M2E - Height & Terrain

[xKoBiEx]

The new rulebook does not explicitly declare how height and terrain interact. Although my local is going to play that height and terrain stack as they always have, this needs to be officially announced to avoid conflict in the future.

ex. A Ht 1 model cannot shoot a Ht 1 model on the other side of a Ht 1 fence. And, strictly by the rules, a Ht 1 model standing on a Ht 1 hill cannot shoot a Ht 1 model on the other side of a Ht 1 fence.

This loophole is due to the wording for elevation in the rulebook which uses "or" and is causing confusion with players that really want to see the new M2E succeed. Two of us are in the process of becoming Henchmen and are recruiting new players. This loophole popped up in a demo. The other elevation rules seem to work well.

[Fetid Strumpet]

My thought is that it isn't a loop hole. A Ht1 Gremlin behind a Ht1 Blocking Fence is not able to be seen it is true, but if you notice in the vantage point rules LoS is still drawn from the base, so in order to see over something you must be on a piece of terrain that is taller than it.

[Stinkmunk]

xKoBiEx, thanks for bringing it up.

As written, it looks like this (unless I'm missing something):

Scenario 1:

Ht 2 Shooter trying to shoot a Ht 2 Target behind a Ht 2 Wall.

Shooter can not draw line of sight to Target since neither has a higher Ht than the wall.

Scenario 2:

Ht 2 Shooter is now standing on a Ht 1 ledge, trying to shoot a Ht Target behind a Ht 2 Wall.

Shooter can not draw a line of sight to Target as above. The rules do not add the Ht of the ledge to the Shooter and, since measurement is top down, it is still a Ht 2 aiming at a Ht 2 with an obstructing Ht 2.

Scenario 3:

Ht 2 Shooter is on Vantage Point terrain trying to shoot a Ht 2 Target behind a Ht 2 Wall, both of which are on the ground.

The Shooter can now draw a LoS to the target because of the specific rules of Vantage Point terrain.

Is this correct?

[Fetid Strumpet]

1. Correct

2. Correct.

3. Incorrect, sort of. You never specified what height the Vantage Point terrain the shooter is standing on was. If the vantage point was height 2 then no, the shooter could not see over the height 2 wall. If the Vantage point terrain was Ht 3, then the shooter could ignore any terrain of a lower Ht than it, I.E. the Ht 2 wall, for the purposes of LoS. Keep in mind that model behind the wall will still be entitled to cover if it is within 1" of the wall however, and will get no cover if it is further away than 1". Does that help make sense of it?

[Kalkris]

So Fetid, what if, in the third scenario Stinkmunk posed, the shooter was Ht1 on Ht3, shooting a Ht2 model who is behind a Ht2 wall? Also, what if the target was shorter than the wall (in this example, Ht1)?

I always have trouble with elevations

~Lil Kalki

[Fetid Strumpet]

I think, honestly that is why they went with the system they did. It is very abstract and really doesn't make a lot of sense from a "realistic" or gritty point of view. However it is very easy once you divorce trying to force a realistic pov on it.

The basic way it works is that in order to see over a piece of terrain you need to be on something taller than it. The height if the shooter pretty much only matters in relation to how close to the edge of the vantage point the model in question needs to be. Remember that vantage point Los is diagonally drawn, so the edge of the cliff or house you are standing on can and will block Los, unless your shooter is within their ht of that edge.

So in your example a ht 1 gremlin standing on ht 3 terrain, assuming he is within 1" of the edge, can see a ht 2 model hiding behind a ht 2 wall. The same trying to see a ht 1 model behind a ht 2 wall. The target's ht only matters to see if it is taller than the terrain they are hiding behind

[Kalkris]

Thanks, friend. That explains it really well

~Lil Kalki

[rancor709]

That was honestly the best explaination of vantage point and ht we've had to date.

[Stinkmunk]

Thanks Fetid, I like your description, I'm still missing on one point though:

3. Incorrect, sort of. You never specified what height the Vantage Point terrain the shooter is standing on was. If the vantage point was height 2 then no, the shooter could not see over the height 2 wall. If the Vantage point terrain was Ht 3, then the shooter could ignore any terrain of a lower Ht than it, I.E. the Ht 2 wall, for the purposes of LoS. Keep in mind that model behind the wall will still be entitled to cover if it is within 1" of the wall however, and will get no cover if it is further away than 1". Does that help make sense of it?

The Vantage Point is Ht 2 (lets say it's at the minimum). The book says "...Terrain that is equal to or less than the Ht of the lower model is ignored for LoS (but not cover)."

The key here is "equal to or less than". In Scenario 3 the lower model is Ht 2 and the terrain (the Wall) is Ht 2. It would be ignored by the Vantage Point Shooter. I'm preety sure he can see over the wall? (page 41)

[Fetid Strumpet]

I believe you are correct. My mistake was from the recent addition of equal to in the finalized rules. During the open beta, you needed to be on something taller than height 2 to see over height 2. I paid fairly close attention to this issue because I'm a big Seamus player, and many of the changes that were called for him were in response to how easy it was to use Back Ally. So let me amend my previous statements.

Basically the way vantage point terrain works is if you want to see behind a piece of terrain, you need to be on top of terrain that is equal to, or higher than the terrain you wish to see across. Additionally you must be within your own model's height of the edge of the terrain you are standing on.

So if Hans is in his deployment zone, on top of a Ht 2 hill, then nothing Ht 2 on the board will block his LoS to any of your models.

On a personal note that's going to make ever using Back Ally pretty tricky on alot of board set-ups. =/

[Stinkmunk]

On a personal note that's going to make ever using Back Ally pretty tricky on alot of board set-ups. =/

No kidding eh?

I'm pretty happy with this discussion because the rules work well as written. They might seem a little weird to anyone who is used to adding elevation to height to determine LoS but M2E doesn't call for it.

Essentially Vantage Point offers a specific advantage to see over terrain equal to or lower than the target. This is a binary ability, you are either on Vantage Point terrain or you are not. When you (or your target) are on vantage point, you can see over terrain equal to or lower in Ht than the lower model. This does mean, however, that if I'm on Ht 2 vantage point and my Ht 3 target is behind Ht 3 blocking terrain I can see the target now since "...Terrain that is equal to or less than the Ht of the lower model is ignored for LoS (but not cover)."

Thanks for the help, much clearer now.

[xKoBiEx]

No kidding eh?

I'm pretty happy with this discussion because the rules work well as written. They might seem a little weird to anyone who is used to adding elevation to height to determine LoS but M2E doesn't call for it.

Essentially Vantage Point offers a specific advantage to see over terrain equal to or lower than the target. This is a binary ability, you are either on Vantage Point terrain or you are not. When you (or your target) are on vantage point, you can see over terrain equal to or lower in Ht than the lower model. This does mean, however, that if I'm on Ht 2 vantage point and my Ht 3 target is behind Ht 3 blocking terrain I can see the target now since "...Terrain that is equal to or less than the Ht of the lower model is ignored for LoS (but not cover)."

Thanks for the help, much clearer now.

As per this discussion, the following scenario is valid...

A Ht 1 model standing on Ht 2 Vantage point terrain can see a Ht 5 model standing behind Ht 5 terrain.

ex 1: Under the new rules, models can see each other in this example, but...

ex 2: Models can't see each other in this example.

Edited August 25, 2013 by xKoBiEx

[Stinkmunk]

ex 1: Under the new rules, models can see each other in this example, but...

ex 2: Models can't see each other in this example.

Looks like. On the extreme ends of things it gets silly, but RAW that seems to be how it is. Ex 2 is far more likely to occur than Ex 1... in a gremlin vs arcanist battle you could see this quite easily.

It sounds like, design wise, Ht 1 is just not enough height to affect LoS.

The remaining issue though is the relativity of vantage point. From the book, vantage point is not a relative trait... if the terrain is standable and ht 2 it is a vantage point. If you take ex 2 and bump everything up a level (A Ht 1 model standing on Ht 2 vantage point shooting at a Ht 1 model behind a Ht 1 wall, with both the target and the wall standing on Ht 1 terrain) the relative height difference are the same, but now the models can see each other.

Functionally, vantage point is special.

What I like about this system is it is based on a rules-over-table mentality that keeps things clean, much like the new shooting into combat rules. The sacrifice ends up being some corner-case scenarios which seem wonky, but we can cross that when someone makes a Ht 5 model

[xKoBiEx]

Looks like. On the extreme ends of things it gets silly, but RAW that seems to be how it is. Ex 2 is far more likely to occur than Ex 1... in a gremlin vs arcanist battle you could see this quite easily.

It sounds like, design wise, Ht 1 is just not enough height to affect LoS.

The remaining issue though is the relativity of vantage point. From the book, vantage point is not a relative trait... if the terrain is standable and ht 2 it is a vantage point. If you take ex 2 and bump everything up a level (A Ht 1 model standing on Ht 2 vantage point shooting at a Ht 1 model behind a Ht 1 wall, with both the target and the wall standing on Ht 1 terrain) the relative height difference are the same, but now the models can see each other.

Functionally, vantage point is special.

What I like about this system is it is based on a rules-over-table mentality that keeps things clean, much like the new shooting into combat rules. The sacrifice ends up being some corner-case scenarios which seem wonky, but we can cross that when someone makes a Ht 5 model

My real issue with this is that it creates the same problem that v1 and v1.5 had with 0 lines being drawn to a model and yet you still have LoS. It would be much simpler to state that at least one line has to be drawn and the Ht is stackable. There is no confusion, there. Teaching the above to a new player creates many problems.

However, the rest of the rules REALLY speed up games a lot. I like it.