Lamp Markers

[belorey]

Can a model moved through a Lamp Market?

[Maniacal_cackle]

5 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

I do not believe this correct. According to pg. 28 digital, when drawing LoS to a marker without a Ht value it is treated as a Sz 0 model. Therefore according to this interpretation, underbrush markers would have no effect. Similarly, Scrapyard Mines, pit trap markers, Pyre markers, all would have no effect on enemy models. Furthermore this interpretation would dramatically change the way Malifaux is played, since all models would now ignore Ht 0 Severe rivers and Sz 4 models can walk through Ht 3 buildings as if they are incorporeal. 

The rules say "when drawing LOS to a marker", so I think that passage is specifically about drawing LOS to the marker for the purposes of targetting it. They have to put it in there, otherwise you wouldn't have a way to calculate if another model blocks LOS to the marker.

It says quite clearly that for all other purposes, markers do not have vertical distance: "Unless otherwise noted, Markers do not count as terrain and have no vertical distance".

5 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

Furthermore, the rule your interpretation is relying is found specifically under the LoS section of the rulebook, and not the Terrain section. This is relevant because it is prefraced specifically with "When drawing LoS," indicating that the terrain is ignored solely for LoS purposes. I think the claim that this sentence means that models are "uneffected" by terrain smaller than them is baseless, where does it say in the rules that models are uneffected by the terrain traits of terrain smaller than them?

Rulings in general seem to be scattered around the book.

But the argument basically boils down to:

• The rules for concealment are based on sight lines.
• So the rules for sight lines should apply.

@PaddywhackI actually considered the cover issue before posting and it almost stopped me, but as Santaclaws pointed out the rules spell that one out.

[santaclaws01]

5 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

According to pg. 28 digital, when drawing LoS to a marker without a Ht value it is treated as a Sz 0 model.

That's when drawing LoS to the markers. That it's called at as markers being treated as Sz=Ht(or 0 if no Ht), tells you that you don't treat them as having any Ht value for all other purposes, including drawing LoS through them to another model.

5 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

Furthermore this interpretation would dramatically change the way Malifaux is played, since all models would now ignore Ht 0 Severe rivers and Sz 4 models can walk through Ht 3 buildings as if they are incorporeal. 

This does not follow at all.

5 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

This is relevant because it is prefraced specifically with "When drawing LoS,"  indicating that the terrain is ignored solely for LoS purposes.

No, that indicates the rule is only relevent when drawing LoS. Not that it is only relevant for the purposes of determining if two models can see each other.

5 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

I think the claim that this sentence means that models are "uneffected" by terrain smaller than them is baseless, where does it say in the rules that models are uneffected by the terrain traits of terrain smaller than them?

I already quoted that, where it says that terrain with Size or Height that is lower than either object is ignored.
 

5 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

ts actually a bit more extreme than this. Any model in the shadoa of terrain will gain cover if sight lines from the attacker pass through it. A sz 2 model standing behind a ht 1 wall WILL GAIN COVER from a Sz 3 model trying to shoot it. What that rule specifies, is that a Sz 2 model 2" away from a size 2 wall cannot be seen by ANY SIZE model on the other side of the wall. If the Size 2 model were 2.1" away from the wall, then the wall does not give cover and sight lines are not blocked

None of this contradicts any of what I said. The shadow rules tell us that if either object is within the shadow of terrain, then any sight lines going through that terrain are blocked. Additionally if any sight lines are going through terrain that is generating the shadow a model is in, it will gain cover against  actions. So even though the terrain is being ignored, the rules tell us that it's traits can still apply under certain conditions.

[Paddywhack]

  

On 12/24/2020 at 9:23 AM, santaclaws01 said:

And since we know that ignoring terrain means you're unaffected by its terrain traits, any opposed duel with a Sz 5+ model is ignoring the concealing of Lamp Markers.

So here are literally saying that  model taller than the terrain gets to ignore the terrain traits period. 

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

None of this contradicts any of what I said. The shadow rules tell us that if either object is within the shadow of terrain, then any sight lines going through that terrain are blocked. Additionally if any sight lines are going through terrain that is generating the shadow a model is in, it will gain cover against  actions. So even though the terrain is being ignored, the rules tell us that it's traits can still apply under certain conditions.

Here you decide that Shadow Rules (which are only applied due to terrain traits of Blocking and Height) are not ignored. If you are ignoring the terrain traits it wouldn't have a Shadow. It is the same as Concealment. The rule for Concealment simply say if any sight lines pass through it the model gets Concealment. 

7 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

No, that indicates the rule is only relevent when drawing LoS. Not that it is only relevant for the purposes of determining if two models can see each other.

That section is called Line of Sight. Everything in that section is JUST about drawing LoS. Reading further into is an error. 

[santaclaws01]

4 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

So here are literally saying that  model taller than the terrain gets to ignore the terrain traits period. 

No I'm not, I said that it's ignored while in an opposed duel with a Sz 5+ model.

5 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

Here you decide that Shadow Rules (which are only applied due to terrain traits of Blocking and Height) are not ignored. If you are ignoring the terrain traits it wouldn't have a Shadow. It is the same as Concealment. The rule for Concealment simply say if any sight lines pass through it the model gets Concealment. 

As I quoted and/or mentioned in both of my recent posts.

"any sight lines that pass through the terrain generating that Shadow are blocked (even if the terrain is being ignored due to its Height, as per the Line of Sight and Size rules on pg. 17)."

6 minutes ago, Paddywhack said:

That section is called Line of Sight. Everything in that section is JUST about drawing LoS. Reading further into is an error. 

Determining concealment from concealing terrain is part of drawing LoS. You're trying to narrow that section of the rules to apply only to determining if models have sight to each other, rather than applying it to all aspects of drawing LoS between models.

[Paddywhack]

But it can't have a shadow if you're ignoring its traits... By the the time you get to the shadow you're already using the terrain traits of the terrain to get the shadow. And even then, that is just saying that LoS is blocked when normally it wouldn't be due to size. 

14 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Determining concealment from concealing terrain is part of drawing LoS. You're trying to narrow that section of the rules to apply only to determining if models have sight to each other, rather than applying it to all aspects of drawing LoS between models.

Yes, because it's just about LoS. That's it. Your want to add concealment rules to the section, but concealment is a separate issue to LoS. Concealment rules tell us that if a sight line passes through the terrain, the model has concealment. The fact that you can see the model doesn't matter. The FAQ is irrelevant and the line in the LoS rules specifically says 'when determining LoS'. 

We disagree. I've been wrong before, but I don't think so here. All you need according to the rules for concealment is a sight line drawn through the terrain. Either way if we ever play I'll be glad to agree to something beforehand or live with a TO ruling until (if) another FaQ comes out. 

Good gaming!

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 hour ago, Paddywhack said:

But it can't have a shadow if you're ignoring its traits... By the the time you get to the shadow you're already using the terrain traits of the terrain to get the shadow.

This part of your argument doesn't make any sense. The rules explicitly say "even if the terrain is being ignored due to its height."

1 hour ago, Paddywhack said:

Yes, because it's just about LoS. That's it. Your want to add concealment rules to the section, but concealment is a separate issue to LoS. Concealment rules tell us that if a sight line passes through the terrain, the model has concealment. The fact that you can see the model doesn't matter. The FAQ is irrelevant and the line in the LoS rules specifically says 'when determining LoS'. 

This is the part of the argument that I think is relevant, and your point here makes sense. The counterargument basically boils down to - Concealing on page 37 is defined through sight lines. It isn't like impassable terrain, where the terrain has an effect independent of sight. Concealing's only effect is on LOS (and if your ability doesn't draw LOS, concealing doesn't apply).

[Maniacal_cackle]

Although one thing to note is I'm pretty sure these rules were designed specifically for blocking terrain. I don't know of any terrain that had height that wasn't blocking prior to GG1.

So probably the reason the rules feel really unclear here is that they weren't designed with this in mind, I would assume.

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Paddywhack said:

But it can't have a shadow if you're ignoring its traits...

What part of "even if the terrain is being ignored due to its Height" are you not getting?

2 hours ago, Paddywhack said:

Yes, because it's just about LoS. That's it. Your want to add concealment rules to the section, but concealment is a separate issue to LoS. Concealment rules tell us that if a sight line passes through the terrain, the model has concealment.

No sight lines pass through terrain that is being ignored because the terrain effectively does not exist while drawing LoS.

[Scoffer]

10 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

What part of "even if the terrain is being ignored due to its Height" are you not getting?

Look at the example from the rulebook (I've attached a picture and underlined the most important parts for you). 

A sz4 model is in the shadow of ht3 terrain and has cover, because sight lines pass through that terrain (which is ignored for LoS purposes). The terrain doesn't block sight lines, because one of the models is higher. But that terrain still exists and sight lines still pass through it - otherwise there would be no cover.

[Maniacal_cackle]

17 minutes ago, Scoffer said:

Look at the example from the rulebook (I've attached a picture and underlined the most important parts for you). 

A sz4 model is in the shadow of ht3 terrain and has cover, because sight lines pass through that terrain (which is ignored for LoS purposes). The terrain doesn't block sight lines, because one of the models is higher. But that terrain still exists and sight lines still pass through it - otherwise there would be no cover.

Again while the debate about whether concealing is tied to LOS directly makes sense, this part doesn't really. The rules specifically say to do that for shadows and only shadows.

Quote

When drawing sight lines from one model to another, if either model is in the Shadow of terrain with Height equal to or greater than the Size of that model (even partially), any sight lines that pass through the terrain generating that Shadow are blocked (even if the terrain is being ignored due to its Height, as per the Line of Sight and Size rules on pg. 17).

 

[Scoffer]

14 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Again while the debate about whether concealing is tied to LOS directly makes sense, this part doesn't really. The rules specifically say to do that for shadows and only shadows.

I kindly ask you to take a look at the attached picture. Model in the shadow is higher than terrain. It means that terrain is ignored. But it still generates cover.

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Scoffer said:

I kindly ask you to take a look at the attached picture. Model in the shadow is higher than terrain. It means that terrain is ignored. But it still generates cover.

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your point?

The terrain (or shadow) is still generating cover, but that's because the rules say to do so even if ignoring the terrain.

[Scoffer]

Just now, Maniacal_cackle said:

I'm sorry, I'm not understanding your point?

The terrain (or shadow) is still generating cover, but that's because the rules say to do so even if ignoring the terrain.

The rules don't say that. They say that small models can hide behind blocking terrain from big guys - all sight lines passing through that terrain will be blocked and there will be no LoS, even if that terrain should be ignored due to that big guy being higher than terrain.

[Maniacal_cackle]

9 minutes ago, Scoffer said:

The rules don't say that. They say that small models can hide behind blocking terrain from big guys - all sight lines passing through that terrain will be blocked and there will be no LoS, even if that terrain should be ignored due to that big guy being higher than terrain.

Ah, right, they're blocked. But regardless of which case, these shadow rules only apply if the terrain casts a shadow (i.e., is blocking)

Quote

Terrain that has both the Height and Blocking Traits casts a “Shadow,”

Concealing traits have no relation to shadows, so concealing can't happen when the terrain is ignored. Nothing causes you to ignore the shadow (which isn't a terrain trait), so you still get the cover.

[Scoffer]

4 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Concealing traits have no relation to shadows, so concealing can't happen when the terrain is ignored. Nothing causes you to ignore the shadow (which isn't a terrain trait), so you still get the cover.

Shadow doesn't work all by itself.

There are two conditions that should be met to get cover:

1. Model is in the shadow.

2. At least one sight line from the attacker passes through the terrain that generates that shadow.

If terrain was ignored as if it didn't exist (as you and @santaclaws01 insist) - there would be no cover for models that are higher than terrain. But it's not true as the rulebook says the opposite.

I see no reasons not to apply this logic to concealment as long as it has the same condition (sight line passes through terrain).

 

 

 

 

 

[Maniacal_cackle]

2 minutes ago, Scoffer said:

Shadow doesn't work all by itself.

There are two conditions that should be met to get cover:

1. Model is in the shadow.

2. At least one sight line from the attacker passes through the terrain that generates that shadow.

If terrain was ignored as if it didn't exist (as you and @santaclaws01 insist) - there would be no cover for models that are higher than terrain. But it's not true as the rulebook says the opposite.

I see no reasons not to apply this logic to concealment as long as it has the same condition (sight line passes through terrain).

 

 

 

 

 

Ah right, I see your point!

[Takibaki]

Hi Ladies and Gentlemen!

 

Unfortunately, this discussion wouldn´t leave me alone and started harassing my mind. To me, this post is already too long to seem of any help, since it is very difficult to remember all the standpoints and different arguments, so I decided to try and summarize some brought up views in addition to the corresponding rules!

 

I try my best to keep it as short, as possible; therefore, I am going to put the relevant parts into different chapters.

 

1.)    Main Topic – Ignoring Terrain

There are two main passages in the PDF Rulebook and the FAQ that refer to “Ignoring Terrain”:

Page 37 of PDF Rulebook:

Page 3 of the FAQ, Section 3: Terrain, Paragraph 7:

Additionally, the following passages also refer to the topic:

 

Page 17 of PDF Rulebook:

Page 3 of the FAQ, Section 3: Terrain, Paragraph 2:

Conclusions/Summary:

·         To be unaffected by Terrain means, that that specific mentioned Terrain and it´s Terrain Traits are ignored by the model, that is unaffected. (Combination of Rulebook Page 37 and FAQ Page 3, Sec. 3 Paragraph 7)

·         To be unaffected by certain Terrain Traits mean, that the specific Terrain Traits are ignored by the model, that is unaffected. (Rulebook Page 37)

·         If two models want to check LoS: Intervening Models and Terrain with Ht. or Size that is lower than one of the models are ignored. (Rulebook Page 17)

o   That leads to the possible assumption, that Models and Terrain without Ht. or Size cannot be ignored, since they don´t have that Stat.

o   “with a Size ot Ht. that is…”

·         Being unaffected by Concealing Terrain allows the model to ignore the Concealing Trait (Page 3 FAQ, Sec. 3, Paragraph 2) – I put it here just for reasons of completeness.

·         I. e.: If two Models (Both Size 2) try to determine LoS and there is a Ht. 1 Concealing Terrain (also possible to be a Terrain Marker) in between, that Concealing Trait is ignored and neither of the models is affected. – Even if one of the mentioned Models is Ht. 1 it wouldn´t change anything, since one of the Models is taller, than the intervening Terrain.

·         If The intervening Terrain is as tall as the larger Model, it affects both models, because it cannot be ignored anymore.

 

2.)    Line of Sight and Sightlines

I put this here just for reasons of completeness.

Page 16 of PDF Rulebook:

 

Conclusion and Summary:

·         Sightlines are all Sightlines between two objects bases. They never cross a base, so they are the space between two objects.

·         Blocking of all Sightlines leads to the Models not having LoS to each other. So blocking only refers to the state of visibility of models and has nothing to do with actual Sightlines being drawn.

·         Only blocking Terrain may block Sightlines. (Passage: Blocked Line of Sight, PDF Rulebook Page 16)

·         The Status LoS occurs, if any one Sightline is unblocked (Last Paragraph of the Passage “Line of Sight” PDF Rulebook Page 16)

·         I.e.: If a Whiskey Golem (as mentioned before) would stand on top of a Concealing Lamp Marker in the way, as that the Marker is in the Center of the Golem, the Golem would not gain Concealment, since Sightlines are drawn from the Edges of Models bases and the Lamp Marker, being completely within the Golems Base would not intervene.

 

3.)    Specific Traits of Markers

Page 28 of PDF Rulebook, Section “Markers”:

Conclusions and Summary:

·         Markers without HT. or Size do not have a vertical distance.

·         Markers do not block LoS, if they don´t have the Blocking Trait.

·         Only when drawing LoS to a Marker, that Marker is considered a Model with Size 0.

 

4.)    Terrain Traits and Shadow – Additional Rules

Page 18 of PDF Rulebook, Section “Shadow”:

Page 36 of PDF Rulebook, Section “Cover and Concealment”:

Page 37 of PDF Rulebook, Section “Terrain Traits”:

 

Conclusions and Summary:

·         If a Model is within the shadow of a Terrain and the Terrain is at least as tall as the model, any of the Sightlines that pass through the Terrain, that generates the shadow are treated as being blocked, even if the “attacking” model ignores the Terrain. (Section Shadow of Page 18 PDF Rulebook)

o   That is a somehow weird wording. As a non-native English-speaker, the word “either” does give me some headaches, since to me, it may mean “one of” or “both”.

o   The Paragraph mentioned, just states, that Terrain at least as tall as the Target may never be ignored for purposes of Blocking (which somehow leads to, that shadow may also not be ignored – See Paragraph “Blocking”).

o   That means, Terrain smaller than the Target may still be ignored. My main question here is, if this is also true for the Shadow.

·         Additionally the last Passage states, that Models within a Terrains Shadow always gain Cover, if a Sight Line can be drawn through that Terrain.

o   It seems, that Shadow is generated by Terrains with the Ht. and Blocking Traits, even if the Terrains themselves are ignored, that one is a little bit tough though.

 

Open Questions/ Important Knowledge:

·         Terrain smaller, than one of the Models that try to have LoS to each other is generally ignored.

o   That means, that Ht. 1 Concealing Bushes have no significant impact on the game, if they don´t have other Terrain Traits like Severe.

o   The Concealing Trait doesn´t make any sense on Ht. 1 Terrain at all.

·         A Terrain Piece with Blocking and Ht. generates a Shadow. It seems, that the Terrain generates the Shadow even, if it is ignored.

 

Sorry for the long post, but since there were a lot of comments with different standpoints, I just wanted to try to summarize and clarify for myself. There remain still a lot of questions, but if I find insight, I will try to provide.

 

Best regards, Takibaki

[Paddywhack]

7 hours ago, Takibaki said:

      If two models want to check LoS: Intervening Models and Terrain with Ht. or Size that is lower than one of the models are ignored. (Rulebook Page 17)

This seems to be this sticking point. My interpretation is this rule is ONLY to determine LOS. Nothing else, as it is in the LOS section of the rule. It even says, "When drawing LOS...". And just before that, "A model's size can impact LOS." You can ignore it for LOS only. So you can see it. It does not mean you ignore it for all other effects.

Otherwise cover doesn't work as a terrain only has a Shadow if it has the Blocking and Height traits. If you are ignoring those traits, then there would be no shadow. If there is no Shadow, you can't apply the Shadow rule about "even if ignoring it based on ht....". We know this isn't how that works based on the rules.

Why would concealment work any differently? Concealment doesn't care that you can see the model, only that one or more sight lines is drawn through the concealing terrain. That's all the rule is calling for. 

I don't think we're going to change each other's minds at this point. Decide among your playgroup if it comes up. Other than Lamp Markers I think most people don't put a height on concealing so it likely won't come up much. However a FAQ on this would be great as Lamplighters will be quite common I think due to their usefulness. It would be nice to have an official ruling. 

Have a great new year with hopefully a lot more gaming!