Do we think it's intentional that tangent lines both do and don't exist

[Azahul]

I've been chewing on this one for a while, it's easily the rule that bothers me the most in Malifaux. It is almost certainly because I play a lot of the Bandit Keyword and it causes some ructions there, but I was curious to see if I was missing something.

 

For those unfamiliar with term a tangent line is one that touches/intersects with a base but does not cross it. In several games I've played in the past that measure base to base Line of Sight, tangent lines are assumed to exist. What this means is that you can't block line of sight between two models of the same size base by using a third model on the same size base, because a line of sight can be drawn that will touch the intervening model but not cross its base in any capacity.

 

Malifaux doesn't agree with this. Not in any specific words to that effect (not that I've found, I may have missed something), but largely due to the existence of a series of diagrams on pages 16-18 of the rulebook. One of these, on page 18, shows that tangent lines do not exist in Malifaux's because Iggy standing on a rock is able to block LOS between Ophelia and Pandora.

 

Now, I'm not disputing this, but I'm increasingly unsure if this was intentional. The point of the diagram is nothing to do with tangent lines, it's meant to demonstrate that terrain can increase a model's effective Size and cause it to block LOS. It could easily be a case where a poorly thought through choice of visual unintentionally manifested a new rule. Had a Gupp on a 40mm base been used for this example we might still be wondering whether tangent lines are meant to exist in Malifaux.

 

What makes this weirder is that tangent lines explicitly do exist in another form. Specifically, you cannot hide a 30mm marker under the base of a 30mm model. This is the exact same principle as tangent lines for LOS but it comes to a different conclusion entirely because the rules text explicitly calls this example out.

 

And boy, it sure feels at times that with abilities like Trigger Finger on Bandidos or Perdition on Parker2 that the devs and/or internal testers don't actually play assuming tangent lines are blocked. Drop It lets the opponent place the scheme marker, allowing them to block LOS for the purpose of these auras quite easily a lot of the time. It's not deblitating, I just don't run Bandidos and I've found ways to make Parker2 work regardless, but it does mean these models don't work with the core mechanics of their crew.

[Adran]

I would say the developers are aware of tangential lines, based on the number of questions regarding it they have had over the years. ( you can look at the old editions and see that this was covered. I'm fairly sure they used iggy because it demonstrates a 30mm model can block los between 2 other 30mm models. It's been a while since the public beta but I'm sure this was discussed then.)

It is a different argument for why a model standing perfectly on top of a marker can't block LOS, where the argument is that the los reaches the marker at the same time as it reaches the blocking model, so the line doesn't pass any part of the model. ( or rather the los stops at the point of contact with the marker which is the exact same point it would be stopped by the blocking model). 

[Butch]

The rules state that LOS is an imaginary line between to points. The line crosses the point of the base in the middle. This one point stops the line to the third base. Otherwise the must be curved.

 

To avoid discussions I state what I want to do if there's room for interpretation: "I place this model right between these two models, okay?"

[Azahul]

43 minutes ago, Butch said:

The rules state that LOS is an imaginary line between to points. The line crosses the point of the base in the middle. This one point stops the line to the third base. Otherwise the must be curved.

 

To avoid discussions I state what I want to do if there's room for interpretation: "I place this model right between these two models, okay?"

That is actually one of my issues with the tangent line matter. I like to think I'm a reasonably chill guy when it comes to precision measurements. If a measurement looks like it's pretty much in I'm rarely busting out the widgets to make absolutely certain, it's the kind of thing I'm happy to give the benefit of the doubt to.

 

The problem I have with this line of 30mm bases it is that it's to all extents and purposes impossible for a person to arrange. You can put down a ruler and line all the models up against it as close as humanly possible and I guarantee you a line of sight would still technically be possible, because we are discussing a level of precision humans are actually physically impossible of achieving. Even minor vagaries in the exact width of a base from manufacturing errors make the whole thing nonsense. There is one spot in the whole of space where the scenario you're attempting to create can occur, and it isn't discernible to the human eye. The rule of intent is a great rule but I like it for making my games smoother, not for enabling mew tactics that would otherwise be impossible. In that regard it strikes me as different to, say, asking your opponent if it's ok to treat a model as balancing a bit further off a ledge of terrain than it physically can be placed safely, which is a game state you can achieve easily with 2d terrain or Vassal or with judicious uses of putty if you want to clean that mess up mid-game or whatever. Encouraging players to adopt tactics representative of actions they could actually never physically do even on a flat plane with no other pieces intervening just bothers me on a fundamental level, though I acknowledge that is likely a pet peeve.

 

I can't imagine the game would be adversely impacted by allowing tangent lines. It would solve most of the Drop It problems that plague Bandit without having to errata any cards, and it only impacts tactical plays that by and large only exist in niche scenarios in high level play.

 

For what it's worth, I actually don't think there's a difference in the "standing on a marker" case. The LOS rules say a line is blocked when it crosses a base, and tangent lines by their nature aren't crossing. Same situation in effect with the standing on a marker scenario. But I do want to acknowledge that I do recognise that Malifaux's rules do create a difference, simply because the rules say they do. I'm not arguing against the game's version of reality, I just think the game would be a bit cleaner overall if it adopted a slightly more realistic reality.

[solkan]

4 hours ago, Azahul said:

The LOS rules say a line is blocked when it crosses a base, and tangent lines by their nature aren't crossing.

I think the issue is that you’ve a fundamental disagreement on the definition of tangents and crossing, and the rulebook says you’re using the wrong definition.

The “one base perfectly overlapping another” situation is: the line ends at the base edge, and does not continue.  Thus the line does not cross the base.

The tangent situation is:  the line touches the base at one point, and then continues.  Thus the line DOES cross the base.

 

[Azahul]

3 hours ago, solkan said:

I think the issue is that you’ve a fundamental disagreement on the definition of tangents and crossing, and the rulebook says you’re using the wrong definition.

The “one base perfectly overlapping another” situation is: the line ends at the base edge, and does not continue.  Thus the line does not cross the base.

The tangent situation is:  the line touches the base at one point, and then continues.  Thus the line DOES cross the base.

 

Oh I don't disagree with the rulebook. It's clear, tangent lines are blocked. I'm not arguing we're reading the rulebook wrong. In the reality of Malifaux it works as you describe because the book says it does. My fundamental disagreement is not whether the rule works the way the rulebook says (or at least implies) it does, I just don't like that it does.

 

Now, if we assume the devs do actually mean for tangent lines to work the way the book says it does, there are a few possibilities from there. Either they don't play as though it's something you can actually practically do in a game even though technically it is possible, or they just forgot about how this rule works when it came to writing rules for the Bandit Keyword and how the interaction with Drop It would render several abilities there non-functional. In either case changing this rule would probably be the easiest fix to just have Bandit models function as intended, unless Perdition and Trigger Finger really are meant to be as corner case and niche as written and have no interaction with Drop It outside of the the respective model's own activation.

[santaclaws01]

A tangential sight line would start from a point on the base. If you line up any number of 30mm models exactly, then that line would go through the base of every model in the line. If a sight line is going through a base, which by definition it would have to, it is blocked by the first base after it starts. I'm not sure what you're imagining a tangential sight line to be where it starts from a point on one model, goes around intervening models, and then ends on that same point in on the final models base.

[Azahul]

5 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

A tangential sight line would start from a point on the base. If you line up any number of 30mm models exactly, then that line would go through the base of every model in the line. If a sight line is going through a base, which by definition it would have to, it is blocked by the first base after it starts. I'm not sure what you're imagining a tangential sight line to be where it starts from a point on one model, goes around intervening models, and then ends on that same point in on the final models base.

Why is it ever crossing a base? It starts at the point the base ends. It intersects, touching but not crossing, the points where all the other bases end. It's genuinely not any different in principle to a 30mm base standing atop a marker. If you can touch two bases at the same time then logically you can touch a base without crossing a base.

[santaclaws01]

3 hours ago, Azahul said:

Why is it ever crossing a base? It starts at the point the base ends. It intersects, touching but not crossing, the points where all the other bases end. It's genuinely not any different in principle to a 30mm base standing atop a marker. If you can touch two bases at the same time then logically you can touch a base without crossing a base.

Sightlines fit entirely within the profile of a models base. They do not extend out past it to either side. If something is exactly 30mm wide and is lined up perfectly with another thing that is exactly 30mm wide, there will be no point where it passes the object without overlapping the object.

[Azahul]

3 hours ago, santaclaws01 said:

Sightlines fit entirely within the profile of a models base. They do not extend out past it to either side. If something is exactly 30mm wide and is lined up perfectly with another thing that is exactly 30mm wide, there will be no point where it passes the object without overlapping the object.

That is Malifaux's logic, yes. I'm not disagreeing with that. It doesn't have to be though. I've played other base-to-base line of sight games that use tangent lines, in no small part because to do otherwise encourages players towards tactical placements those players would never realistically be able to actually achieve.

[santaclaws01]

12 minutes ago, Azahul said:

That is Malifaux's logic, yes. I'm not disagreeing with that. It doesn't have to be though. I've played other base-to-base line of sight games that use tangent lines, in no small part because to do otherwise encourages players towards tactical placements those players would never realistically be able to actually achieve.

Malifaux is using tangent lines is the point. What you're describing isn't a tangent line, it's a line parallel to the tangent because for it to be a tangent it must start within the curve of the base.


I also don't agree that the placements aren't realistically achievable. You can get into human error and what we can actually measure, but then that would have to apply to literally everything about the game. How do we know that board is actually 3'x3'? How do we know models are actually on 30, 40 and 50mm bases?

[Azahul]

1 minute ago, santaclaws01 said:

Malifaux is using tangent lines is the point. What you're describing isn't a tangent line, it's a line parallel to the tangent because for it to be a tangent it must start within the curve of the base.


I also don't agree that the placements aren't realistically achievable. You can get into human error and what we can actually measure, but then that would have to apply to literally everything about the game. How do we know that board is actually 3'x3'? How do we know models are actually on 30, 40 and 50mm bases?

Except that isn't the actual definition of a tangent. A tangent touches a curve but if extended does not cross it. That meets all the prerequisites for LOS rules as written, it's just the diagrams make it clear they don't exist. 

 

And you're right, don't know on any of that. The physical game is full of imperfections, but the overwhelming majority of the time we don't attempt actions or measurements where it matters if a base is 30.0001mm or if the matt is short by even a visible fraction of an inch. If I make sure to stand at maximum range from an enemy model because I have 12" range and at most it can threaten to make a melee attack by walking and charging 11", it doesn't matter if I'm fractionally off because the margin of error is measured in whole inches. Even some of the game's more precise measurements, like standing 2" from a model so that a 50mm blast marker won't catch them both or placing a Break the Line marker its maximum distance so that just three Interacts will get it 8" from the centreline, still involve distances discernible with the naked eye that a human being can realistically achieve. The closest equivalent I can think of to the 30mm issue is charging and ending up base to base with two different models, but at least that only matters for the duration of the movement rather than trying to create an ongoing game state.

[santaclaws01]

4 minutes ago, Azahul said:

A tangent touches a curve but if extended does not cross it.

You're misunderstanding what cross means in this case. Cross in this case means going from outside the curve, to inside the curve, to back outside the curve. The full mathematical definition of a tangent is that for function y=f(x), the tangent of the function at x=c will pass through point (c, f(c)) and have the slope of f'(c). 

16 minutes ago, Azahul said:

still involve distances discernible with the naked eye that a human being can realistically achieve

If I use a straight edge, or even 2 straight edges, to line up 3 models you're not going to be able to determine that the models aren't perfectly lined up without getting microscope levels of zoom. It is certainly realistically achievable in a normal game. What isn't realistically achievable is proving that they aren't actually perfectly lined up. And even if you want to say that there's a chance that the models aren't actually lined up perfectly, the distances required to get it to that state are so negligible that you're splitting hairs over micrometers. The fact of the matter is that we know with how Malifaux sight lines work a 30mm model is able to stand in between two other 30mm models and we have tools available to us to get as close an approximation as humanly possible to that point. We know it's mathematically possible just like we know mathematically that a 2 models in base contact with each other are within 2" when one of them is pushed 2" away.

[Azahul]

The fact of the matter is I don't need to measure and see if the 30mm bases are aligned. I know they aren't. They will never be, so it doesn't need to be checked. In any situation where three bases look like they are on a line and neither myself nor my opponent specifically stated with the rule of intent that they are meant to be aligned then I will always I assume each base has LOS to the others because the odds of them actually being aligned are so impossible it might as well be zero. It becomes a game state only achievable with the rule of intent, which irks me fundamentally. I like the rule of intent, I like not having to be too careful when pushing base to base models 2" apart, I love big impractical 3d terrain pieces that are often impossible to balance minis on but look damned cool, so I have no beef with a rule that smooths over the play experience in that regard. But it does bother me that it enables three bases on a flat and empty field to achieve tactical scenarios that they otherwise could not.

[solkan]

Look, it's a game with premeasuring.  If the game didn't have premeasuring, then it would be implausible for models to arrange in perfect lines, or exact distances from other objects.  But since the game does have it...

When you can measure and pre-measure movement, the question of "Is it possible to line up models in some particular formation?" becomes a question of "What standard of accuracy are you using?"  

How do you line up three models perfectly?  You position Model A and Model B, and then use two straight edges to determine where Model C has to be.  That's not difficult to do, and you really have to be contrarian to claim, given pre-measuring and two straight edges, that the model's position due to accidentally bumping the model while removing the straight edges should be favored over the legally determined position.

And, again, it's a game with pre-measuring.  You say you're going to move a model 2", measuring that 2", and the other player looks at your measurement and says "Yeah, that's two inches."  If the reality turns out that's actually 2 1/32", why wouldn't you nudge the model's position to where it was supposed to be, rather than playing with game state that's in error?

Disclaimer:  There's a very fun play style where you deliberately avoid moving exact distances.  "I can move this model 3 inches?  Okay, I move it to here (pointing to a spot that's somewhere between two and three inches away)..."  Or, likewise, measuring out deployment zones and then positioning models by putting them on the edge and nudging them back without measuring so they're not an exact distance from anything.

But that doesn't make the other game style less valid. 

[Azahul]

If someone wants to line up three models, and uses a ruler or whatever and lines up the models, telling me all the while that having those models aligned is their intention, I obviously have no problem with it. Those are the rules. Heck, I'm not above exploiting this rule myself. Goodness knows I've summoned models on the opposite side of my base to Charm Warders to dodge Barrier more than a few times. But as a principle I dislike it. It will never be correct. And I don't view it as comparable in that sense to the "anything in physical space will always have minor imperfections", because normally when I'm moving models or measuring ranges it wouldn't make a material difference to the game state if I was slightly closer or slightly further away. A ranged attack made from 11.964" away and a ranged attack made from 11.971" away are going to resolve identically. But that same shift in aligning models turns on auras and pulses and actually materially impacts the game, and the board state where that shift happens isn't humanly possible to achieve.

 

It doesn't help that the rule also negatively impacts some models to the point of rendering rules on their cards significantly weaker than you might assume when reading them, in ways I tend to think it's unlikely the developers accounted for.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Azahul said:

A ranged attack made from 11.964" away and a ranged attack made from 11.971" away are going to resolve identically. But that same shift in aligning models turns on auras and pulses and actually materially impacts the game, and the board state where that shift happens isn't humanly possible to achieve.

This comparison doesn't make sense. You should be compare being 11.964 inches away and 12.001 inches away. That goes from attack going off to not happening at all.

Not to mention lots of games have ways to simulate blocking effects. If you have one unit standing in front of another unit, it is quite common to be able to block attacks in a variety of systems.

[Maladroit]

I'm not quite following the issue (or some of them anyway) here - apart from the difficulty in placement which is fixed under the rule of intent. A tangent line to a curved line do share a co-ordinate (they do intersect) - tangent lines do not exist a fraction of a unit adjacent to the curved base, they actually share a single point. I guess if we line three 30 mm bases up on the x-axis of a cartesian plane and draw a tangent line across the top of the bases it would intersect with the first base at (15,30), the second base at (45,30) and the third base at (75,30). It does not "cross" the second base (it isn't a secant) but it certainly goes through the exact point that the second base occupies. Which I had always through counted for LOS etc.

As far as precision goes, many people have resin or painted bases as well - I would imagine that very few are exactly 30.000 mm diameter and the three bases in question are very unlikely to be exactly equal in diameter - but I'm not going to get out the micrometre to check before the game. It seems easier to rule that if my opponent states that all three bases are in perfect alignment I'm going to accept that they are (and if they are taking the time to do so then just say it - you run the risk of bumping and changing the position of models if you try and do it with a straight edge), but if there is no such statement we should assume that they are not going to be. That seems pretty simple in terms of gameplay.

[Azahul]

1 hour ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

This comparison doesn't make sense. You should be compare being 11.964 inches away and 12.001 inches away. That goes from attack going off to not happening at all.

Not to mention lots of games have ways to simulate blocking effects. If you have one unit standing in front of another unit, it is quite common to be able to block attacks in a variety of systems.

No, the point was to illustrate that there are many possible places a model can stand and be in range for their ranged attack. If I pull out a tape measure and go "Looks like I'm 11-and-something inches away", if the exact number of the "and something" is wrong then it's irrelevant. The game action resolves correctly.

 

Not the case with this LOS blocking. There is one spot you can stand. That spot is not discernible to the naked eye. It can't be measured. And if you get the placement wrong it does change how actions resolve. 

 

My point is to illustrate that overwhelmingly when you check a measurement in the game you can be a little bit off and it wouldn't change the outcome of any action. You don't need to be precise on microscopic level for most actions in the game. It's weird that there exists an instance in this game of a tactic where you do.

 

Meanwhile the issue with the vagaries of production and physical pieces not always being the right size adds to the issue, not detracts from it. We have a rule that, if it weren't already impossible to use without the rule of intent, would require those bases to be precise to the dot. 

[Maladroit]

23 minutes ago, Azahul said:

 . . .

 

My point is to illustrate that overwhelmingly when you check a measurement in the game you can be a little bit off and it wouldn't change the outcome of any action. You don't need to be precise on microscopic level for most actions in the game. It's weird that there exists an instance in this game of a tactic where you do.

 

. . . .

I don't know about your games, but this does happen a fair bit in games I play in other situations. We might like to get a model as close as possible and still be outside charge range, we'll just measure it up to be pretty much exact distance and state that it is 6.01" away for example, or maybe we want to be within range but as far away as possible we'd use rule of intent for that as well. I don't see much difference. Our measurement devices are not that good that we would ever be able to measure that precisely anyway.

[Azahul]

1 minute ago, Maladroit said:

I don't know about your games, but this does happen a fair bit in games I play in other situations. We might like to get a model as close as possible and still be outside charge range, we'll just measure it up to be pretty much exact distance and state that it is 6.01" away for example, or maybe we want to be within range but as far away as possible we'd use rule of intent for that as well. I don't see much difference. Our measurement devices are not that good that we would ever be able to measure that precisely anyway.

Yeah, those scenarios happen. There are two differences in my view:

-With the three aligned bases scenario it is always the case that the models are in the wrong position. It's not "sometimes mistakes happen", it's "this tactical scenario cannot possibly occur without rule of intent". You will similarly never be precisely at your maximum range from a target, but at least you're as likely to be imprecise by being closer as you are by being further away.

-A mistake wherein you are slightly out of range can be rectified. I mean, if you realise you bumped a model out of range by mistake, you can bump it back into range. You can't correct an aligned bases situation, you crutch on the rule of intent to make it work forever.

[Maniacal_cackle]

25 minutes ago, Azahul said:

Yeah, those scenarios happen. There are two differences in my view:

-With the three aligned bases scenario it is always the case that the models are in the wrong position. It's not "sometimes mistakes happen", it's "this tactical scenario cannot possibly occur without rule of intent". You will similarly never be precisely at your maximum range from a target, but at least you're as likely to be imprecise by being closer as you are by being further away.

-A mistake wherein you are slightly out of range can be rectified. I mean, if you realise you bumped a model out of range by mistake, you can bump it back into range. You can't correct an aligned bases situation, you crutch on the rule of intent to make it work forever.

I mean that can happen a lot with ranges as well.

I'm exactly 2 inches away from this model and that model is a unique position that you can't actually achieve.

I'm exactly 2 inches away and outside of blast range is probably not realistic for most people.

1 hour ago, Azahul said:

No, the point was to illustrate that there are many possible places a model can stand and be in range for their ranged attack. If I pull out a tape measure and go "Looks like I'm 11-and-something inches away", if the exact number of the "and something" is wrong then it's irrelevant. The game action resolves correctly.

 

Not the case with this LOS blocking. There is one spot you can stand. That spot is not discernible to the naked eye. It can't be measured. And if you get the placement wrong it does change how actions resolve. 

 

My point is to illustrate that overwhelmingly when you check a measurement in the game you can be a little bit off and it wouldn't change the outcome of any action. You don't need to be precise on microscopic level for most actions in the game. It's weird that there exists an instance in this game of a tactic where you do.

 

Meanwhile the issue with the vagaries of production and physical pieces not always being the right size adds to the issue, not detracts from it. We have a rule that, if it weren't already impossible to use without the rule of intent, would require those bases to be precise to the dot. 

But there's infinite places for LOS blocking as well, right? There's an entire lane on the board where you can have LOS blocked?

Plus the call needs to be made somewhere. You could have another system for LOS, and then you'd have other corner cases.

[Azahul]

3 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

I mean that can happen a lot with ranges as well.

I'm exactly 2 inches away from this model and that model is a unique position that you can't actually achieve.

I'm exactly 2 inches away and outside of blast range is probably not realistic for most people.

But there's infinite places for LOS blocking as well, right? There's an entire lane on the board where you can have LOS blocked?

Plus the call needs to be made somewhere. You could have another system for LOS, and then you'd have other corner cases.

I mentioned blast damage above. That gap is observable to the naked eye. You can 100% do that spacing without a problem.

 

I'm not disputing that you need to make a call somewhere. The thrust of this topic though is that a) I think the call should have been a different one, and b) based on the other design choices they've made I'm not entirely convinced Wyrd knows which call they made. At least they don't seem to be thinking about it too much.

[Maniacal_cackle]

1 minute ago, Azahul said:

I mentioned blast damage above. That gap is observable to the naked eye. You can 100% do that spacing without a problem.

 

I'm not disputing that you need to make a call somewhere. The thrust of this topic though is that a) I think the call should have been a different one, and b) based on the other design choices they've made I'm not entirely convinced Wyrd knows which call they made. At least they don't seem to be thinking about it too much.

Or perhaps they have a different range of issues they consider, rather than the consistency of tangents being the biggest one?

[Azahul]

7 minutes ago, Maniacal_cackle said:

Or perhaps they have a different range of issues they consider, rather than the consistency of tangents being the biggest one?

If they're not going to consider it then maybe they should change the rule to the version that seems to match the way they play the game?