Rules Question: LoS and Vantage Points

[McNathanson]

So I finally sat down and read through the LoS rules carefully :)

One funny thing occurred to me: technically, if a model is within its height (say, 2" for a ht 2 model) of the edge of a vantage point (any terrain of ht 2+ that can be stood upon, such as the walkways we use), then that vantage point terrain is ignored for drawing LoS.  From a strict interpretation, I believe this means that a model can draw LoS to a target model directly underneath itself (e.g. if it's standing on a 3" wide walkway).  I suppose we just assume it leans over the edge or something?  Or is there a rule/FAQ I'm missing?

Also one point of clarification: the rules state that LoS line from a Vantage Point is blocked if it passes over blocking terrain and ends within [blocking terrain's ht] of the blocking terrain.  I believe that this means that (for example):

1. Model A (ht2) is standing on a 4" high Vantage Point, and is within 2" of the edge of the Vantage Point it is standing on.
2. Target Model B (30mm) is behind a 3" high building, and is 2 1/2" away from it.  Model A can draw LoS to the far side of Model B's base, which is more than 3" from the blocking building, and so can see it.  However Model A also draws a LoS line through the building to the near side of Model B's base, which is within 3".  Therefore Model B would have cover vs. Projectile attacks.  

Is this correct?

[Mach_5]

I believe you are correct on the first point.

 

For the second, the LoS lines would pass through the building (over its base, at a point within its Ht) and so LoS is Blocked. It doesn't matter that the far side of the target's base is outside of 3" from the building, it matters that the line drawn from the attacker's base to the far side of the target's base passes through the blocking terrain. (see the example of raspy attacking the young nephilim in the rulebook).

 

Now, if the Target were Ht3 (same as the building) than the building would be Ignored by the attacker standing on Ht2 vantage point. The target could be seen/attacked and in this case wouldn't even get cover since it's not within 1" of the terrain.

[McNathanson]

For the second, the LoS lines would pass through the building (over its base, at a point within its Ht) and so LoS is Blocked. It doesn't matter that the far side of the target's base is outside of 3" from the building, it matters that the line drawn from the attacker's base to the far side of the target's base passes through the blocking terrain. (see the example of raspy attacking the young nephilim in the rulebook).

 

I understand your reading and I initially thought the same thing.  However I don't understand the "at a point" part... does this mean a point on the target's base, or a point in space above the base of the blocking terrain?  If the latter, it's the first instance I know of in Malifaux using TLoS (e.g. you'd need a laser to determine in the LoS line passes over the ht3 blocking terrain at a point 3" or less above the base of the terrain).  If the former, then it fits better with the rest of the rules where models and terrain cast "shadows" of radius equal to their ht.  So I'm tending to interpret at the latter, in which case, a LoS line to a point on the target's base more than 3" from the Ht3 blocking terrain would allow targeting.

 

Make sense?  Thoughts?  I realize "at a point" should be instead "to a point" in the latter case... so I'm probably forcing it :)

[Mach_5]

It says "Any LoS lines which pass over the base of blocking terrain (which isn't otherwise ignored) at a point within the terrain's Ht are considered blocked".

 

So it's talking about at what height the LoS line passes through the blocking terrain, not how far from the blocking terrain the LoS line hits the target. Also note the example says "because her diagonal LoS lines pass through the Ht 3 crates she does not have Line of Sight, and may therefore not target the Young Nephilim.

[Mach_5]

So its kinda like true LoS, but keep in mind you're not drawing LoS from one model to another, its from one base to another base.

[McNathanson]

Yeah I'm sure you're correct, I just don't want it to play that way... now we have to get a laser or stoop down and sight along the line... all kinda silly.  Boo.

[Mach_5]

The fact that it's base-to-base lines does help... If the attacker is standing on Ht3 terrain, then it's base is 3" off the table. If the target is Ht 2 you ignore Ht2 or less terrain, but not Ht3 terrain. Now, mathematically there's no possible way to draw a line from the attacker's base to the target's base on the ground without going through the Ht3 terrain. LoS is blocked, unless the attacker can see the target around the sides of the obstacle all LoS over it is blocked. Even if the attacker was on Ht6 terrain, the target would have to be more than twice as far from the attacker as the farthest point of the Ht3 blocking terrain to be able to see the target.

[McNathanson]

Fair point, there aren't too many situations where seeing over Ht3 terrain and still being in range is going to be plausible, especially if we don't put the Tower right next to a Ht3 walkway (who the heck would do that, anyway?!?) ;)

[McNathanson]

Another thing that's seeming a little clunky/counterintuitive: if Model A (ht2) is on ht4 tower, and Model B (also ht2) is on ht3 crate, the vantage point rules do apply, because both models are on ht2+ terrain, but the two vantage points are not the same height, correct?  So, intervening terrain of equal to or lower than the target Model B is ignored.  So what is Model B's height for this calculation, 2, or 5?  If it's 2, LoS can be blocked by a ht3 building between the two if it's closer to Model B than it is to Model A, which looks wrong from an intuitive standpoint (it doesn't appear to be in the way at all).  And of course if we use ht5, then ht5 terrain between the two is ignored, which looks even worse.  So I'm left to think that we count Model B as ht2, ignore ht1/ht2 terrain, and use the "passing above the base at a point..." rules for ht3 terrain.

 

Is this right?  

[Mach_5]

Sounds right? We don't use a lot of height terrain because vantage point is not as simple as it should be.

[orkdork]

Another thing that's seeming a little clunky/counterintuitive: if Model A (ht2) is on ht4 tower, and Model B (also ht2) is on ht3 crate, the vantage point rules do apply, because both models are on ht2+ terrain, but the two vantage points are not the same height, correct?  So, intervening terrain of equal to or lower than the target Model B is ignored.  So what is Model B's height for this calculation, 2, or 5?  If it's 2, LoS can be blocked by a ht3 building between the two if it's closer to Model B than it is to Model A, which looks wrong from an intuitive standpoint (it doesn't appear to be in the way at all).  And of course if we use ht5, then ht5 terrain between the two is ignored, which looks even worse.  So I'm left to think that we count Model B as ht2, ignore ht1/ht2 terrain, and use the "passing above the base at a point..." rules for ht3 terrain.

 

Is this right?  

 

RAW, I think this is wrong. When both models are on vantage points, then vantage point rules are ignored.

 

But that's clunky as crap. If I put a ht 2 tower up on a ht 2 hill (happens a lot on the Vassal maps), then technically, a dude on the tower does NOT use the vantage point rules when drawing LOS to a dude down below on the hill! 

[Guest]

Man, you've got me reading the LoS rules again and again. Super confusing.

 

So a Ht 1 model on Ht 2 terrain has a vantage point, despite shooting at a Ht 3+ enemy model....?

 

And then movement rules:

 

A Height 1 model that falls 1" off a cliff suffers the same damage a Height 4 model would for falling that same 1"....?

[McNathanson]

RAW, I think this is wrong. When both models are on vantage points, then vantage point rules are ignored.

 

But that's clunky as crap. If I put a ht 2 tower up on a ht 2 hill (happens a lot on the Vassal maps), then technically, a dude on the tower does NOT use the vantage point rules when drawing LOS to a dude down below on the hill! 

 

I'm pretty sure that you misread; the vantage points are only ignored if they are the same height:

 

"If the acting model and the target model are both on vantage point terrain with the same Height, LoS is drawn normally." - M2E p.42

 

 

[orkdork]

Doh!

 

Pretty bad misread :) thanks for catching that, bro! Much better.

[McNathanson]

Doh!

 

Pretty bad misread :) thanks for catching that, bro! Much better.

 

That's only about 75 more I owe you :)