Ignoring concealing terrain when both models are in it

[RiceP.]

I've been watching a batrep and certain disagreement came up between players regarding aforementioned terrain trait. Guy said that if both models are in the same piece of terrain (wood grove in this particular case) then those models can ignore concealing trait of that terrain. It struck me as odd, but again, i haven't played malifaux for a while now. So, does it work like that, and if it does, where in the rulebook i can read about it.

From my understanding, there is a line of sight that passes through concealing terrain, and the models are at least 2" apart, so 1" rule should not apply here, so both models should have concealment against each other. Sorry if this is an obvious question.

[SEV]

You are right.

[Clement]

The players in the batrep are holding over the old version of concealed from 2e.

[Mycellanious]

It is also important to note that concealment is ignored if any ONE of those sight lines are an inch or less. So if Sovereign drew LoS through 2" of the forest from his right edge, but only through 1" of the forest on his left, he would not suffer concealment

[santaclaws01]

2 hours ago, Mycellanious said:

It is also important to note that concealment is ignored if any ONE of those sight lines are an inch or less. So if Sovereign drew LoS through 2" of the forest from his right edge, but only through 1" of the forest on his left, he would not suffer concealment

Pretty sure the math on that is impossible, but not really concerned enough to do it lol

[Adran]

5 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Pretty sure the math on that is impossible, but not really concerned enough to do it lol

Its possible, particually if you remember that they might not both be fully in the terrain. 

In the picture used I think the sight line from the right of sovereign might pass through 2", but the sight line from the left of Sovereign passes through 0" of the concealing terrain, and so they can ignore the concealing trait of the terrain. So whilst the explanation the OP gave for the ignoring it is wrong, in this specific case, they were right to ignore the concealing trait. 

Page 37 gives the rules for Concealing terrain

[trikk]

If Sovereign is in the forest, if there is a sight line from him to attendant that goes through <=1" of that forest, he doesn't suffer concealment.

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Its possible, particually if you remember that they might not both be fully in the terrain. 

In the picture used I think the sight line from the right of sovereign might pass through 2", but the sight line from the left of Sovereign passes through 0" of the concealing terrain, and so they can ignore the concealing trait of the terrain. So whilst the explanation the OP gave for the ignoring it is wrong, in this specific case, they were right to ignore the concealing trait. 

Page 37 gives the rules for Concealing terrain

If I'm remembering that map correctly that would still be drawing through another tree. The color of it is just very close to the background, and the edges of it are broken up by the aura making it harder to distinguish.

[Adran]

1 minute ago, santaclaws01 said:

If I'm remembering that map correctly that would still be drawing through another tree. The color of it is just very close to the background, and the edges of it are broken up by the aura making it harder to distinguish.

I knew there was a reason I don't use Vassel. Looking more closely at the image you may well be right about the boundary of the woods.

If that red line on the picture is 2", then I think the models are nearer to 0.8" apart at their nearest point. But looking at the scales of the bases compared to the line, I think its probably a case that they are too far and concealing should apply. 

[RiceP.]

49 minutes ago, Adran said:

If that red line on the picture is 2", then I think the models are nearer to 0.8" apart at their nearest point. But looking at the scales of the bases compared to the line, I think its probably a case that they are too far and concealing should apply.

Yeah, that's on me, i think i didn't gave clear measurements. The red line represents nothing but sight lines (and i think i've made it too thick, so it's hard to see if the models are in terrain or not). Anyways, yes they are 2" apart at their nearest points.

Also, yes, there are no other trees, dark thing is supposed to be burned patches of grass i think, so you are right, and i've interpreted rule wrong.

[diki]

I wish the terrain in vasssal all had a common border/edge -  I realise it would look worst but it's vassal anyway!

[Maniacal_cackle]

12 hours ago, diki said:

I wish the terrain in vasssal all had a common border/edge -  I realise it would look worst but it's vassal anyway!

That's the encouraged standard for any new vassal maps, but since they're all made by different people with different ideas, you get quite a bit of variation.