Drawing LoS from vantage point to vantage point

[CasHTusK]

In our club we've just ran our first tournament and had some LoS issues. after discussion (actually, after tournament) we've found that rules said nothing in regards "from which point terrain height should be measured when drawing LoS". Looks like rules assumed measuring height of terrain on start of the game. And nothing in rules said about "relative" height of different terrain piece (except case when 2 models standing on terrain of equal height, but this rule looks bizzare too)  

For our local meta we've decided to measure terrain height from point where lower model is standing. Here is why:

1) It's a popular case from forums:

 

By RAW - G1 and G2 cannot see each other. 

But if we measure terrain height from point where lower model is standing we are fixing these two Gamins

 

2) Another popular case: 

By RAW - G1 and G2 doesn't see each other again. Since "If the acting model and the target model are both on vantage point terrain with the same Height, LoS is drawn normally." And normally - Ht2 terrain blocking LoS between Ht1 and Ht1 models.

But, if we are measuring terrain Height from point where Lower model is standing - there is actually no terrain between these 2 models

3) Not popular, but possible situation. Blue square on this image is a "river", on bottom of which models can stand, 2" deep:

By RAW - in Malifaux there are no such deep rivers. Ht cannot be "below 0". And there are 2 possible conclusions, both of them are actually bad/contr-intuitive:

1) Ignore such terrain feature either by banning tables with rivers/holes/etc. on it, or let models stand on top of this terrain (put something inside of  this "hole", make a "bridges"), or not allow model to be pushed/moved inside.

2) Measure terrain from bottom of this "river", effectively making all terrain around river Vantage Points, 2ht (which is... bizzare, no one can shoot)

If we are measuring terrain height from point where lower terain stands - this river have Ht0. Which is perfect.

4) It's a new scenario, that I haven't found anywhere on forums/faq/etc.

 

By RAW Rasputina can't see Snowstorm (and vice versa), because all LoS from base to base are passing through Blocking terrain.

(Snowstorm is HT3 model, so they can always ignore terrain lower than HT3, and when measuring LoS for Vantage point - it's equal or lower, but HT4 is higher, hence HT4 terrain cannot be ignored)

But if we measure terrain Height from point where SnowStorm standing - elevation of Rasputina became Ht2 - and Ht2 will be ignored (it will be Hard Cover anyway)

So, basically there are two questions: 

1) Is my RAW is correct, and by RAW all heights are broken if both acting model and target stand on Vantage Point / Elevation

2) Is our "home rule" actually a homerule, and if yes - does it make sense to you?

[solkan]

Disclaimer:  The acronym RAW sends me into a seething rage, because of an unhealthy amount of people who try to use it to take things out of the context or form it was written in.    So I'm going to try to be helpful, but...

Two of the more relevant previous discussion threads:

 

[CasHTusK]

17 minutes ago, solkan said:

Disclaimer:  The acronym RAW sends me into a seething rage, because of an unhealthy amount of people who try to use it to take things out of the context or form it was written in.    So I'm going to try to be helpful, but...

Two of the more relevant previous discussion threads:

 

Whoops, sorry for enragement  

Yep, these two discussions I reffered to when wrote "case from forums". I should've included them to my post at the very beggining, thanks.

And actually when I re-read them now - I see that you proposed "measuring from lower model level" in the first included thread.

 

So, do you think it's a "home rule" or just correct interpretation of the rules? And, actually, how this ruled in tournaments in your local meta?

[Myyrä]

You got case #4 wrong. Because the models aren't on vantage points of same height, vantage point rules are in use. The rules say that any terrain with Ht less than equal to that of the lower model's Ht is ignored when drawing LoS. That would include the piece of terrain Raspy is standing on.

[Myyrä]

Just now, CasHTusK said:

In case 4 - SStorm is lower model. It's standing on HT2 terrain. So HT2 or lower are ignored.

Snow Storm is Ht 3 so Ht 3 and lower are ignored.

[CasHTusK]

Just now, Myyrä said:

Snow Storm is Ht 3 so Ht 3 and lower are ignored.

P. 44 : 

"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)."

It's said nothing about "lower or equal" , as far as I can understand.

[CasHTusK]

11 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

Snow Storm is Ht 3 so Ht 3 and lower are ignored.

Ah.. now I see. Okay, let's say Raspy terrain is 1" higher, or Lower model is HT 2 - it doesn't matter. I'll update this case.

[CasHTusK]

39 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

You got case #4 wrong. Because the models aren't on vantage points of same height, vantage point rules are in use. The rules say that any terrain with Ht less than equal to that of the lower model's Ht is ignored when drawing LoS. That would include the piece of terrain Raspy is standing on.

In case 4 - SStorm is lower model. It's standing on HT2 terrain. So HT2 or lower are ignored.

Update: actually following rule for Vantage point (p. 44) is used:

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

I've updated the original post to make issue more clear.

Edited September 26, 2016 by CasHTusK