Model standing on a scheme marker to deny an action

[Essexkiwi]

Had this come up in a game today.

Opponent interacts to drop a scheme marker, places it under his 50mm model's base so it's not visible. It's within 4" of Parker, I use Cashing Out action but opponent says it can't be seen so can't be removed. Opponent removes same marker at end of turn to score Spread Them Out.

I can find a reference in the March 2020 errata re triggers affecting a model or marker within X, stating this does not require LOS. Can't find a similar reference to actions affecting a marker within X.

So.. does standing on a scheme marker hide it from actons like Cashing Out?  If so, would it similarly mean the marker is not visible to be used to score a scheme?

TIA

 

[Adran]

25 minutes ago, Essexkiwi said:

Had this come up in a game today.

Opponent interacts to drop a scheme marker, places it under his 50mm model's base so it's not visible. It's within 4" of Parker, I use Cashing Out action but opponent says it can't be seen so can't be removed. Opponent removes same marker at end of turn to score Spread Them Out.

I can find a reference in the March 2020 errata re triggers affecting a model or marker within X, stating this does not require LOS. Can't find a similar reference to actions affecting a marker within X.

So.. does standing on a scheme marker hide it from actons like Cashing Out?  If so, would it similarly mean the marker is not visible to be used to score a scheme?

TIA

 

Cashing out is a pulse

Page 31 says

All models inside the Pulse’s area or overlapping the object generating the Pulse, excluding the object that created the Pulse, are affected by the Pulse as long as they are in the generating object’s LoS.

So if you can prevent LOS, you can prevent it being removed by cashing out because Cashing out is a pulse

 

Nothing in Spread it out suggests that the marker needs line of sight to anything to score.

Sounds like everything your opponent did was fine

[solkan]

On 12/17/2021 at 5:31 AM, Essexkiwi said:

So.. does standing on a scheme marker hide it from actons like Cashing Out?

Pulses require line of sight and range to the markers.  A model standing in front of (or on top of if the model's base is physically larger than the marker's base) goes through the line of sight rules as an intervening object.

There's a note in the rules about a model of the same size standing on top of a marker (a 30mm model standing on top of a 30mm model) because of the potential ambiguity for the idea of "Does that line of sight cross the model's base or not?" 

On 12/17/2021 at 5:31 AM, Essexkiwi said:

If so, would it similarly mean the marker is not visible to be used to score a scheme?

Does the scheme that you're trying to score require the marker to be visible to anyone?  Picking a scheme at random, this text:

Quote

End: At the end of the game, if you have three or more friendly Scheme Markers in the enemy Deployment Zone, you may remove three such Scheme Markers to gain 1 VP.

doesn't specify any conditions involving line of sight to any models on either of the crews.

 

[Yore Huckleberry]

There are some esoteric interactions with LoS -- e.g.:

 

Quote

Rules p 17:

"When drawing LoS between two objects, any intervening models or terrain with a Size or Height that is lower than either of the two objects is ignored."

(emphasis mine)

So, for example, a Sz 3 Peacekeeper can draw LoS to a Ht 0 Scheme Marker that is fully underneath even a 50mm Sz 2 model to remove it for the Trail of Gore ability, or Perdita Ortega can stand on a Ht 2 box to target such a scheme marker with Target Practice and remove it from the table. Those interactions tend to surprise people, but are perfectly legal.

[SEV]

4 hours ago, Yore Huckleberry said:

There are some esoteric interactions with LoS -- e.g.:

 

So, for example, a Sz 3 Peacekeeper can draw LoS to a Ht 0 Scheme Marker that is fully underneath even a 50mm Sz 2 model to remove it for the Trail of Gore ability, or Perdita Ortega can stand on a Ht 2 box to target such a scheme marker with Target Practice and remove it from the table. Those interactions tend to surprise people, but are perfectly legal.

Wow, I never realized the implications of that line of text! This is totally not intuitive (and doesn't make sens imo).

 

[Morgan Vening]

3 hours ago, SEV said:

Wow, I never realized the implications of that line of text! This is totally not intuitive (and doesn't make sens imo).

 

But Rules As Written, appears to be perfectly legit. The horizontal definition of the base appears to not have any impact on LOS. Definitely counter-intuitive.

[Yore Huckleberry]

On 12/21/2021 at 7:44 PM, Morgan Vening said:

But Rules As Written, appears to be perfectly legit. The horizontal definition of the base appears to not have any impact on LOS. Definitely counter-intuitive.

Yeah, I try to hit the "teachable moments" on this. I had it happen TO me in a tournament once, and I've used Trail of Gore to counter-scheme from on top of a box before (the guy thankfully knew the rule already, but he sort of grudgingly accepted that I had made a good play that he had forgotten was possible). I definitely prefer to play in a meta of player agency and not "gotcha!" moments, so it's helpful to rehearse odd rules now and then.

[Adran]

On 12/21/2021 at 9:46 PM, SEV said:

Wow, I never realized the implications of that line of text! This is totally not intuitive (and doesn't make sens imo).

 

Too be fair the interaction of a large model standing on top of a scheme marker to hide it doesn't really make sense, and isn't fully intuitive either, so its not surprising that it's a bit strange. 

[Morgan Vening]

2 hours ago, Adran said:

Too be fair the interaction of a large model standing on top of a scheme marker to hide it doesn't really make sense, and isn't fully intuitive either, so its not surprising that it's a bit strange. 

Right, but it doesn't make sense that an intervening waif of a model can block LOS if the spying model is NOT higher, either. We're used to width of base being capable of blocking LOS, which is where the intuitiveness fails. 

I get they don't want to do true LOS, or some stuff, but the following being the way things work does seem strange.

[Adran]

I'm too lazy to draw pictures, but move that scheme marker in your drawing to just the other side of the 40mm model and basically everyone that knows malifaux rules would get the distinction. It's exactly the same rules but people have the view that standing on top makes it different somehow. But it doesn't. 

[solkan]

Well I'm half asleep and not afraid to be a butcher.  😈

5 hours ago, Morgan Vening said:

Right, but it doesn't make sense that an intervening waif of a model can block LOS if the spying model is NOT higher, either. We're used to width of base being capable of blocking LOS, which is where the intuitiveness fails. 

I get they don't want to do true LOS, or some stuff, but the following being the way things work does seem strange.

The thing is, I look at "Here's a  big model standing in front of the scheme marker" (attached) and ask "Why should standing on top of the marker make any difference?"

 

[Tired peasant]

Wow, that's really useful !
I had this drawing to my collection of clarification cards