Can a model block LOS to another model?

[Mike3838]

Picture three models all having the same base size, say 30mm.

 

Position them in a straight line on the tabletop - or as close to a straight line as you can.

 

A ----- B ----- C

 

Can model A see model C?

 

In a theoretical sense, it's possible for Model B to be exactly positioned such that no lines can be drawn between A and C.

 

In a practical sense, no matter where you position B, there will still be a *tiny* amount of Model A visible from the perspective of Model C. It's probably just a hair, but it just isn't possible to physically place Model B in *exactly* the right place to block all possible lines.

 

Obviously if different base sizes are involved, the question is simpler, but 30mm/30mm/30mm is the most common one we see in games.

 

I see two options:

 

1) Models can never block line of sight between two other models that have the same base size. It isn't physically possible.

 

2) I can put a model down in "approximately" the right place to block LOS, and declare that I have moved him to a LOS blocking position, which although not physically possible, is perfectly fine in a more abstract sense. We deal in abstractions in Malifaux all the time.

 

Has anybody thought about this as much as me? Are there standard conventions in place?

[RagingRodian]

Ouch. I think you're making a decent point Rodian, I just don't think you oughta stress about it much. I was playing a different game when a big (and vicious, and weird) argument broke out on these same lines. I still think their rulings (both of them) were awful. Malifaux is a top down game. If something is overlapping from that perspective then it'll be on it. Save yourself the stress. The game's mechanics don't exactly hinge on this.

Nah, not getting stressed, I just find it interesting. I actually do prefer the idea that models block line of sight to each other in this context. However, once you ignore the unconstructive and mocking posts, you do have two different answers to the question that are both technically correct (as I have no interest in looking it up, I am just going to assume Agrilushunter's geometry reference is correct), both suppported by valid points. As silly as it sounds, it should be in the FAQ. I also think that the next printing of the rulebook should use better wording than "anywhere on the base" when defining LoS lines!

[Thaarup]

I am thinking we ones again have another case of over-thinking the rules. LoS is meant to represent exactly that...Line of sight. Common sense tells you that if you don´t have "direct sight" of an object you can normally not see it. If you look at an object in real life and you only have a "Tangents" line to the object you don´t really see the object. Same if you take the case of shooting in a straight line and you only "Tangently" touch the object you don´t really hit it (it might get a burn or two..). 

 

Please remember this is also a rule system that is built around using common sense in rule interpretation. No insult meant, but personally I see this as close to being a topic of "rule lawyering". 

 

Un a fairly related subject, haven´t there been an awful lot of (what some think - me included), "rule lawyer" like question this last month? I am getting a bit ...sad looking at the Rule question part of the forum. I hope that this is not a normal case of what happens at tournaments as it really does kill the fun in the game.

[Uktena]

I am thinking we ones again have another case of over-thinking the rules. LoS is meant to represent exactly that...Line of sight. Common sense tells you that if you don´t have "direct sight" of an object you can normally not see it. If you look at an object in real life and you only have a "Tangents" line to the object you don´t really see the object. Same if you take the case of shooting in a straight line and you only "Tangently" touch the object you don´t really hit it (it might get a burn or two..). 

 

Please remember this is also a rule system that is built around using common sense in rule interpretation. No insult meant, but personally I see this as close to being a topic of "rule lawyering". 

 

Un a fairly related subject, haven´t there been an awful lot of (what some think - me included), "rule lawyer" like question this last month? I am getting a bit ...sad looking at the Rule question part of the forum. I hope that this is not a normal case of what happens at tournaments as it really does kill the fun in the game.

Tabletop wargaming has a lot of moving parts, rules-wise.  Even if the rules were ultra specific these threads would crop up pretty routinely as players take turns coming across one bizarre circumstance or another for the first time.  Everyone wants to know EXACTLY what was intended when the rules were dreamt up and written down, but as long as it works and everyone is having fun it's fine.

 

Ask yourself this; if a group in Australia and a group in England each play the LoS rule from this thread in a different way and everyone in both groups agrees their way is right and is having fun then who cares what was intended?  (Still everybody, actually - but you get my point).

[Mike3838]

Thaarup,

Just in defense of the original question, I don't consider myself a rules lawyer, but I do like to understand how the rules work, and to be able to explain then to others.

In teaching the game to people over the last few months, I've typically explained the first point of view, that there will always be some line of sight. However it's a grey area - I think that's hard to dispute. When 50% of a target's base is visible beyond the intervening model your "direct sight" interpretation works fine. But what about 10%? 5%? 1%? You don't seem to appreciate that different people are bound to have different "common sense" interpretations of where "direct" stops.

I asked the question, because it occurred to me that in a pre-measure system, it was conceivable that I could easily end up playing a game against someone with the opposite interpretation, who made an in-game play to block, say, one of my crucial Auras. In that situation, my first reaction would of course be "that's not how the rule works", at which point it is 100% certain that either me or my opponent has to concede in a decision that will have a negative effect on the outcome of the game for that person.

I'm trying to avoid that situation cropping up mid-game by seeking clarity. Labelling me negatively as a nit-picking rules lawyer is missing the point. I'm not asking the question to gain some sort of advantage. I'm asking it to pre-empt a future negative play experience for myself or (more importantly, to me) my opponent.

[Mike3838]

Re: tournaments

If this cropped up, I would concede the point and let the player block the aura. I've never seen a rules dispute that ended up in some sort of argument, if what you're suggesting. I'd then come to the forum the day after the tournament and seek clarification, especially if I felt that the blocking had a significant impact on the game results, which it could easily have done!

Note that at tournaments players are far more likely to cross fate decks with players from different clubs/areas so differences of interpretation are naturally more likely than playing your friends locally.

[Uktena]

Re: tournaments

If this cropped up, I would concede the point and let the player block the aura. I've never seen a rules dispute that ended up in some sort of argument, if what you're suggesting.

Wow. You're lucky.

[Thaarup]

Thaarup,

Just in defense of the original question, I don't consider myself a rules lawyer, but I do like to understand how the rules work, and to be able to explain then to others.

In teaching the game to people over the last few months, I've typically explained the first point of view, that there will always be some line of sight. However it's a grey area - I think that's hard to dispute. When 50% of a target's base is visible beyond the intervening model your "direct sight" interpretation works fine. But what about 10%? 5%? 1%? You don't seem to appreciate that different people are bound to have different "common sense" interpretations of where "direct" stops.

...

 

Mike I am sorry and I apologies if I offended you. 

I do understand the question and why it was brought up..but when I look at the discussion and see that the arguments have turned from a question about base visibility of percentage (1%, 5%, 10%) and has turned into a question about 0% visibility but with a possible "LoS-line" that tangets the base, then I think we have entered the realm of Rule lawyering (IMO).

Taking an example from my old warhammer days, It is very close to being the arguments about one can see the end of a fingernail on a model behind a wall so one can legally shoot at the model.    

[Unifiedshoe]

The term "rules lawyer" isn't applicable here. This is a question of basic geometry vs the intention of the rules as written. It's a fault of the rules document that this is not more clearly spelled out. 

[HalcyonSeraph]

The term rules lawyer is sort of dumb anyway. It's not a negative thing to want the rules to work clearly, and to not have two people have drastically different ideas of how the game works, or not answer any questions about how stuff works with "Uh...I dunno, lets flip a coin". I'm honestly pretty tired of being accused of "rules lawyering" (not by you, by anyone) every time I want the rules to be clear and am not satisfied with "hey man its a casual game lets all be cool". The rules should work. If they don't work, unambiguously and clearly and such that everyone who reads them agrees what they mean, then they should be changed such that they do. That's what the FAQ is for, and finding stuff like that is what this forum is for, along with answering those questions that ARE unambiguous but maybe aren't obvious to new players. 

 

This thread was a completely legitimate disagreement about how LOS works in this game. It wasn't one side cheating or trying to gain unfair advantage: after all, whichever way it works, it works for everyone. 

 

If you are content to simply concede the point every time there's a disagreement, even if you think you are right, then more power to you, but I am not. I neither want to lose games because I let someone get away with something the rules don't allow, nor win games because I got away with that same stuff. 

[Dracomax]

Honestly, this seems like a prime candidate for "flip for it" resolution.

[Omenbringer]

...every time I want the rules to be clear and am not satisfied with "hey man its a casual game lets all be cool". The rules should work. If they don't work, unambiguously and clearly and such that everyone who reads them agrees what they mean, then they should be changed such that they do.

 

If Malifaux was only intended as a casual game and never meant to see a competitive field (i.e. typical tournament scene) then the "flip a coin and move on" approach works fine. The reality though is that Malifaux is intended to be played at both the extremely casual (group of friends) and ultra competitive environs (the convention scenes) and clear rules aid both. Esoterica happens (especially with the sheer number of interactions in this game) however I dont really see this particular question as overly esoteric.

 

As evidenced by the number of threads that have popped up over the last 6 months asking for clarifications, it is my opinion that the LOS rules do leave much to interpretation (which is very dangerous for competitive events officiated by non-company personnel) and could benefit from expansion.

 

Just my thoughts.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I agree, I think the LOS rules are the area of the book that is least well done. 

[HalcyonSeraph]

Honestly, this seems like a prime candidate for "flip for it" resolution.

 

The main problem with flip for it style resolution is that it's a great way to quickly resolve a dispute and avoid stalling the game, but after the game you're still left with no answer. It's perfect for "i know the answer is in here somewhere but it would take twenty minutes to find and I'd rather play the game in that time". 

[Dracomax]

Maybe there should be a gaining ground specific community created FAQ that includes all the little technical bits on these kinds of things, such that it could be approved or modified by Wyrd, without having to spend a lot of time on it. That way, it could be semi-official for tournament use, without necessarily having to be something that effects even the casual gamers.

 

Maybe on topics like this, where we reach 3-5 pages without having any kind of decisive arguments where arguments become very circular and repetitive, a poll could be used to determine consensus, and then it could be added to the GGFAQ page. Then TOs could refer to it in the vent of a rules dispute at the hyper competitive end.

 

Just saying, I can see why wyrd would want to keep the main faq a bit lighter, and most players aren't going to need the hyper-technical rules answer. If they do, it would be there. but the rest of us can play as we read the rules, rather than forcing Justin and Co. to personally test and decide on each and every bit of hypertechnical minutae.

[HalcyonSeraph]

I don't think casual players really bother with the FAQ anyway. I think making multiple levels of FAQ would be more confusing. And I don't really want to have to keep track of multiple rules documents because some questions are deemed too "hyper-techncial" to go in the "casual faq". 

[Dracomax]

So you are okay with not having an official o\answer for these things? I know I am.

 

But you are wrong. casual players do in fact read the FAQ. Often. And it comes up enough in questions from casual players that keeping a succinct and useful FAQ is more important than having it answer every little detail. If it is important to have such a document, it is only important for the competitive tournament scene.

[HalcyonSeraph]

So you are okay with not having an official o\answer for these things? I know I am.

 

But you are wrong. casual players do in fact read the FAQ. Often. And it comes up enough in questions from casual players that keeping a succinct and useful FAQ is more important than having it answer every little detail. If it is important to have such a document, it is only important for the competitive tournament scene.

 

No, not really. I think the faq is for these types of questions, just like it was the correct place for the Pandora ruling and the overlapping hazardous terrain ruling, and I don't really see why they wouldn't answer it there. If something is ambiguous, I am not content to flip a coin every time it comes up. That's lazy design. 

 

Fair enough about casual players reading the FAQ. I guess I don't know what people mean when they say casual players. 

[Omenbringer]

I would agree that there should only be one FAQ document. Creating one specifically for the "tournament scene" will cause more issues than it would solve (Tournament players do play in casual events just as Casual players play in tournaments). Clear LOS rules benefit both sides and "Streamlining" shouldn't come at the expense of clarity. The current LOS rules are great for play utilizing Vassal (where the "top down view" works well) but not as good for actual table play in three dimensions (where the flaws are accentuated) and a "top down view" is much more difficult to achieve and measure.

 

I also dont consider this an overly esoteric question (or "Rules Lawyering" or "Power Gaming") either, using models to block LOS to other models has been a tactic since the last edition.

[daniello_s]

Quickie here from Malifaux newbie:

I had situation like this - Freikorps Strongarm (Ht2) wants to put his fist on the nearby Waldergeist (Ht2) but unfortunately a stranded Teror Tot (Ht1) got in the way between then and was standing near LOS blocking piece of terrain so basically my Strongarm couldn't draw any LOS line from his base to Waldergeist's base without crossing either Tot's base or LOS blocking terrain.

 

I claimed I can still target Waldergeist with my attack action because Terror Tot has lower Ht than Strongarm and Waldergeist. My opponent said I can't do it as I can't draw clear LOS between then from base to base.

 

Now which one is correct:

 

A - I was right because Ht is taken in consideration when determining the LOS bewteen models

B - my friend was right.

 

thanks

[Nagash1959]

You were. Height matters.

[daniello_s]

Thanks. Just one more, I promise (for now... )

What if my model with Ht3 is trying to target a model with Ht2 and there is another model with Ht2 between them? As far as I understand the rules I can't target the model as the target is not taller than the model in between. Am I correct?

[Bengt]

The blocking object is ignored if it has lower Ht than target or attacker. Pg 41 first paragraph.

[Verdeloth]

so if i got a wall that is height 1 and a gremling that is height 1 that stand within 1" of that wall

can a enemy model have LoS and stand on max shooting range because he is ht2 ?

[Fetid Strumpet]

Yes.

[Wild Razor]

I'm rather new to this forum and even I can see how this topic should have never gotten as far as it has.  The answer to this situation is rather blatant and obvious, Ratty tried to point it out but no one seems to have understood the way it was said.  It's simple, you can't have it both ways at the same time, and the people that claim (going back to the original example) that a tangent line qualifies as LOS are trying to have it both ways.  

 

The rulebook states several things clearly about line of site that a line of site must be from a point on one model to a point on another.  It also states that if that line of sight crosses a point on a piece of terrain or another model, that line is blocked by said terrain or model.  

 

If a tangent line counts as a point on a base, then the tangent line from A to C is also tangent to B, as has been pointed out in diagrams.  If that tangent point where the line meets base C is considered "on" base C, then where that same line touches base B must also be considered to cross a point "on" base B.  Therefore the line must pass through a point on base B to reach C and is therefore blocked by model B.  If however you rule that it is not crossing a point on Base B because it's just tangent, then you can not consider the tangent point where the line meets C to be "on" base C either, for the same reason.  Quite simply you cannot have it both ways at the same time, a tangent line is either a point on a base in every circumstance, or it is not under any circumstance.  No matter which way you rule it, A cannot see C.  There really is no other way to look at it.