September FAQ & Errata

[SunTsu]

3 hours ago, Myyrä said:

Because the edge of the model's base is at the exact same spot as the edge of the marker if the model is standing on top of it, the LoS lines (which are actually line segments in mathematical terms) do not actually cross the model's base when drawn to the edge of the marker's base. The same does not apply if a model is standing between the model drawing LoS and the marker.

It's the exact thing in both cases. If a linecan be broken by the very edge of a 30mm base, it should do if it is between or over it.

I appreciate very much this errata at a first glance. I have to engage a careful deep reading to understand well all, but my thoughts are very positive.

It remains that ruling I was never happy about, that states:

32) If two models on 30mm bases are trying to draw LoS to each other, can another model on a 30mm base which is positioned perfectly between them block that LoS? Yes, although it would be very difficult to position the models in such a way.

I explain why I am against this interpretation. Leaving apart the fact that is inconsistent with the rule about los to markers, the real problem is that this rule can cause discussion and undetermined situations. A faq saying "yes, but also not" can open up to situations difficult to manage also by an expert judge. Let's do an example. Player A can place a model, and he says that is placing so that it's out of los from another enemy model using another model to screen. All the 3 miniatures have the same base size. Player B (the opponent) says "ok, do so and place it in such way you said". After placing the model and finish my activation, B measures and says that, despite A's intention, he have a los to it: "also faq says that it can be done but it's almost impossible to achieve, and you didn't". A thought is that there isn't los, so the judge is called to determine the situation. Wevre just wasting time. The judge must discriminate over a very little fraction of millimeter studying lines with some lasers and, if he would be ever able to reach a final decision that is not completely random but is based on something concrete, this will however results in a bad feeling about one or both players, a lost in time stealed from the game clock, and a total uncertainty about the outcome. It ruins the feel of the environment and can give a simple to use "weapon" to people that is aiming to losing time for some in game advantage... Very bad rule in my thoughts.

If the rule would be the simplest "a model can never block the los between two other models if they have all the same base size", it would solve all the issues and can make the game much smoother.

My two cents...

[Squirrelich]

1 hour ago, SunTsu said:

Player A can place a model, and he says that is placing so that it's out of los from another enemy model using another model to screen. All the 3 miniatures have the same base size. Player B (the opponent) says "ok, do so and place it in such way you said". After placing the model and finish my activation, B measures and says that, despite A's intention, he have a los to it: "also faq says that it can be done but it's almost impossible to achieve, and you didn't". A thought is that there isn't los, so the judge is called to determine the situation.

my $.02: At this point I would not be calling a Judge over to make a ruling on LoS, I would be calling them over to have a conversation about sportsmanship.

This may be a local thing, but I have never seen someone place something saying "this is my intention and we both know it is possible" and then have it disputed afterwards. That would be like trying to measure and place a model just within charge range but not being able to keep it there because it is on the lip of a hill and it keeps falling over, so you say I can't place it there but I want to say it is there and mark it somehow because that would be a legal move. Then other player says "well, your model isn't there so I guess you can't make the charge". The intent was clearly stated, and both agreed that it is possible and legal to do so. There was no malicious intent in trying to both get what they say they're trying to do and at the same time not placing there on purpose for some other reason. If player B thought so they should dispute immediately upon placement so they don't get the best of both worlds and it can be placed as accurately as possible (within reason) and not have to come back and remeasure in the future since both parties have agreed.

[SunTsu]

1 hour ago, 7thSquirrel said:

my $.02: At this point I would not be calling a Judge over to make a ruling on LoS, I would be calling them over to have a conversation about sportsmanship.

I agree entirely with your reply. That was not a real situation I experienced but an hypothetical exemple to show where is the problem. So, don't focus on the situation itself, bjt on the rule.

The problem is that there is a single only point where to place a model in order to screen it with another one. Every single fraction of micron in any direction will result in having los. So, we can easily agree that a so fine level of manipulation is completely impossible to achieve if you're not using a micromanipulator and a laser guiding machine with a computer with an optical scnner and a dedicated software in order to calculate that exact spot...

So, I'm pointing out that the rule in this case is saying "yes teorically you can do it, but practically no one can manage to do it on a game battlefield", is wrong.

I haven't personal preferences about blocking yes/no, and I don't gain nothing from a rule or another. I'm speaking just for the cleaning of the rules and the smoothing of the game. And from this point of view I really hope that rule would be changed very soon. Just my thoughts.

[Lakshman]

Actually, all you would need to place a model in this way is a ruler. You would need to touch both models you want to obstruct LoS between and simply move your model so that it would touch it as well. No micromanipulator or laser guiding machine. Sure, in many situations terrain or other models would obstruct you... Which is why you can just agree with your opponent that you are placed in the right way, as mentioned before.  We've been using this solution in a fairly competitive environment for quite some time and not once has it caused any issues. Playing like that is practical, effortless and doesn't block you from doing what you ARE able to achieve.

Actually sometimes, when you'd have two 30mm models touching a straight wall of the building, if you moved inbetween them so that you would touch the wall as well, you'd surely block LoS. Except with the ruling you seem to advocate you wouldn't.

[binkys]

16 minutes ago, SunTsu said:

I agree entirely with your reply. That was not a real situation I experienced but an hypothetical exemple to show where is the problem. So, don't focus on the situation itself, bjt on the rule.

The problem is that there is a single only point where to place a model in order to screen it with another one. Every single fraction of micron in any direction will result in having los. So, we can easily agree that a so fine level of manipulation is completely impossible to achieve if you're not using a micromanipulator and a laser guiding machine with a computer with an optical scnner and a dedicated software in order to calculate that exact spot...

So, I'm pointing out that the rule in this case is saying "yes teorically you can do it, but practically no one can manage to do it on a game battlefield", is wrong.

I haven't personal preferences about blocking yes/no, and I don't gain nothing from a rule or another. I'm speaking just for the cleaning of the rules and the smoothing of the game. And from this point of view I really hope that rule would be changed very soon. Just my thoughts.

Quoting from the rules forum:

Quote

5) The devil doesn't need an advocate
If everyone agrees how a rule works, including you, don't suggest alternate ways the rule could be interpreted to take the contrary view 'for the sake of argument'. There's no need to try and create cosmic balance of discussion and this is confusing for new players.

There are ways to do it, or to save time you can just agree with your opponent you are doing it,  therefor the answer stating that yes , a 30mm base is capable of blocking line of sight to 30mm base, works fine.  If everyone agrees how this works, why are we having the argument?  If its just about the additional sentence, that sentence is not new and personally I read it as an implication is that it is unlikely to happen unintentionally.

[Astrella]

I still think it'd be a bit more elegant if a same sized model can't block line of sight, Guild ball handles it that was as well and it avoids a lot of fussyness.

[solkan]

12 hours ago, trikk said:

"A model with the Paralyzed Condition generates no AP and can declare no Actions (whether or not its the model’s Activation)"

 

If Zoraida Obeys a McTavish to shoot a Peacekeeper and he fails the Horror duel does he get to shoot and then can no longer take actions or he fails the action? The action was declared before taking the Horror duel.

What happens if it was a attack? I assume since when you fail your engagement dissapears you fail the attack.

This situation still falls under the 'effects which end your activation' FAQ entry:

Quote

48) If a model’s Activation is ended by an Action or an Ability, what happens? What if it was not Activating?

If a model is performing its Activation and its Activation is ended by an Action or Ability, then the model’s Activation immediately ends. It may not take any further Actions, resolve any of its Triggers which have not happened yet (even if they were declared), or do anything else that happens during its Activation; it moves to the end Activation step. If an Action or Ability which ends a model’s Activation is applied to a model outside of its Activation (such as during an Action caused by Obey) there is no effect.

Because the part about Paralyzed effectively ending the activation is in the third paragraph.

So at the moment all Paralyzed gained due to Terrifying prevents the model taking any actions after the one that caused the Horror duel.

 

[SunTsu]

6 hours ago, Lakshman said:

Actually, all you would need to place a model in this way is a ruler. You would need to touch both models you want to obstruct LoS between and simply move your model so that it would touch it as well. No micromanipulator or laser guiding machine. Sure, in many situations terrain or other models would obstruct you... Which is why you can just agree with your opponent that you are placed in the right way, as mentioned before.  We've been using this solution in a fairly competitive environment for quite some time and not once has it caused any issues. Playing like that is practical, effortless and doesn't block you from doing what you ARE able to achieve.

Actually sometimes, when you'd have two 30mm models touching a straight wall of the building, if you moved inbetween them so that you would touch the wall as well, you'd surely block LoS. Except with the ruling you seem to advocate you wouldn't.

I'm happy you're so confident in your abilities, because I could never be so confident in mine. Not when is enough just 1 micron to determine a different outcome. You know what is a micron, I suppose. A thousand part of 1 millimeter. So, even if you have no terrain and other impediment to use your ruler, you can be absolutely sure that the ruler itself not bend (just a bit, invisible at your eyes), that the model bases are all pushed exactly the same way against the ruler, that there aren't other thousand minor invisible imperfections in your placement and you are exactly in that single precise a-dimensional place where the los is cutted away? It's not the same of saying "I put this just outside your charge range", because there are infinite points where the model is outside a charge range, but here we have a single position where you get that blocking los effect. And despite what you can think or say, in the REAL WORLD, you cannot achieve it.

However, as I know well (because is what I usually do), you can play every situation using convention. "I put this one out of los". Ok, I got the point and I play accordingly. But I'm not speaking about how to solve the game problem of measuring something that cannot be measured. I neither making the devil's advocate as @binkys said, simply because I'm not questioning a rule interpretation (I perfectly understand what that rule means).

I'm simply speaking about GAME DESIGN. I am saying, as @Astrellasaid that would be more elegant and easy and intuitive and smooth and consistent with ruleset that the rule was different. I am not speaking how this rule works. I'm speaking about CHANGE current rule. I'm explaining why a different rule would be better for game design and play experience. Obviously, changing rules is not one of my power. It's just a discussion. These are just my thoughts and opinions. Motivated and explained, but just opinions.

@binkys

[SunTsu]

1 hour ago, solkan said:

This situation still falls under the 'effects which end your activation' FAQ entry:

Because the part about Paralyzed effectively ending the activation is in the third paragraph.

So at the moment all Paralyzed gained due to Terrifying prevents the model taking any actions after the one that caused the Horror duel.

 

So, just to be clear...

If a model fail an horror duel when attacking during its activation, it don't complete the attack (that goes lost) and end its activation losing the paralyzed condition just gained in doing so.

If a model instead fails the horror duel when attacking during an out of activation action (due to obey or similar effects), it gains paralyzed until the end of its next activation but can complete the attack its just declared despite the fact it gained paralyzed. This happens because the new paralyzed wording says the model cannot declare actions, but the attack was declared before failing the horror duel and gaining the paralyzed condition.

I guess it's this you would mean... Am I right?

[Lakshman]

6 hours ago, SunTsu said:

I'm happy you're so confident in your abilities, because I could never be so confident in mine. Not when is enough just 1 micron to determine a different outcome. You know what is a micron, I suppose. A thousand part of 1 millimeter. So, even if you have no terrain and other impediment to use your ruler, you can be absolutely sure that the ruler itself not bend (just a bit, invisible at your eyes), that the model bases are all pushed exactly the same way against the ruler, that there aren't other thousand minor invisible imperfections in your placement and you are exactly in that single precise a-dimensional place where the los is cutted away? It's not the same of saying "I put this just outside your charge range", because there are infinite points where the model is outside a charge range, but here we have a single position where you get that blocking los effect. And despite what you can think or say, in the REAL WORLD, you cannot achieve it.

Using same argument, you could argue that you can never charge a model you seem to be perfectly in range to charge, cause your tape measure might not be ideal. And there's no reason to put in doubt whether I know what microns are. If my previous post sounded offensive in anyway, I apologize, as that was not my intention, and now I reread it may sound a little aggressive. Let's all tone down emotions a little, since we all seem to agree this is not some game-breaking rule we are discussing.

Believe me, I do see your point about the prohibition of using same sized model to block LoS being more intuitive in your opinion. It's just that I don't agree with it. It seems this will always be a somewhat divisive issue - to some people, it seems more logical to prohibit it because it is nigh impossible to achieve, to others it is illogical to prohibit it while it CAN be achieved and it's easy to agree upon. I'm satisfied with the current solution and see no reason to change it since it is playable and doesn't really break the game in anyway - it's just a different approach in game design than the one you prefer. If it got changed to your proposal, you'd be satisfied and I'd be a little disappointed.

[santaclaws01]

8 hours ago, SunTsu said:

I'm happy you're so confident in your abilities, because I could never be so confident in mine. Not when is enough just 1 micron to determine a different outcome. You know what is a micron, I suppose. A thousand part of 1 millimeter. So, even if you have no terrain and other impediment to use your ruler, you can be absolutely sure that the ruler itself not bend (just a bit, invisible at your eyes), that the model bases are all pushed exactly the same way against the ruler, that there aren't other thousand minor invisible imperfections in your placement and you are exactly in that single precise a-dimensional place where the los is cutted away? It's not the same of saying "I put this just outside your charge range", because there are infinite points where the model is outside a charge range, but here we have a single position where you get that blocking los effect. And despite what you can think or say, in the REAL WORLD, you cannot achieve it.

However, as I know well (because is what I usually do), you can play every situation using convention. "I put this one out of los". Ok, I got the point and I play accordingly. But I'm not speaking about how to solve the game problem of measuring something that cannot be measured. I neither making the devil's advocate as @binkys said, simply because I'm not questioning a rule interpretation (I perfectly understand what that rule means).

I'm simply speaking about GAME DESIGN. I am saying, as @Astrellasaid that would be more elegant and easy and intuitive and smooth and consistent with ruleset that the rule was different. I am not speaking how this rule works. I'm speaking about CHANGE current rule. I'm explaining why a different rule would be better for game design and play experience. Obviously, changing rules is not one of my power. It's just a discussion. These are just my thoughts and opinions. Motivated and explained, but just opinions.

@binkys

You're still playing devils advocate, just not for the interpretation. Everyone knows that strictly speaking it's nigh impossible to line it up without using any tools. Everyone also knows that trying to argue against it is just going to waste everyone's time, as it is a possible outcome with the added bonus of ensuring no one is ever going to want to play with you. You're expressing a contentious opinion in order to either provoke a debate or test the strength of the current way the rules are written. This is literally the definition of being the devil's advocate.

[Ludvig]

I don't see the problem with declared intent. It really smooths the ride in games where a lot of stuff could take forever. We frequently let people say stuff like "I'm going to engage this model without engaging that one" if it seems reasonable to be able to do that. Same thing with blocking LoS. Since the game allows pre-measuring you have the choice between allowing declared intent and the other player asking you "does it block now? how bout now? now then? still no? " until you give up and say that it is blocking.

[Ludvig]

8 hours ago, SunTsu said:

So, just to be clear...

If a model fail an horror duel when attacking during its activation, it don't complete the attack (that goes lost) and end its activation losing the paralyzed condition just gained in doing so.

If a model instead fails the horror duel when attacking during an out of activation action (due to obey or similar effects), it gains paralyzed until the end of its next activation but can complete the attack its just declared despite the fact it gained paralyzed. This happens because the new paralyzed wording says the model cannot declare actions, but the attack was declared before failing the horror duel and gaining the paralyzed condition.

I guess it's this you would mean... Am I right?

This is not because the FaQ changed anything, that's how it has always worked since the horror rules don't specifically state that the action fails if the duel fails. The ation failing is just what happens when you gain paralyzed during your activation. What changed is that you now cannot obey a paralyzed model to do anything, previously a model with Sh attacks could still be ordered around just as if it had not been paralyzed.

[mythicFOX]

 

3 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

I don't see the problem with declared intent. It really smooths the ride in games where a lot of stuff could take forever. We frequently let people say stuff like "I'm going to engage this model without engaging that one" if it seems reasonable to be able to do that. Same thing with blocking LoS. Since the game allows pre-measuring you have the choice between allowing declared intent and the other player asking you "does it block now? how bout now? now then? still no? " until you give up and say that it is blocking.

Agreed.  I play a lot of tournaments and don't think I've ever played an game of M2e where we haven't played to intent when positioning.  It just saves so much time not having to micro-measure the exact position of models.

Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about testing players dexterity but their ability to make the right decisions.

[Cadaverousbirth]

Declaration of intent really solves all these infinitely minute issues people ask about. Arguing over the definition of the word "is" and other stuff like that.

Communication with your opponent (otherwise known as your friend, buddy, pal, etc) is as easy as saying "I am positioning this model so that your Belle cannot have LOS to it at this moment, do you agree?" Your opponent then performs a Walk and gains LOS and you lose.

[SunTsu]

4 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

You're still playing devils advocate, just not for the interpretation. Everyone knows that strictly speaking it's nigh impossible to line it up without using any tools. Everyone also knows that trying to argue against it is just going to waste everyone's time, as it is a possible outcome with the added bonus of ensuring no one is ever going to want to play with you. You're expressing a contentious opinion in order to either provoke a debate or test the strength of the current way the rules are written. This is literally the definition of being the devil's advocate.

If this is your idea of discussion, it's not mine. I guess this is already a free world where someone can express an opinion. But maybe I'm wrong... Maybe you're used to discuss just to "either provoke a debate or test the strength of the current way", but it's not my wat to do discussion. And, really, I didn't expect a so harsh reactions on a relatively secondary rule...

I always play nice and smooth and I never had any problems with any opponent in any wargame I ever played, and are almost 20 years I play wargames... But I want to feel free to express my opinion on a rule that I find inelegant and for which I think there is a better way. Giving motivations. And, since this is just my thought, I think that someone have to learn to respect others opinions, also if are not the same. I respect your opinions, @santaclaws01 so please you try to respect mine. I appreciate a position like @Lakshman and others that say "I don't agree, but understand what you're saying" without trying to attribute to others unwilling intentions.

So, now my discussion ends here. Thanks to every one who contribute in a costructive way to it.

[JurisprudentiallyYours]

Ah yes, the "magic of opinions." I'm of the opinion (see what I did there?) that people's opinions should not receive blanket respect. In other words, why should "a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge" receive "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements?" I think we could live happily in a world where someone respects your right to have an opinion, but demanding respect for crackpot ideas and beliefs is stretching it.   

And your advocacy for the devil is apparent in your use of microns for measurement. Are you truly worried about a single micron when your naked eye can't pick up the difference? Are you that precise with everything in your life? Chances are, no. Which is why you received that accusation of playing the devil's advocate. Simply saying otherwise doesn't erase that fact - I could call a sheet of paper an aircraft carrier, but I doubt you could land a plane on it. 

 

 

[moxypoo]

14 hours ago, mythicFOX said:

 

Agreed.  I play a lot of tournaments and don't think I've ever played an game of M2e where we haven't played to intent when positioning.  It just saves so much time not having to micro-measure the exact position of models.

Tabletop gaming shouldn't be about testing players dexterity but their ability to make the right decisions.

This is my experience too. Roughly 90% of my games include a conversation like this:

Me: I want to position this model such that it's out of line of sight of that model. Do you agree it's out of line of sight?

Opponent: Sure.

Me: Great, your go.

Opponent: Hoffman shoves the Rail Golem 47.2 miles across the board and the Golem proceeds to obliterate the model you carefully positioned.

Me: Sigh...

Anyone who starts seriously arguing invisible units of measurement with you is being a TFG, and you should attempt to avoid playing with them. Some estimation of measurement is required in all tabletop wargames simply due to their nature. Once players start arguing over microns, the game breaks down and becomes unplayable.

[Bengt]

I dislike the whole declared positions thing because it means you have to remember a state of the board if the models doesn't move. As such I really dislike the "models blocking LoS to their own size" thing since it can only work with declared positions. It seems like am attempt to play them game on square/hex grid without the benefit of a grid to actually show where things are supposed to be. Not that I would mind playing on a grid, but I would need the grid to be there.

The notion of declaring that something isn't engaged when it isn't possible to place to model to show that (because of room or movement distance or whatever) is totally foreign to me. How is it not outright cheating? The bullying tone of this thread (i.e. if you don't let me play this way you are a bad sport) further compounds this impression.

[Astrella]

I'm a firm proponent of talking stuff out with your opponent, and of course like saying "I'm placing this model here with the intent to block line of sight" is fine, but as Bengt said, the issue with it is that you are adding extra bookkeeping and stuff to remember. Not to mention it gets iffy when involving moves where you can't choose the distance or when you just, didn't think about the line of sight between those two specific models.

[santaclaws01]

3 hours ago, Bengt said:

I dislike the whole declared positions thing because it means you have to remember a state of the board if the models doesn't move. As such I really dislike the "models blocking LoS to their own size" thing since it can only work with declared positions. It seems like am attempt to play them game on square/hex grid without the benefit of a grid to actually show where things are supposed to be. Not that I would mind playing on a grid, but I would need the grid to be there.

The notion of declaring that something isn't engaged when it isn't possible to place to model to show that (because of room or movement distance or whatever) is totally foreign to me. How is it not outright cheating? The bullying tone of this thread (i.e. if you don't let me play this way you are a bad sport) further compounds this impression.

It's because something is a possible scenario and pre-measuring is allowed. If the space you want to move to is well within your movement range, it's just easier to agree what it's supposed to be like than wasting both players time to actually get in perfect. It's not like the model is nowhere near where it's supposed to be. At most it's only going to be a few mm off.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I agree with bengt.

[Tris]

5 hours ago, Bengt said:

I dislike the whole declared positions thing because it means you have to remember a state of the board if the models doesn't move. As such I really dislike the "models blocking LoS to their own size" thing since it can only work with declared positions. It seems like am attempt to play them game on square/hex grid without the benefit of a grid to actually show where things are supposed to be. Not that I would mind playing on a grid, but I would need the grid to be there.

The notion of declaring that something isn't engaged when it isn't possible to place to model to show that (because of room or movement distance or whatever) is totally foreign to me. How is it not outright cheating? The bullying tone of this thread (i.e. if you don't let me play this way you are a bad sport) further compounds this impression.

I think nobody says that you say something is engaged if noone can place the model anywhere near the intended place.

For me, the whole thing behind a declared intend is that I want to move in a way that`s perfectly possible, but want to gain a very delicate position, and I ask my opponent, if he agrees with the positioning of my model - So, I place the model as good as I´m able to, declare my intent to maybe stay at exactly 2" to engage model x, but to stay just outside of model y´s range.

I ask my opponent if he has any problem with the models placement, as it affects both players in their decisions for the rest of the game, he takes a look and agrees, so neither of us has to proof it later in the game, because both of us agreed on the fact that it`s perfectly possible and we don`t want to lose more playtime just because we measure te hell out of it.

 

So for me, it`s just a way to let the game flow, the models are still standing at the right place.

 

I hope I wrote something comprehensible there, the whole topic is more abstract than anything, so I have to admit that I find it difficult to explain my point of view^^

[Gnomezilla]

5 hours ago, Bengt said:

I dislike the whole declared positions thing because it means you have to remember a state of the board if the models doesn't move. As such I really dislike the "models blocking LoS to their own size" thing since it can only work with declared positions. It seems like am attempt to play them game on square/hex grid without the benefit of a grid to actually show where things are supposed to be. Not that I would mind playing on a grid, but I would need the grid to be there.

The notion of declaring that something isn't engaged when it isn't possible to place to model to show that (because of room or movement distance or whatever) is totally foreign to me. How is it not outright cheating? The bullying tone of this thread (i.e. if you don't let me play this way you are a bad sport) further compounds this impression.

While I disagree with you [as usual] I'm very glad you gave such a clear and reasonable justification for the opposite opinion.

It's solvable, too! Not that long ago I learned about using 'proxy bases' to indicate where you want the model to move to, without moving it first. Sounds like the idea was made for people who don't keep the recent past and potential future board state in mind. (Foreign as that idea is to me, I didn't see the point of proxy bases at the time.)

[LunarSol]

Proxy bases are the best thing ever.  All they do is let you see a position while original positions are still verifiable and both players can still be happy with the result.  They're basically the tabletop equivalent to a movement cursor in any videogame ever.