's extremely confusing. I'd agree, we cobble together elevation and applying the horizontal LOS rules to the vertical ones, and we mostly just use terrain as height of obstacles and not for elevation.

[Omenbringer]

1 hour ago, solkan said:

How can you consider that good advice for anyone?  That's like telling someone "Oh, don't bother trying to use the terrain rules.  I'm sure you won't want to use walls or anything..." 

As far as I can tell, the problem with the terrain rules is that there's a large portion of rules that written by implication instead of being spelled out.  For example, how it makes sense to define a wall as climbable and impassible because the traits apply to different parts of the terrain item.  Or the whole thing about standing on top of impassible terrain items instead of standing in them. 

 

It is easy to suggest that the rules for Elevation and Vantage Points should be avoided when possible. First, they are the cause of a large amount of Rules queries on here (and have been from the start of this edition both publicly and privately). Secondly, they can barely be described as being "written by implication instead of being spelled out" they simply don't really exist in any coherent usable way. Third, playing a game by implication only works in friendly environments where you can "house rule" things. Lastly, when everything is on the same plane (your wall example) the Ht rules somewhat work (though not necessarily intuitively).

Solkan I would suggest you build a table featuring multiple differing elevations and vantage points then try to play a few games.