Standing on Markers. Intentionally playing it wrong.

[LaevusLevusXIII]

So, a question came up today, that looks unintuitive by RAW. We've always played it that models have LoS to markers underneath themselves I.E. 50mm model standing on a 30mm marker. For the purpose of dropping and picking up scheme markers this doesn't require LoS, only base contact, so there's no issue there. However for auras and abilities that target markers, are we missing a rule that allows models to draw LoS underneath themselves?

 

Pg. 16 (Emphasis mine)

A sight line is an imaginary straight line between two points on the edges of two objects’ bases. Sight lines are drawn from a top-down perspective. To determine LoS, draw a series of sight lines between the two objects. Sight lines between objects are never drawn in such a way that they cross either object’s base.

 

Specific rules interaction. Any aura or abilities that target markers. I.E. Loot their Corpses on Dashel allows him to remove a marker within aura 2" at the end of his activation. If he's completely covering a corpse marker, does he now not have LoS to it and can't remove it. The logic here is that you can't draw a line from edge to edge unless you draw it through the larger model's base.

 

It seems counterintuitive, and there are a lot more implications if played RAW. Do we just ignore it, or are we missing something?

[diki]

I think it depends on your definintion of cross?

I think if someone tells you to cross the road, they mean go from one side to the other.

You could cross the edge of base from a point outide of the base to a point partially inside the base or from one edge of the base to any other edge of the base, but that part of the rules does specify edges anyway.

I'm not sure a line wholy within the size of the base and not touching two points of that base should be considered crossing it.

[Adran]

I think if you are blocking LOS to an object, you are blocking LOS to an object. There isn't anything that suggests you get to choose when you get to block LOS and when you don't, so if an Executioner is completely covering a corpse marker so no one can see it, then no one can see it, himself included. (Dashel can't actually completly block LOS to a corpse marker because he is the same size). 

 

6 minutes ago, diki said:

I think it depends on your definintion of cross?

I think if someone tells you to cross the road, they mean go from one side to the other.

You could cross the edge of base from a point outide of the base to a point partially inside the base or from one edge of the base to any other edge of the base, but that part of the rules does specify edges anyway.

I'm not sure a line wholy within the size of the base and not touching two points of that base should be considered crossing it.

In the context of the rules sentence, Cross can only mean 1 thing, the line of sight can't overlap with the base of either object. (Or at least I can't make cross mean anything else whilst still making that rule make sense)

[diki]

I thought a sz2 model only LOS to a marker undereneath it to other sz2 models or less?

[Adran]

3 minutes ago, diki said:

I thought a sz2 model only LOS to a marker undereneath it to other sz2 models or less?

I'm not sure what word you missed from the sentence. 

a 30mm model can not cover a 30mm marker such that it can not be seen. They could block LOS in 1 direction, but if they are standing exactly on top of it they block no LOS. (that's what I meant by saying Dashel was the same size,  not that they are sz 2).

You can ignore objects with a smaller sz/Ht than either of the 2 objects that you are drawing LOS between, but that isn't relevant to the question about drawing LOS across your own base, since the rules tell us we can't draw the sight lines across the base anyway. 

 

[LaevusLevusXIII]

An executioner is a much better example. For some reason I thought it was Dashel that was on a 40mm base. I understand a 30mm base can never block los to another 30mm marker.

To flip the scenario, where a 30mm base is standing on a 50mm marker. By the same logic, Titania standing on top of a 50mm underbrush marker can also no longer see that.

Hypothetically, If we just ignore the part of the rule "Sight lines between objects are never drawn in such a way that they cross either object’s base.", are there any unforeseen consequences or is it a redundant phrase? (Assuming sight lines drawn across a models' own base never blocks LoS at this point).

 

[diki]

I thought a 40/50mm sz2 model could only BLOCK LOS to a marker undereneath it to other sz2 models or less?

So
sz2 40mm executioner - standing centrally on top of a 30mm scheme marker 
- blocks LOS to all sz0/1/2 models
- sz3+ models can see it

They could have used the word overlapping if they wanted it rule out sight lines that overlapped part of a base. They said cross the base - you dont say I crossed the road at the point you are half way across a road.

[solkan]

48 minutes ago, diki said:

I thought a 40/50mm sz2 model could only BLOCK LOS to a marker undereneath it to other sz2 models or less?

So
sz2 40mm executioner - standing centrally on top of a 30mm scheme marker 
- blocks LOS to all sz0/1/2 models
- sz3+ models can see it

They could have used the word overlapping if they wanted it rule out sight lines that overlapped part of a base. They said cross the base - you dont say I crossed the road at the point you are half way across a road.

But they do use the word “cross” to say that you’re not supposed to draw line of sight from the far side of the base to an object.

I think it’s pretty plainly just a case that wasn’t getting considered when the line of sight rules were being banged on—line of sight to something you’re completely overlapping.  I can’t think of a good reason that the rules would want to prevent it, but the rules don’t have the relevant extra bit to deal with the exception.

And “walking across the field” around here includes the case that you just wander around in the field.   

[Adran]

4 minutes ago, LaevusLevusXIII said:

Hypothetically, If we just ignore the part of the rule "Sight lines between objects are never drawn in such a way that they cross either object’s base.", are there any unforeseen consequences or is it a redundant phrase? (Assuming sight lines drawn across a models' own base never blocks LoS at this point).

Well if you ignore that then every target a underbrush marker would suffer from concealment since you can then draw a sight line to the marker which crosses concealing terrain. . Not sure if that is an issue, especially since concealment seems to only happen for models. Drawing sight lines to blocking terrain will always be in cover becasue you can always draw a sight line that is crossing the blocking terrain base. 

The not being able to see the marker you are standing in is certainly strange, but the logical extension of the rules as written. Definitely a case of not being able to see the underbrush for the trees. 

1 hour ago, diki said:

I thought a 40/50mm sz2 model could only BLOCK LOS to a marker undereneath it to other sz2 models or less?

So
sz2 40mm executioner - standing centrally on top of a 30mm scheme marker 
- blocks LOS to all sz0/1/2 models
- sz3+ models can see it

They could have used the word overlapping if they wanted it rule out sight lines that overlapped part of a base. They said cross the base - you dont say I crossed the road at the point you are half way across a road.

Yes, you are right that sz 2 models don't block the line of sight of ht 3 or higher models.

Since we are drawing lines to an edge, crossing the base can only meant that lines can't overlap. 

[diki]

 

Why did the chicken cross the road?

It wanted to be in the middle of the road, overlapped by a car?!


<I think my first answer of I think it depends on your definintion of cross? is still correct :P>

 

[squint]

On 3/15/2022 at 1:59 AM, Adran said:

a 30mm model can not cover a 30mm marker such that it can not be seen. They could block LOS in 1 direction, but if they are standing exactly on top of it they block no LOS.

Hey I just came across this thread and I'm confused about how this works. In our group we have always played blocking los in 1 direction to another same base size model/marker (if the size of the blocking model or marker is enough to block los obviously the rulebook has an example that supports this) I think this is how most play it, that sets a precedent on how you manage distances of exactly 0. With no other blocking terrain or models and all 3 models or markers being the same base size, there are 2 sight lines that can be drawn that will be tangent to each side of each base, that is an "unblocked" sight line with if the models are arranged horizontally a vertical distance of 0. If a model is standing directly on top of a marker the sight line reaches the blocking model or marker at the same point as reaching the the marker underneath I would have thought it would be blocked.

Below are three diagrams the first shows that there are 2 sightlines that do touch the model I would say is cannot be seen from the right model (the shaded blue area between the blocking and blocked model indicates they are in fact touching). The second shows the obvious that if the blocking model has a larger base size there are no touching sight lines (no shaded blue). The third is where the current confusion for me is which is that they are both are reached at the same point given los drawn touching a blocking element blocks up to and including the size of the base in the first case I don't understand why it would be any different here.

[Adran]

8 minutes ago, squint said:

Hey I just came across this thread and I'm confused about how this works. In our group we have always played blocking los in 1 direction to another same base size model/marker (if the size of the blocking model or marker is enough to block los obviously the rulebook has an example that supports this) I think this is how most play it, that sets a precedent on how you manage distances of exactly 0. With no other blocking terrain or models and all 3 models or markers being the same base size, there are 2 sight lines that can be drawn that will be tangent to each side of each base, that is an "unblocked" sight line with if the models are arranged horizontally a vertical distance of 0. If a model is standing directly on top of a marker the sight line reaches the blocking model or marker at the same point as reaching the the marker underneath I would have thought it would be blocked.

Below are three diagrams the first shows that there are 2 sightlines that do touch the model I would say is cannot be seen from the right model (the shaded blue area between the blocking and blocked model indicates they are in fact touching). The second shows the obvious that if the blocking model has a larger base size there are no touching sight lines (no shaded blue). The third is where the current confusion for me is which is that they are both are reached at the same point given los drawn touching a blocking element blocks up to and including the size of the base in the first case I don't understand why it would be any different here.

The rules explicitly state that in your case 3 line of sight is not blocked. ( its the bottom of the page labelled markers. I'm on my phone so can't quote it of see the online rules, but it's page 64 in my paper copy. )

The best explanation I can give is that the point when the line is blocked is the same point at which it is considered to have line of sight ( otherwise you could never see anything because it would block los to itself) and if you are standing perfectly on top of the marker then that line of sight requirement is met before that line blocked. 

In Cartesian co-ordinates, imagine the line from 0,0 to 10,0. At 10,0 it meets the requirements for line of sight. It also is then blocked from going further, such that something at 11,0 will not have line of sight, but everything that is at 10,0 does count as having line of sight. 

[squint]

11 minutes ago, Adran said:

The rules explicitly state that in your case 3 line of sight is not blocked. ( its the bottom of the page labelled markers. I'm on my phone so can't quote it of see the online rules, but it's page 64 in my paper copy. )

This is the piece of information I was missing thanks.