Jump to content
  • 0

Ignoring concealing terrain when both models are in it


RiceP.
 Share

Question

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.

Screenshot_4.thumb.png.2c2f7b6f66763fafee9be48dda0d24a8.png

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information