Models Standing on Shadow-Generating Terrain, and Reciprocal Line of Sight

[Kharnage]

So, according to Core Rules, because the "model standing on terrain that is casting a Shadow ignores that terrain (and its Shadow) if any single sight line drawn between the two objects passes through 1" or less of that terrain.", LoS can be one-way. This theoretically lines up with concealing terrain rules, where being in something lets you ignore something that models outside of the terrain can't ignore. The problem is, when no one has the room to join you in that terrain, and the feature you get to enjoy is being able to affect models or take attacks, this devolves, in my opinion, into a huge NPE. Observe.

The Rock she's standing on is Ht 2. Nekima engages all of these models. If they're close enough, they can even be splashed on if she somehow takes damage (cuz it won't be from these models). However, none of them can see her in return. She's functionally immune to melee attacks while being able to chop all these people to bits at her leisure.
This is, I would *hope*, an unintended consequence of the rules listed below.

I beseech the powers that be, please change this. This isn't fun, or good, or realistic, and it should be changed. Or 'clarified', however you want to think about it.

[Draysen Gaming]

Please listen to this fine gentlemen who does know what he's talking about. Non reciprocal LoS is an unnecessary nightmare in game and affects new players the worst. 

[Adran]

I agree the above situation is not fun, and should be avoided. 

First point - the players at the table should define terrain. Ht 2 and 3 terrain that is less than 100mm in diameter probably shouldn't get to be stood on. 

And if it exists, then you shouldn't really send ht 2 models within 2" of it. 

(I'd argue it is pretty realistic, if someone is standing on something above my head, I can't see them to hit them with a sword if they want to be avoided, but they can easily get themselves to be able to see me when they want to. )

 

I view the above situation as a situation that the rules allow, but the players shouldn't. Just like ht 8 sniper towers or 24"long river pieces that count as 1 piece, or spaces only incorporeal models can reach.

So whilst the above situation is allowed in the rules, its the most extreme situation possible of this instance, and to get to it, the players need to rule the terrain can do that.

I don't see this as an argument that non reciprocal LOS is a problem, but rather models shouldn't be allowed to stand on terrain that no one else can stand on that is just the right height to screw up a crew (Make this a ht 3 rock and it gets a lot less of an issue in the above example, (but causes the same issue if you are facing lots of ht 3) since she can no longer bleed on them, and make it ht 4 and Nekima can no longer hit ht 2 people even though she can see them).

I can certainly make a bunch of other situations that would lead to a similar outcome of Nekima is engaging a group of models that can't engage her back without it being a reciprocal LOS issue. But most of them would be caused by me deliberately using the game rules to create such a situation. 

[SunTsu]

I instead think that asimmetric Los is a problem by itself.

The concealing rule isn't the same, since it does not allow asimmetric line of sight, just gives concealment to a model and not the other.

I always thought that the Los should be reciprocal, both for simulative purpose (if you can see me, guess I should able to see you) then for balance issue.

Frankly I always played it as if I can see you you can see me in return. This is an obvious oversight about Los rules that need to be officially adressed in some way, because you can't leave it to the "don't make this situation happen", also because even with bigger terrain this rules mistake can be abused. The Los outcame need to be consistent with the field situation and the game flow, and actually it isn't...

[SunTsu]

This problem could be fixed very easily by an errata like:

"When checking Los between two objects, one standing on terrain casting a Shadow and the other standing in that shadow, ignores that terrain (and its Shadow) if any single sight line drawn between the two objects passes through 1" or less of that terrain."

This would let things bidirectional, solving the Nekima paradox... 😅🤣

[SunTsu]

On 8/21/2024 at 12:35 PM, Adran said:

I view the above situation as a situation that the rules allow, but the players shouldn't. Just like ht 8 sniper towers or 24"long river pieces that count as 1 piece, or spaces only incorporeal models can reach.

The problem is that all these situations you said are expressly addressed in the rules manual, and are also solved by imposing or strongly suggesting limits to the rules or how to build the game area.

This oversight about Los rules isn't solved in any way, and can't be addressed so easily: for example if you have an ht2/3 squared terrain 4 inches large, you just need 3 models on 30mm bases to completely shut down 2 sides of the square, letting impossible for enemy models to charge/engage yours. This isn't neither funny not understandable: why a model should be able to see over the edge because it goes near the side, but the other wouldn't be able to see that same model leaning over the edge?

[Adran]

16 hours ago, SunTsu said:

The problem is that all these situations you said are expressly addressed in the rules manual, and are also solved by imposing or strongly suggesting limits to the rules or how to build the game area.

This oversight about Los rules isn't solved in any way, and can't be addressed so easily: for example if you have an ht2/3 squared terrain 4 inches large, you just need 3 models on 30mm bases to completely shut down 2 sides of the square, letting impossible for enemy models to charge/engage yours. This isn't neither funny not understandable: why a model should be able to see over the edge because it goes near the side, but the other wouldn't be able to see that same model leaning over the edge?

Firstly, those situations are called out, because, I believe, people played them either in previous editions, or in the testing and it was shown that those combinations can lead to problems. I've seen them all occur in games across the editions, and in general it wasn't fun. But that doesn't mean that other unfun situations can occur, because the terrain rules are so flexible. 

I could add the 1.1 inch wide ht 1 impassable wall that Nekima could stand beside and all those 1 inch melee models couldn't engage her from the other side, which is very similar to the original issue, but without LOS being the cause, and not mentioned in the manual. 

I can list more "issues" caused by the ability to stand on terrain than I can by there being non reciprocal LOS. I don't want to remove the ability to stand on things because it does lead to thematic situations.

I do also find it relatively realistic that a person standing on top of a roof you can't see onto is able to hide except for that moment when they attack. Its a little stranger it being a melee attack rather than a ranged attack that is the issue, but I think that is in part due to the choice of example. When ever you try and get simulations of real things, you find the edge cases can lead to slightly strange results, but if you make the rules too granular no one can ever follow them. (And there are more benefits to melee attacks in our game to it makes sense when you are bringing the issue to bring the worst of it).

My objection to this is in part because I dislike errata, so if a combination of a core rule, and the terrain rules cause a problem, I generally believe you can expect the players to not allow the bad interaction, rather than have to errata the core rule. ( And I accept that even if you put the guidelines in the rules, you will still find players that ignore them.  I've seen the sniper tower, the long river as 1 terrain feature, not enough cover on the table as the Viks had to charge an Ophelia gunline, or incorporeal models finding spots on the board that were just inaccessible to anything else as well as the attacking through windows. )

And also because I don't build my crew until I know what the terrain is, so if I have allowed this piece of terrain in the game, I don't fill my crew with ht 2 melee models that I'm then going to rush up to a place where they can't do anything. 

 

[SunTsu]

21 hours ago, Adran said:

Firstly, those situations are called out, because, I believe, people played them either in previous editions, or in the testing and it was shown that those combinations can lead to problems.

Well, those situations are called out because there isn't a rule fix to prevent them: you always can close a part of the board so that only models with incorporeal/flight/leap/etc can moves there. In all those cases, the problem is how you handle the battlefield.

In this case instead the problem is the rule itself, leading very often to incomprehensible outcome that have also a bad gameplay downside.

By rules, if you have an ht3 model standing on a ht3 terrain, another ht3 model with 2" engagement range can reach it but can't see him, while the other model can. But why?

22 hours ago, Adran said:

I do also find it relatively realistic that a person standing on top of a roof you can't see onto is able to hide except for that moment when they attack.

Frankly and absolutely no. There is the possibility of hit and run already: you can attack near the edge and then move a little back more than 1" from the edge. THIS would simulate what you said. If a model just stand still near the edge and opponents model just can't see it in any way, which kind of realism is it?

I'm not on the side of who wants deep realism at all costs. Realism is for RPG, wargames can't be too simulative. But this is very obviously clearly beyond the red line.

22 hours ago, Adran said:

My objection to this is in part because I dislike errata, so if a combination of a core rule, and the terrain rules cause a problem, I generally believe you can expect the players to not allow the bad interaction, rather than have to errata the core rule.

I'm not a fan of erratas rains, but when a so obvious mistake can be fixed completely with a little rewording of just one sentence, I can't find a single valid argument to don't do it.

Also, you're focusing on the Nekima-like corner case had been reported as example, but it's a very annoying situation that can occur more often than you think: for example just standing on terrain near the edge let a model unchargeable while he can freely retaliate, or 2-3 models can easily completely shut-off a large part of a big terrain...

This is so huge as mistake, that I can't recall a single situation where it has been played correctly... All players I saw intuitively play it with by directional Los, and I'm sure if I would point out that "Sorry, you're model can't attack because it don't see mine, but yeah, mine can punch you as I like!", the game would take a very bad flow...

So I strongly suggest Wyrd to errata it, and in the while players to play it using bydirectional Los in all these cases, to prevent unfun, unpleasant and incomprehensible moments.