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?

[The Godlyness]

Well being as pedantic as I am I want you place it perfectly. Which feel free to grab your levels and squares and lasers and you make it perfect. But hey that's cause I am who I am. (If you ever play against me you will realize this is a complete joke) if there is a belle 17.5 inches away I want you to perfectly line up that model so I can't lure you,even under the best circumstances I dint think you could escape the lure lol.

[HalcyonSeraph]

Yeah, this is a could go either way thing. If they said tangents count as blocked that would be fine. If they said they don't that's also fine. But no amount of geometry lessons will let us know which it is, in this game. 

 

And yeah, at 18 inch range it's practically impossible to place it right. But if you're trying to block LOS to someone for aura purposes or to protect you from fire at, say, 4 inch range, it becomes a thing that is possible. 

 

Solkan's solution isn't really a solution. Or rather, it's a solution to the quetsion "can a human hand perfectly position 3 models in a row", not the question "Do tangential lines count as blocked"

[AgrilusHunter]

Yeah, this is a could go either way thing. If they said tangents count as blocked that would be fine. If they said they don't that's also fine. But no amount of geometry lessons will let us know which it is, in this game.

 

No, no it isn't. Ratty has already clearly demonstrated why LOS is blocked by the intervening model. Frankly, I'm amazed this thread is still alive. Kill it now, kill it with fire!

[Uktena]

Etiquette-wise, I always allow the shot past a model of exact base size and height (model B in your original example) except in cases where all three models are hugging a straight plane, for example if were all pressed up against a straight wall. Then I would prefer that the shot be considered blocked since the models are expected to be perfectly lined up with no room for nanometers arguments.

Basically anything to speed the game along and make it fun. I don't play games to get mad at people.

[RagingRodian]

An infinitesimal thin line will either pass through the circle or not be touching. As it states that you draw line "between the models", the line must be generated from within the circle of the first base and end within the circle of the second base. AS such if perfectly aligned must pass through the 3rd base.

This is actually incorrect. The rules specifically state (on page 40 of the big rule book) that LOS lines are drawn from anywhere ON the acting model's base to anywhere ON the target's base- and "on" includes the sides of the base. "On" does not mean the same thing as "part of", nor does it necessarily mean "over or resting upon" as something can be on the bottom of or stuck to the side of something else. Note too that the same page specifies that the LOS line is only blocked if it CROSSES blocking terrain or another model's base, meaning it has to go through the blocking terrain/base, not just touch it. Therefore, it is entirely possible to have three models on the same base size be in a perfect row and be able to draw a LOS line that is ON all three circles but does not CROSS the circle in the middle- meaning LOS is not blocked by the model in the middle.

Mind you, this is just playing Devil's advocate. Personally, I think same sized models should block LOS to each other if you line them up right. But the rules can be very easily read to mean that they don't.

[Ratty]

This is actually incorrect. The rules specifically state (on page 40 of the big rule book) that LOS lines are drawn from anywhere ON the acting model's base to anywhere ON the target's base- and "on" includes the sides of the base. "On" does not mean the same thing as "part of", nor does it necessarily mean "over or resting upon" as something can be on the bottom of or stuck to the side of something else. Note too that the same page specifies that the LOS line is only blocked if it CROSSES blocking terrain or another model's base, meaning it has to go through the blocking terrain/base, not just touch it. Therefore, it is entirely possible to have three models on the same base size be in a perfect row and be able to draw a LOS line that is ON all three circles but does not CROSS the circle in the middle- meaning LOS is not blocked by the model in the middle.

Mind you, this is just playing Devil's advocate. Personally, I think same sized models should block LOS to each other if you line them up right. But the rules can be very easily read to mean that they don't.

It doesn't say On, it doesn't say just touching, it says Between.

[Dracomax]

How did this gain a whole page literally overnight?!

[Uktena]

How did this gain a whole page literally overnight?!

How did a thread about easily settled and near inconsequential rules minutiae generate an impassioned tabletop player response or how are there that many Australians awake in the last 8 hours?

[Dracomax]

How did a thread about easily settled and near inconsequential rules minutiae generate an impassioned tabletop player response or how are there that many Australians awake in the last 8 hours?

How did This bit of rules minutiae impassion so many Australians?

[Mako]

 

How did a thread about easily settled and near inconsequential rules minutiae generate an impassioned tabletop player response or how are there that many Australians awake in the last 8 hours?

 

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!

 

[RagingRodian]

It doesn't say On, it doesn't say just touching, it says Between.

Direct quote from page 40 of the big rule book:

"To determine LoS from a model to a target, the player will draw a series of imaginary straight lines from the acting model to the target model. These LoS lines are drawn from anywhere on the acting model's base to anywhere on the target's base"

On can mean just touching but not part of, including on the sides of (such as a picture being on a wall), and anywhere includes the outside edge of the base. Between does not necessarily mean goes through.

From same page concerning Line of Sight:

"A model has LoS to a target if at least one of the LoS lines drawn between the acting model and the target does not cross intervening blocking terrain or models"

Note that the LoS line has to cross whatever blocks it, which unlike being on something means the line has to go through the object.

Even though I don't like the interpretation it is a valid one. It also seems like the sort of thing that could be settled with a five minute "official ruling until the next FAQ" post, and I would happily use a gentleman's agreement to simply say that same sized models can block LoS to each other before a game.

[Uktena]

http://imgur.com/HXJtq3o

Best I could do with my phone.

[AgrilusHunter]

On can mean just touching but not part of, including on the sides of (such as a picture being on a wall), and anywhere includes the outside edge of the base. Between does not necessarily mean goes through.

 

You are confusing the common definition of 'on' with its more formal usage in describing point placement in geometry. A point on a circle is not touching the surface of it, it is part of the line that forms the circle. (<groan> Surface of a circle? This is how low this thread has sunk.)

 

Besides, when speaking in terms of lines of sight it is a pointless to trace a line that does not intersect any model on the board. At some point, regardless of any perceived grammatical inconsistencies, common sense must win out.

 

Again, why is this still a thing.

[RagingRodian]

You are confusing the common definition of 'on' with its more formal usage in describing point placement in geometry. A point on a circle is not touching the surface of it, it is part of the line that forms the circle. (<groan> Surface of a circle? This is how low this thread has sunk.)

 

Besides, when speaking in terms of lines of sight it is a pointless to trace a line that does not intersect any model on the board. At some point, regardless of any perceived grammatical inconsistencies, common sense must win out.

 

Again, why is this still a thing.

I would point out that my definition of on isn't incorrect, and I have no idea if you are correct as I don't know the intricacies of point placement on circles in geometry.....and I am betting the average reader of the rules also would not know that off of the top of their heads. This actually makes the "common definition" a more applicable one, and that is why this is still a thing.

[RagingRodian]

]http://imgur.com/HXJtq3o

Best I could do with my phone.

The flaw here is that you can be on something while touching the side, such as when I stick a post it note onto the side of my refrigerator.

[Uktena]

The flaw here is that you can be on something while touching the side, such as when I stick a post it note onto the side of my refrigerator.

Which is why I clarified for you. Base contact is not "on" a model's base.

[AgrilusHunter]

I would point out that my definition of on isn't incorrect, and I have no idea if you are correct as I don't know the intricacies of point placement on circles in geometry.....and I am betting the average reader of the rules also would not know that off of the top of their heads. This actually makes the "common definition" a more applicable one, and that is why this is still a thing.

 

Usage matters. Things can be on fire, or on time, or on top, or on a circle.

 

On second thought, why am I still here?

 

<finds exit on other side of thread>

[Uktena]

Usage matters. Things can be on fire, or on time, or on top, or on a circle.

On second thought, why am I still here?

<finds exit on other side of thread>

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.

[Joel]

There is a problem here.

I can see what it is.

After 3 pages of this, I'm hoping you can too.

[Dracomax]

There is a problem here.

I can see what it is.

After 3 pages of this, I'm hoping you can too.

That there are 3 pages of this?

[Joel]

Got it in one!

[Uktena]

There is a problem here.

I can see what it is.

After 3 pages of this, I'm hoping you can too.

It's no different from our other bi-weekly "I can't stop myself from reading as literally as possible, I'm trapped in a world of uncertainty, please errata me" threads.

Disclaimer: which I'm responsible for by about 30% percent word volume

[Dracomax]

Got it in one!

Well, it was either that, or "nothing new has been said in 2.9 pages..."

[HalcyonSeraph]

Well that is the main downside of a rules system with bimonthly FAQs and no other official sources of rulings. There's nothing to stop the arguments in the meantime.

[Barnaberible]

I think it should be tournament legal If the moon is in the 8th house and the TO sacrifices a blonde virgin before the event, or illegal under the same circumstances, I'm easy either way as long as these 2 criteria are met