Vantage point LoS clarification

[wafew]

Hello,

I've been trying to understand the LoS elevation rules, and I think I understand them, but some situations don't make sense, and I would like to just clarify I got them right.

I made images of different situations, with wether or not there is LoS or not

https://imgur.com/a/lHzSG

Red, Blue and Green rectangles represent different units, and grey rectangles represent terrain, and background lines are there to represent how many inches everything is at.

[santaclaws01]

1. Yes

2. Yes

3. Yes

4. Yes

5. No, the diagonal is going through the other terrain. You measure base to base, not top to top. (although it is only barely going through, so that could just be an error in checking)

6. Yes, but your reasoning is wrong. If two models are on the same Ht of terrain, then you go back to using normal LoS rules, not vantage point rules. 

7. This brings up one of the quirks of vantage point rules. LoS is drawn normally, but it doesn't say how to handle this in the cases of other terrain that comes to and passes the Ht the model is standing on. Basically we don't know if Ht X(where X is the Ht the models are standing on) becomes to new Ht 0 or not. I personally lean towards that interpretation

8. Yes

9. Yes

10. Yes

11. Yes

12. Yes

13. Yes

14. Yes

15. (see 7)

16. Yes

17. Yes

18. Yes

19. Yes

20. Yes

21. Yes

22. (see 7)

23. Yes.


Something to add that it seems like you didn't notice/think about(based on the upper model always being Ht 2) is that the normal LoS rules still apply as well, so if the upper model was Ht 3 and the lower model was Ht 1, Ht 2 terrain would still be ignored.

[WWHSD]

Here's one that I think that you missed.

A Ht1 model standing on Ht2 terrain would have LoS to a Ht4 model that is standing behind Ht4 terrain.

That's due to this bit:
"Terrain that is equal to or less than the Ht of the
lower model is ignored for LoS (but not cover)"