LOS of three models with the same base size

[esqulax]

I have always been playing that a 30mm model cannot block LOS between two other 30mm models, but I can see there is an example of this happening in the rulebook. 

Now I have always been told that a 30mm model can't block LOS to a scheme marker even when standing perfectly on top of it, but how can this be true if a 30mm model can block LOS between to other 30mm models? Is this also not true ? 

[Maniacal_cackle]

I asked this previously, but basically the answer boils down to if you are standing on top of a scheme marker precisely, they can draw LOS to the edge of both of you (same way that if you're standing on a hill they can see you and the hill).

[Whut]

Imagine that when a LoS line hits a model, it stops dead in it's tracks (lets say both Ht 2). If you're standing perfectly on top of a marker, at the exact point where it stops, it's also touching the marker, thus you can see the marker. If the model is positioned perfectly between you and the marker, the LoS line drawn tangential to both models' bases towards the 30mm marker stops when it touches the blocking model. As it hasn't reached the marker, you don't have LoS to the marker

[Azahul]

Honestly given that it is, to all extents and purposes, physically impossible for a human being to place a miniature with the precision needed to block LOS between two models with a third model of the same size base, I feel like it's easier to play as if it simply isn't possible. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

33 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Honestly given that it is, to all extents and purposes, physically impossible for a human being to place a miniature with the precision needed to block LOS between two models with a third model of the same size base, I feel like it's easier to play as if it simply isn't possible. 

That's what rule of intent is for! Place it as close as humanly possible and announce the intent/get your opponent to agree.

[solkan]

1 hour ago, esqulax said:

Now I have always been told that a 30mm model can't block LOS to a scheme marker even when standing perfectly on top of it, but how can this be true if a 30mm model can block LOS between to other 30mm models? Is this also not true ? 

First, the example of line of sight in the rules PDF dealing with "Terrain with Height" (PDF page 18) demonstrates that one model can be positioned perfectly to block line of sight between two other models.  It does require the model to be perfectly positioned, thus it's unlikely that the position shown in the rulebook would happen by chance.  Instead, that position is likely to be the result of invoking the "Rule of Intent" (PDF page 33) to place the middle model after the outer two models have taken positions (although it's also possible that once you have two models, the third may come along and elect to hide from the other...)

The line of sight lines that touch the middle object's base tangentially are blocked, when the object is positioned perfectly.

It may be more likely to occur when there's a scenery element with a straight side and a bunch of same sized models are lined up along that side.  

That's one matter.

The fact that a model with an Xmm base can stand perfectly centered upon an Xmm marker and not block line of sight to that marker can be shown two ways:

- The explicit text:  The rules point this fact out on page in the marker rules (PDF page 28, bottom of the left column).

- The principles of line of sight:  If you look at the line of sight rules, you should note that line of sight is blocked when the sight line crosses an intervening object's base.  However, the sight line from one object to another never crosses either of those two models bases.  Therefore, a line of sight to a marker or a model standing perfectly centered on top of that marker will not be blocked by either of the two co-located objects.

If you want to block line of sight to a marker, you have to either be wider than the marker, or positioned off center so that your base intervenes before the marker's base is reached.  Naturally, if you're off center and not bigger, you're leaving a portion of the marker unblocked from other directions.

That's the distinction:

- The line of sight to an object does not cross that object's base.

- Even crossing an object's base tangentially is considered "crossing" that object's base.

 

[Azahul]

26 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

That's what rule of intent is for! Place it as close as humanly possible and announce the intent/get your opponent to agree.

I understand that it is possible using the rule of intent, but honestly I'm not sure I like the idea of it being used for that purpose. It's going beyond "these models have some base overhang that makes it impossible to actually put them base to base so let's say they are" and instead instead enabling practices that wouldn't actually be possible gameplay scenarios without that rule.

 

Rules are rules so I'm not going to object if someone does it to me in a game, but it's definitely a stretch of the purpose of that rule.

[Maniacal_cackle]

6 minutes ago, Azahul said:

I understand that it is possible using the rule of intent, but honestly I'm not sure I like the idea of it being used for that purpose. It's going beyond "these models have some base overhang that makes it impossible to actually put them base to base so let's say they are" and instead instead enabling practices that wouldn't actually be possible gameplay scenarios without that rule.

 

Rules are rules so I'm not going to object if someone does it to me in a game, but it's definitely a stretch of the purpose of that rule.

To each their own, but the rule of intent specifically provides for this use (that of exact placement) :

This rule may also be used to declare intent when moving exact distances, such as moving a model so it is exactly 4" away from another model, where measuring such a distance is either difficult or too time consuming.

But if that's not what you like, totally fair to play it another way.

[Whut]

Tabletop will never be precise to 3 sigfigs or whatever. You're right that's physically impossible.

But at the end of the day, the rules explicitly encourage this kind of perfect-distance placement through rule of intent, and the game is specifically designed with models being able to intentionally block LoS in this way.

No one will stop you from shooting yourself in the foot if it simply doesn't feel right to you, but one day you'll be on the last activation of a turn, staring down the barrel of a 4x focused Sniper with a 13 of rams in hand, 23 inches from your most important Ht2 30mm already-activated model with 7 health remaining and suddenly you'll question your principles

[santaclaws01]

41 minutes ago, Azahul said:

and instead instead enabling practices that wouldn't actually be possible gameplay scenarios without that rule.

It is possible though. Plenty of tools exist that would allow you to line it up perfectly, or as near perfect as to not matter for what we can measure without breaking out microscopes and lab equipment. All you need is a straight edge between the two models and you can position something in the middle.

[Azahul]

58 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

To each their own, but the rule of intent specifically provides for this use (that of exact placement) :

This rule may also be used to declare intent when moving exact distances, such as moving a model so it is exactly 4" away from another model, where measuring such a distance is either difficult or too time consuming.

But if that's not what you like, totally fair to play it another way.

I can't really imagine a situation where being exactly 4" matters over 3.9999" or whatever is humanly possible to measure out. The closest I can think of is being exactly 2" away to avoid blast damage, which is at least a gap observable to the naked eye. Like I said, I understand that the rules allow for it, but a rule that mostly seems to exist to smooth out the vagaries of precision play with 3d miniatures being used to enable something otherwise impossible feels like overreach. It's a minor thing and doesn't bug me too much, but I feel a rule saying that a model can't block LOS between two other models of the same size and base on its own both would not be a big deal and would encourage players to stay within the realm of the possible rather than crutching overmuch on the rule of intent as anything beyond convenience. 

32 minutes ago, Biletsky said:

Tabletop will never be precise to 3 sigfigs or whatever. You're right that's physically impossible.

But at the end of the day, the rules explicitly encourage this kind of perfect-distance placement through rule of intent, and the game is specifically designed with models being able to intentionally block LoS in this way.

No one will stop you from shooting yourself in the foot if it simply doesn't feel right to you, but one day you'll be on the last activation of a turn, staring down the barrel of a 4x focused Sniper with a 13 of rams in hand, 23 inches from your most important Ht2 30mm already-activated model with 7 health remaining and suddenly you'll question your principles

To be honest I'm just mildly offended at the implication that I would abandon any principle, no matter how trivial, just to win a game. Ouch.

[Maniacal_cackle]

5 minutes ago, Azahul said:

To be honest I'm just mildly offended at the implication that I would abandon any principle, no matter how trivial, just to win a game. Ouch.

It's not about sacrificing principles to WIN. It's about seeing the anguish in your opponent's eyes as you grind out the last bit of hope they had to win.

6 minutes ago, Azahul said:

I can't really imagine a situation where being exactly 4" matters over 3.9999" or whatever is humanly possible to measure out. The closest I can think of is being exactly 2" away to avoid blast damage, which is at least a gap observable to the naked eye. Like I said, I understand that the rules allow for it, but a rule that mostly seems to exist to smooth out the vagaries of precision play with 3d miniatures being used to enable something otherwise impossible feels like overreach. It's a minor thing and doesn't bug me too much, but I feel a rule saying that a model can't block LOS between two other models of the same size and base on its own both would not be a big deal and would encourage players to stay within the realm of the possible rather than crutching overmuch on the rule of intent as anything beyond convenience. 

I agree that your way could make sense, but the book pretty explicitly allows for it (even using LOS blocking in examples). No judgement if people want to play that way (i'd happily play that way if my opponent asked).

[Mycellanious]

So heres a quesion. A 30 mm model cant COVER a 30 mm marker, but it could use the Rule of Intent to block LoS from another model to that marker by standing between them? That's weird. 

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Mycellanious said:

So heres a quesion. A 30 mm model cant COVER a 30 mm marker, but it could use the Rule of Intent to block LoS from another model to that marker by standing between them? That's weird. 

Yes, because you can see right up to the edge of the model. If the edge of the model and the edge of the marker are in the same place, you can see both. But you can't see THROUGH the model, so the moment the base is a micron past the marker, you can't see the marker.

[Rufess]

2 hours ago, Azahul said:

I can't really imagine a situation where being exactly 4" matters over 3.9999" or whatever is humanly possible to measure out.

When Spread Them Out and Runic Binding are both existing in the pool and you really need to bluff the opponent by placing 3 markers within 10"?

17 minutes ago, Mycellanious said:

So heres a quesion. A 30 mm model cant COVER a 30 mm marker, but it could use the Rule of Intent to block LoS from another model to that marker by standing between them? That's weird. 

When a 30mm model perfectly standing on a 30mm marker, the observer can draw LoS to both the model and the marker. If the model has moved forward, even a 0.01", it then now is blocking the LoS from the observer to the marker.

Edited October 14, 2020 by Rufess

[Adran]

7 hours ago, Azahul said:

Honestly given that it is, to all extents and purposes, physically impossible for a human being to place a miniature with the precision needed to block LOS between two models with a third model of the same size base, I feel like it's easier to play as if it simply isn't possible. 

Its really easy to do. Place a straight edge touching the edge of the two models you want to block los between. Place your model so it touches the edge somewhere between them . Mission accomplished. 

3 equal sized circles placed in a line as perfectly as humanly possible. 

 

It is also worth noting the rules stating it is possible is useful for determining what is possible in other circumstances. 

Likewise saying a model standing perfectly on top of a marker of the same size does not block los to it tells us that where ever you place your model there will be some part that is visible even though you can then use a model to block 1 line of model positions from seeing it. 

[Morgan Vening]

10 hours ago, Rufess said:

When Spread Them Out and Runic Binding are both existing in the pool and you really need to bluff the opponent by placing 3 markers within 10"?

When a 30mm model perfectly standing on a 30mm marker, the observer can draw LoS to both the model and the marker. If the model has moved forward, even a 0.01", it then now is blocking the LoS from the observer to the marker.

Should be pointed out, that if that is the intent (via Rule of Intent) from the blocking model moving forward 0.01", that only applies as long as the other model doesn't move. If the blocked model moves any amount of distance laterally (ie, as long as it's neither directly toward or away) from the blocking model, then LOS between the blocked model and the marker is regained.