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?

[Clement]

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 ?

 

 

Yes.

It's worth pointing out that LoS and Cover are two separate things here.  Your gremlin will be visible, but he's going to get hard cover.

[Darryl.Lademan]

 

 

 

Hah, that made me laugh. I always thought Australians were too busy brawling with deadly wildlife for all but a couple to be on the internet at one time, while the rest hold back the tide of creatures!

 

 

 

This is the reason the Markus box set sold so well in Aus

The minute we see a 3 headed tiger or a gorilla  we must westle it to the ground and yell Crikey !!!!!!!!

[RagingRodian]

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.

Actually, what Ratty said didn't prove the counter argument wrong, not that I disagree with his interpretation in general. It is how I would want to play the game, but it isn't technically how the game is written.

Remember, at no time in the description of LoS and how it is blocked are tangents mentioned. In the middle of a battle, the vast majority of players are not going to stop and debate whether you have LoS based on tangents. All the rules say are whether the lines are on the bases involved, and if they cross another base or obstacle, and as the rules specifically say you can draw lines from anywhere on the bases (and you can be "on" the side of something) you can draw a line that is on the side edge of three equal sized bases perfectly aligned in a straight line without crossing the base in the middle.

You can do this at home, on your own gaming table. Grab three equal sized bases and a ruler. Put the ruler flat on edge on the table. Put the sides of the three bases up against one side of the ruler. Tada! You just created a LoS between two bases that is not blocked by the base in the middle-as no part of the ruler crosses the base in the middle. This is actually a more relevant example than talking about tangent lines.

This is why the discussion went for so long. There are valid points on both sides.

[Ratty]

Er. Rodian if the ruler is touching the base it's not from a point on the base, it's from a point outside the base by definition as two objects can occupy the same physical space. If you take the same ruler and move it a fraction of a micro-meter in so it is "from the base" the line will intersect all bases so be blocked. Your example proves the opposite to what you think it does.

[RagingRodian]

Er. Rodian if the ruler is touching the base it's not from a point on the base, it's from a point outside the base by definition as two objects can occupy the same physical space. If you take the same ruler and move it a fraction of a micro-meter in so it is "from the base" the line will intersect all bases so be blocked. Your example proves the opposite to what you think it does.

You can be on the side of something and just be touching it. The rules specify that you can draw a line from anywhere on the base- choosing a line touching the side edge of the base is a valid option. "On" does not necessarily mean "over" (as barnacles can be under or on the side of a ship's hull) nor does it mean it has to be "part of" (like dust on a window pane). The line also does not have to be "from the base" just from "anywhere on the acting model's base to anywhere on the target model's base" (Page 40 of the big rule book)

As I said, neither side is really wrong, just different interpretations.

How, outside of weird physics around a black hole, can two objects occupy the same physical space? Or was that simply mistyped?

[Ratty]

You are using common parlance. Scientifically a point on a line is not touching the line it's actually part of the line. Same with a disc, a point on a disc is any point occupied by said disk.

[RagingRodian]

You are using common parlance. Scientifically a point on a line is not touching the line it's actually part of the line. Same with a disc, a point on a disc is any point occupied by said disk.

Nothing wrong with common parlance, just a different-but also correct- interpretation. That is why it should be cleared up in the next FAQ.

[bcaswell]

I am with ratty however we play ether " I am moving too line up" or assume we can see past as chances of accidentally lining up perfectly are almost nil.

However my guess this is more about who is the smartest thread as I cannot believe anyone really believes the rules where written too make it impossible for one model not too be able too block another of the same size.

Saying that I have sat and read the whole thing so mores the fool me lol

[Robble]

Honestly I don't see how anyone can argue for the point of the  model A can see model C in a perfectly aligned situation, where all 3 models are the same Ht.  

 

Even the tangential line will bisect the edges of model B.  This act of bisecting effectively ends the LOS line being drawn.  Therefore A does not have LOS to C.

 

If I were trying to set up this situation I would tell my opponent what I was doing ahead of time or the same if I saw my opponent trying to measure so accurately, ask them if they are trying to set up the LOS blocking.  The only way I feel it would be a bit iffy would be if the model ending its walk at the very limit of its walk movement to get into this situation and might come up short,  then I would call into question the LOS issue.  If the model had more than enough walk to get into the position it is better to just agree on blocking and get back to the game.

[Grez90]

I've got a solution to all this LOS debacle.....stay out of range. And if you can't do that, bring a 40mm to a 30mm fight.

[Wild Razor]

You can be on the side of something and just be touching it. The rules specify that you can draw a line from anywhere on the base- choosing a line touching the side edge of the base is a valid option. "On" does not necessarily mean "over" (as barnacles can be under or on the side of a ship's hull) nor does it mean it has to be "part of" (like dust on a window pane). The line also does not have to be "from the base" just from "anywhere on the acting model's base to anywhere on the target model's base" (Page 40 of the big rule book)

As I said, neither side is really wrong, just different interpretations.

How, outside of weird physics around a black hole, can two objects occupy the same physical space? Or was that simply mistyped?

 

When you start discussing tangent lines you have to start discussing things in geometric terms, in pure geometry terms, a tangent line passes through a point of the one dimensional line that defines the outer geometry of the circle and therefore touches the circle only at that one point, it is against that circle but it is outside of the geometry of that circle.  Your argument is that is still considered "on" the circle by the layman's definition of "on".  In geometric terms however it is not a point on the circle because it is outside the circle's geometry, it is merely in contact with it's geometry and in geometry that is not considered "on" the circle.   If you want to play geometric terms look at the full picture in geometric terms, not just the parts you want so it supports your argument.  

[RagingRodian]

When you start discussing tangent lines you have to start discussing things in geometric terms, in pure geometry terms, a tangent line passes through a point of the one dimensional line that defines the outer geometry of the circle and therefore touches the circle only at that one point, it is against that circle but it is outside of the geometry of that circle.  Your argument is that is still considered "on" the circle by the layman's definition of "on".  In geometric terms however it is not a point on the circle because it is outside the circle's geometry, it is merely in contact with it's geometry and in geometry that is not considered "on" the circle.   If you want to play geometric terms look at the full picture in geometric terms, not just the parts you want so it supports your argument.

I never mentioned using tangents or any sort of geometric terms to illustrate the validity of the counter argument. I am not sure why you think I did. The rules also make absolutely no mention of tangent lines when determinimg LoS- that is actually a strike against using them as evidence. Mind you, I am not saying that how tangents work with circles is incorrect, just that it is not the definitive proof that says the counter argument is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with using the layman's definition. The book is obviously not written with the assumption that the readers have a solid background in advanced math and physics, it is written for laymen! A layman definition is actually more appropriate than one that requires the reader to know the intricacies of tangent lines on circles.

[Tograth]

I never mentioned using tangents or any sort of geometric terms to illustrate the validity of the counter argument. I am not sure why you think I did. The rules also make absolutely no mention of tangent lines when determinimg LoS- that is actually a strike against using them as evidence. Mind you, I am not saying that how tangents work with circles is incorrect, just that it is not the definitive proof that says the counter argument is wrong.

There is nothing wrong with using the layman's definition. The book is obviously not written with the assumption that the readers have a solid background in advanced math and physics, it is written for laymen! A layman definition is actually more appropriate than one that requires the reader to know the intricacies of tangent lines on circles.

 

 

 

you didnt specifically mention tangents, however you *did* use the terminology of something touching the side of a base to be analagous to being "on" the base, and that matches up with tangents in this instance. 

 

 

the problem with using common sense, or laymans definitions, is that neither are common in any sense of the word - ask 10 people for a common sense answer and you will get 11 different responses. it's better to go for clear wording, and the wording supports a response that the middle base will block LOS.

 

 

also, tangential geometry is by no stretch of the imagination advanced maths or physics - even stateside its taught relatively early in the school career, hell, I first encountered basic geometry around the age of 10. 

 

 

basically, if you line up 3 identical bases directly in line, then the middle base will block LOS between the others. 

[theJudge]

I thought you could play malifaux without the use of mathematical equations?

 

It is pretty much impossible to line minis up perfectly during a game so they block LOS so I cannot see how this would ever come up for rules query.

[Fireuser]

I think a nice compromise would be a rule:

 

Models of the same base size do not block LoS to each other, however, an attack that draws LoS through another model suffer - on the flip.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Agreed Thejudge. Unless you are able to perfectly line up two models of the same size without caveat, and without slowing the game down you can't do it. It requires perfect placement which effects how other models gain LoS to the blocking model. If you want to block LoS then use multiple models, a model and terrain, or a model with a larger base size.

[Clement]

Agreed Thejudge. Unless you are able to perfectly line up two models of the same size without caveat, and without slowing the game down you can't do it. It requires perfect placement which effects how other models gain LoS to the blocking model. If you want to block LoS then use multiple models, a model and terrain, or a model with a larger base size.

Not that I want this conversation to continue, but in a world of premeasuring it is very easy and very fast to perfectly line up three bases this way. Place the tape measure so its touching the two existing models, then move third model into contact with tape. Assuming you aren't also trying to move max distance, this is very fast to set up.

[Tuttleboy]

Place the tape measure so its touching the two existing models, then move third model into contact with tape.

 

 

This then goes back to the tangental lines give LoS question as the line you're using is the tape. I'd like word from on high that says yea or nay on tangents. That would put an end the question and be a one sentence addition to the FAQ.

[Mako]

In an imperfect alignment, you'll have some straight line. In a perfect alignment:

 

If the tangent counts as touching model C, then it also touches model B and there's no LoS.

 

If the tangent doesn't count as touching model B, then it can't touch model C either and there's no LoS.

 

Tangents don't provide a magic way to see model C around model B if they're perfectly aligned, so does it matter if they're valid or not?

[AgrilusHunter]

In an imperfect alignment, you'll have some straight line. In a perfect alignment:

 

If the tangent counts as touching model C, then it also touches model B and there's no LoS.

 

If the tangent doesn't count as touching model B, then it can't touch model C either and there's no LoS.

 

Tangents don't provide a magic way to see model C around model B if they're perfectly aligned, so does it matter if they're valid or not?

Thank you!

[Clement]

In an imperfect alignment, you'll have some straight line. In a perfect alignment:

 

If the tangent counts as touching model C, then it also touches model B and there's no LoS.

 

If the tangent doesn't count as touching model B, then it can't touch model C either and there's no LoS.

 

Tangents don't provide a magic way to see model C around model B if they're perfectly aligned, so does it matter if they're valid or not?

The central problem here is that the book uses two different ways of referring to this.

 

When determining line of site, the line only needs to "touch" the bases of models A and C. (tangent ruler scenario totally does this)

 

When determining if B is blocking, the book is referring to "crossing" the base.  (tangent ruler may or may not do this depending on how geometrical you want to get)

 

 

One line in the FAQ/Errata and this whole mess would be resolved.  I'll even write it.

 

A model has No LoS to a target if no LoS line can be drawn between the acting model and the target model without touching blocking terrain or the base of another model (friendly or enemy). 

 

 

[Mako]

So this is a five page debate about whether a line crossing a base and a line touching a base mean the same thing? 

 

Somehow, I doubt Justin decided that people with degrees in geometry or maths (or an encyclopedic knowledge of the minutiae of the english language) should have an advantage, but carry on by all means!

[Justin]

This then goes back to the tangental lines give LoS question as the line you're using is the tape. I'd like word from on high that says yea or nay on tangents. That would put an end the question and be a one sentence addition to the FAQ.

The rules tell you what you can do, not what you can't do.

I don't want to have to write a page of rules about how you can't shake the table in hopes your model moves a bit. Or how you can't poison your opponents drink. Or blind him with a pinecone.

The rules don't mention tangential lines. You can't use tangential lines.