Fenton Crack

What: February Malifaux 2E Demoing and Open Gaming When: The 1st and 3rd Friday of February (and essentially every other month) open play both nights, and for February, Demos on February 19th 7:30 p.m. until 12:00 midnight (Not having demos the first week of the month in February is only due to an event conflict, most months we will have demos the 1st and 3rd Fridays) Where: Ground Zero Comics 15139 Pearl Rd, Strongsville, OH 44136 (440) 572-9599 The new Ground Zero is up and running, with Malifaux play on Fridays. We elected for the first and third Friday, rather than every Friday, to try and boost the concentration of players on the two game nights rather than spreading out attendance throughout the month. I am available to demo the game from 7:30 pm-12:00 am on those nights. You are welcome to simply stop by, but if you would like to ensure I will not already be demoing with another player, don't hesitate to contact me. I can be messaged here through the forums, or contacted on Facebook as Fenton Crackshell, through the Faux-hio group, through our website at Fauxhio.com, or email me at Fenton@fauxhio.com. -Thanks

If it's scheme markers you are referring, while you must place it touching tangental to the base of the model placing as the FAQ indicates, there is nothing saying it can't be placed such that it goes under another model, so it seems perfectly legal to me

I see where you are going with it, but even fluff wise, but whether shoved, thrown, or even shot, when moving laterally, an object still falls at the same rate, so the model would drop below its current the Ht. of level of the terrain its standing upon when it made it to the gap, whether the gap is 1" or 7", and therefore not clear the gap. If it cannot clear the gap or fall in (due to its base size, I would think it would need to just stay at the edge.

We have always played it as Outcome 2. The problem always seemed to be if you ruled it otherwise, would the width of the gap simply not matter? There is no way to get from the rules what a big gap or a small gap is, so it seemed to make less sense rules and fluff-wise that someone would push over a 5" gap or whatnot, and the simplest and most straight forward way is to just play any most drops through a gap that is smaller than its base-size, (as a gap smaller would not allow the model to "fall") That being said if a 50mm model is pushed towards a 1" gap, it cannot fall through, but does it push over, or would you stop at the edge? I'm thinking stop at the edge, as it is at the end of the terrain, cannot fall through, but also there is no obvious provision it can "jump the gap?

Hmm, I am not seeing the difference either.

Ohio Malifaux Players: Myself and some other like-minded Ohio Henchman and Ohio Malifaux players from several counties would like to centralize a place to get Ohio Malifaux events and news. To that end, two of us have created Faux-hio ( http://fauxhio.com ) to try and get a calendar of Malifaux events and game days for players that like to travel to other stores and metas/groups in Ohio, as well as provide other content for the Malifaux community. We are just starting the soft launch and so admittedly there is not a whole lot of content up there yet as we finish up building the site. The site will also be the future home of the Faux-hio Podcast. Episode 1 is in the can after some hiccups and data loss, and we are aiming for its release in the next week or two, in all its unpolished glory. The podcast will be more generalist to Malifaux players in general, rather than Ohio specific, but will have a locals segment at the end of each episode. We would love to be able to add your events to our calendar, get your input on site content. You can message me here on the forums, find me on FaceBook on groups such as AWP, etc. : Fenton Crackshell email me at Fenton@Fauxhio.com or on Twitter: @FentonFauxhio Thanks in advance, -Fenton

Well, I'm willing to accept falling does not take movement, as logically it seems as though it should not. However the FAQDoes not specify that "only going up" is costed. It simply states "vertical distances are measured while moving a model." The example given happens to be s model flying up, but I really would have preferred clarity if there were some vertical movements that qualified as being costed, while others do not. In fact, I'm am not even sure that ascending ramps should not be costed their vertical component, as it seems defined in the FAQ. In 1.5 there were specific examples to show ascending/descending Models only cost their horizontal measurement, but the new definition that vertical movement must be measured might indicate that one must measure from where the model begins to where it ends, both horizontally or vertically, and does not only apply to incorporeal and flying models. What about models that "teleport"? With Seamus' Back Alley, the model has moved. It has not walked, charged or flown, but it has moved. Could he teleport up a Ht.30 tower ? Should his movement not also be costed vertically?

I am stilling seeking clarification on vertical movement. (and hopefully an entry in the FAQ/Errata?) If I cannot get clarification, I would like to at least get a "survey" of sorts to see what most of you are doing in light of the rulebook and then the FAQ "clarification", that seems nothing less than an errata, pretty contrary to the original rule. I had posted the question on an earlier thread regarding "climbing", and most of the responses seemed to be shared frustration over the lack of clarity, more than anything else. I ask it again with apologies for any redundancy, but in the hope it will get more response than it being tacked onto another topic. My question is essentially quoted below: There still exist other issues with the vertical movement, where some people measure the horizontal plus the vertical change in position to measure a model that flew up onto a building, and others just measure the "diagonal" (hypotenuse) of the direct measurement from where the base started to where it ended up, both seem to satisfy the clarification of taking the vertical change into consideration: "Q: A model with the Incorporeal Ability ignores terrain when it moves. If it is on the ground floor of a building which is 10” tall, can it end its move on top of the building, even if its Wk stat is less than 10, since it ignores the building while moving? Same question for a model with Flight in regards to vertical terrain. A: No. Although measurements in Malifaux are generally made from a top down view, vertical distances are measured while moving a model (see pg. 42 of the rulebook, Movement & Terrain). If the model with Incorporeal ends its move on top of the 10” tall building, it would have moved 10” and, unless it has a Wk of 10 or greater, this is not a legal move. However, if the Incorporeal model has a sufficient Wk stat to complete the move, it would be able to end the move on top of the terrain, ignoring the usual rules for climbing, etc. Flight works similarly, except in the case of Enclosed terrain (see Enclosed terrain, rulebook pg. 60)." Thus vertical movement must be costed. I get that in general. There still exist varying opinions on ramps whether you measure across, 1.5 style, or measure as above with the horizontal plus the vertical, although the rule would seem to suggest no vertical movement is free, ramps merely prevent you from taking the x2 climb penalty. If a model is right on the edge of a Ht. crate, and he walks 1" he would then be on the ground adjacent to the crate. A) Has he walked 3" because the vertical distance must be taken in to consideration per the FAQ because positive or negative vertical movement has not been differentiated? B ) Has he merely "fallen" instead so he only takes 1"? C) Would it make a difference if the crate is Climbable? Can you then not fall and he has moved 5" (1 horizontal, plus 2"x 2 climbing down)? D) If the model was Lured, would it make any difference? If you have to end as close as possible you would have to "fall" rather than "climb" it would seem? E) If "falling" is free vertical movement, then couldn't flying models "fall " down off the terrain and not take the fall damage regardless of height? F) If falling is not "free" movement and the model can only go down as far as its walks allow, why can a Belle Lure a model off a terrain piece higher than its walk allows? G) is it implicit that we can always choose to "fall" off terrain? H) Flying models cannot take falling damage, but it does not say they "cannot fall" if falling is a choice we can make? I ) If an "ordinary" model can choose to walk off a Ht2 crate and "fall" to take no vertical movement penalty, but if it has Flight it cannot? That would seem an odd disadvantage to the "Flight" models. J ) And if Flight models can fall off a Ht. 2 crate, why not a Ht. 5 cliff? K ) And if falling gives "free" vertical movement is this some "gravity exception", or how is this not directly contrary to the FAQ that indicates vertical movement must be costed? Thanks in advance for any clarity, official or otherwise.

A) What would "floating" be? Flying models cannot take falling damage, but it does not say they "cannot fall" if falling is a choice we can make. B ) Are you saying an "ordinary" model can choose to walk off a Ht2 crate and "fall" to take no vertical movement penalty, but if it has Flight it cannot? That would seem an odd disadvantage to the "Flight" models. C ) And if Flight models can fall off a Ht. 2 crate, why not a Ht. 5 cliff? D ) And if falling gives "free" vertical movement is this some "gravity exception", or how is this not directly contrary to the FAQ that indicates vertical movement must be costed

This is one of the issues I see can easily be interpreted differently group to group. While this seemed to answer "Option A": "Q: Can a model end its move halfway up a Climbable surface? Is it possible for the model to end its move suspended in mid-air if the base does not fit on the terrain, and the terrain has the Climbable trait? A: Technically, yes. However, players define their own terrain before the game. It is likely best to only define things as “Climbable” which are actually Climbable (i.e. stairs, ladders, steep hills, etc). If you choose to define a sheer, vertical cliff as Climbable you can have the odd situation of a model suspended in mid-air, but this is no different than defining a solid, 6” tall rock as Severe terrain and then having difficulty in balancing your models on it; it likely should have just been defined as impassable, be careful how you define terrain." There still exist other issues with the vertical movement, where some people measure the horizontal plus the vertical change in position to measure a model that flew up onto a building, and others just measure the "diagonal" (hypotenuse) of the direct measurement from where the base started to where it ended up, both seem to satisfy the calrification of taking the vertical change into consideration: "Q: A model with the Incorporeal Ability ignores terrain when it moves. If it is on the ground floor of a building which is 10” tall, can it end its move on top of the building, even if its Wk stat is less than 10, since it ignores the building while moving? Same question for a model with Flight in regards to vertical terrain." A: No. Although measurements in Malifaux are generally made from a top down view, vertical distances are measured while moving a model (see pg. 42 of the rulebook, Movement & Terrain). If the model with Incorporeal ends its move on top of the 10” tall building, it would have moved 10” and, unless it has a Wk of 10 or greater, this is not a legal move. However, if the Incorporeal model has a sufficient Wk stat to complete the move, it would be able to end the move on top of the terrain, ignoring the usual rules for climbing, etc. Flight works similarly, except in the case of Enclosed terrain (see Enclosed terrain, rulebook pg. 60)." Additionally, there still exist varying opinions on ramps whether you measure across, 1.5 style, or measure as above with the horizontal plus the vertical, although the rule would seem to suggest no vertical movement is free, ramps merely prevent you from taking the x2 climb penalty. If a model is right on the edge of a Ht. crate, and he walks 1" he would then be on the ground adjacent to the crate. A) Has he walked 3" because the vertical distance must be taken in to consideration per the FAQ because positive or negative vertical movement has not been differentiated? B ) Has he merely "fallen" instead so he only takes 1"? C) Would it make a difference if the crate is Climbable? Can you then not fall and he has moved 5" (1 horizontal, plus 2"x 2 climbing down)? D) If the model was Lured, would it make any difference? If you have to end as close as possible you would have to "fall" rather than "climb" it would seem? E) If "falling" is free vertical movement, then couldn't flying models "fall " down off the terrain and not take the fall damage regardless of height? F) If falling is not "free" movement and the model can only go down as far as its walks allow, why can a Belle Lure a model off a terrain piece higher than its walk allows?

I also wonder by reading the FAQ, whether we should be accounting for the vertical component when something jumps off a a piece of terrain, or flies off, as it is still vertical movement, and the FAQ does not specify vertical movement has to be "up".

Well, if a model was at ground level, an flew up onto a Height 8 hill (or whatever), we are treating it as as being 8" tall, since its actual surface is parabolic in shape, with no exact height since it varies between 7 and 3/4" and 8", and if the hill has a diameter of any significance, it is going to be very difficult as one may not be able to get an accurate measurement if the model is centered or any substantial distance from the edge. Therefore, if some thing flew from "the ground" to the top of something Height 8, I would say it has moved vertically 8", that of its height. However, that being said if your terrain setup had a slanted bridge that at one end at 6" above the ground and another 10" and the actual height can be measured from where the model started, it would be much more accurate of the actual distance traveled Vertical variances will always be an odd duck in this game, based on how terrain is declared or not as well. Most people play "ramps" or angled terrain as just horizontal movement, when moving across them, but if you have a ramping surface that is both long and of an appreciable angle, walking across the ramp will give the player a significant vertical movement "for free".

Since the FAQ, we have been just playing it: measure horizontal, then measure vertical, and then add. This has been done out of simplicity more than anything. Since the terrain Height is defined in number of whole inches (rounded per the rules), if you measure the actual diagonal, it would be different than the actual hypotenuse off of the true measured horizontal, and the stated Height. This method can make for a less satisfactory interaction action, as the model is clearly moving less than measuring diagonally would allow, so I would welcome official clarity as to the "actual" way to measure.

"Marcus is really the only beast that provides non-horror Wp duels (correct me if I'm wrong)" As I recall the Shikome have the Beast characteristic and can attack resiting either Df or Wp.

It is officially going on now, and will continue until tomorrow morning.