Up We Go Placement

[PirateCaptain]

I will attempt to explain my question as succinctly as possible, if you would like more clarification or reasoning behind my current interpretation, please ask.

 

Zipp's ability "up we go" is worded:

"Place the target anywhere within 5" of its current position, not in terrain".

 

Originally I did not think this was confusing, until discussing Enclosed terrain features. Enclosed features specifically reference things being inside of them.

What I would like to know, is the "IN" in Zipp's ability, referencing this, so that you cannot put someone inside of enclosed terrain (which would be incredibly unfair, and I completely agree with).  OR do they mean "ON OR IN" as in, he cannot place you on top of or inside of any terrain feature.

As I read it, it appears to function that he can place models "ON" terrain (or on top of terrain, as it were, such as moving a friendly model onto a roof), but he cannot place models "INSIDE" of terrain features.  (this also fits the flavor of him carrying and dropping you, he wouldn't drop someone on the ground floor of a 3 story building, you'd get dropped on the roof, it's also far too friendly for a crazy gremlin pirate to care what he drops you on top of)

I believe my RAW interpretation to be correct, but I really would like to make sure, as it is confusing.

I am not interested in Rules as intended Interpretations, I have already decided to err on the side of caution with this, but would like some kind of official ruling one way or another, and was unsure where else to ask this. 

[Ludvig]

There is no real way to define the top of terrain as clear tabletop as far as I know but in my opinion the rules would really need a way to do that. Something like defining terrain as "clear" or "traversable" since impassable + climbable terrain creates a conundrum if you go by RAW. As the terrain rules are currently written there doesn't seem to be a clean way to difference between in or on terrain even if the climbable and vantage point rules seemingly expect you to do that so I'm not sure you will find a definitive rules answer but need to talk it though with your opponent before the game.

[PirateCaptain]

8 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

There is no real way to define the top of terrain as clear tabletop as far as I know but in my opinion the rules would really need a way to do that. Something like defining terrain as "clear" or "traversable" since impassable + climbable terrain creates a conundrum if you go by RAW. As the terrain rules are currently written there doesn't seem to be a clean way to difference between in or on terrain even if the climbable and vantage point rules seemingly expect you to do that so I'm not sure you will find a definitive rules answer but need to talk it though with your opponent before the game.

Yea, that's what I was worried about... just makes it difficult to practice him, if one of his abilities could work differently game to game.

[Ludvig]

Considering how rarely vantage points turn up on our boards (or in any tournaments I've been) I'd say you won't notice the difference most of the time. 

[PirateCaptain]

We use vantage point a lot haha, and something can be on enclosed terrain even if it doesn't have vantage point, vantage point just provides the LoS benefits.  Enclosed says things can be on top of it:

This is where my problem lies.

Every building, vantage point or not, is enclosed, so models can go on top of them.  BUT they are not REQUIRED to have vantage point.

Enclosed - Models without the Incorporeal ability which begin their movement outside of this terrain may not use Abilities or Actions to ignore this terrain if they are ending their move inside of it. Models without Incorporeal lose any Abilities and Actions which allow them to ignore terrain while moving while inside of this terrain. However, models act normally while on top of this terrain and while ending a move on top of this terrain. (For Example: A Nephilim may fly over a building or take flight from its rooftop, but may not teleport through the wall.)

Structures come in an infinite variety of sizes and shapes in Malifaux. All buildings default to having the enclosed, impassable, blocking, and hard cover traits. Buildings might have climbable areas (if the walls have hand holds), and might have areas that provide a vantage point.

[Ludvig]

9 minutes ago, PirateCaptain said:

We use vantage point a lot haha, and something can be on enclosed terrain even if it doesn't have vantage point, vantage point just provides the LoS benefits.  Enclosed says things can be on top of it:

This is where my problem lies.

Every building, vantage point or not, is enclosed, so models can go on top of them.  BUT they are not REQUIRED to have vantage point.

Enclosed - Models without the Incorporeal ability which begin their movement outside of this terrain may not use Abilities or Actions to ignore this terrain if they are ending their move inside of it. Models without Incorporeal lose any Abilities and Actions which allow them to ignore terrain while moving while inside of this terrain. However, models act normally while on top of this terrain and while ending a move on top of this terrain. (For Example: A Nephilim may fly over a building or take flight from its rooftop, but may not teleport through the wall.)

Structures come in an infinite variety of sizes and shapes in Malifaux. All buildings default to having the enclosed, impassable, blocking, and hard cover traits. Buildings might have climbable areas (if the walls have hand holds), and might have areas that provide a vantage point.

The define rules say you "may" but the vantage point rules on p 41 say that any terrain that is 2" or more and can be stood upon is automatically a vantage point so I don't think you get to choose. If you make it not a vantage point then the model on top of the terrain can usually not see "out" of it so to speak beacuse being on something doesn't let you ignore it unless you are on a vantage point and within your ht from the edge. When drawin LoS from anything else than a vantage point you always just consider your ht, never the ht of your model + the terrain it is on.

[FlamingCircusBear]

This comes down the definition of the words "on" and "in", and if the rulebook differentiates between the two words and from my reading of the rulebook it does. "IN" implies you are occupying a space within the volume of a terrain feature. "On" implies you are occupying a space immediately above the volume of a terrain feature and are touching the boundary of that terrain feature.  This right here is one of many examples as to why the wording of rules is very important.  I too would like an official ruling from Wyrd on this topic.

[PirateCaptain]

35 minutes ago, Ludvig said:

The define rules say you "may" but the vantage point rules on p 41 say that any terrain that is 2" or more and can be stood upon is automatically a vantage point so I don't think you get to choose.

Cool, i missed that, so yea, all structures > 2" high would have vantage point as well.  But even if < 2" high you could still put a model on top of it

 

Edit: i misunderstood something.  So it does look like anything you can put a model on, structure or not, if is terrain > 2" has vantage point

[Adran]

I think that you have to read it that standing on top of terrain is standing in terrain. n, otherwise the whole terrain section gets even crazier. You can give the roof of buildings different traits to the rest of the building. Infact you often have to. 

If Standing on top of hazardous terrain is not standing in Hazardous terrain then you don't take its damage flip for example. 

[santaclaws01]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

I think that you have to read it that standing on top of terrain is standing in terrain. n, otherwise the whole terrain section gets even crazier. You can give the roof of buildings different traits to the rest of the building. Infact you often have to. 

If Standing on top of hazardous terrain is not standing in Hazardous terrain then you don't take its damage flip for example. 

Or "in" means different things in different contexts, like it does in plain English which is what the rules are written in and what we defer to when it's not a game term or phrase.

[PirateCaptain]

4 hours ago, Adran said:

I think that you have to read it that standing on top of terrain is standing in terrain. n, otherwise the whole terrain section gets even crazier. You can give the roof of buildings different traits to the rest of the building. Infact you often have to. 

If Standing on top of hazardous terrain is not standing in Hazardous terrain then you don't take its damage flip for example. 

I was actually talking about this with Duncan yesterday, basically for something to be able to be "on" it already has to be agreed upon before the game starts. So Hazardous terrain, 99% of the time can't be stood ON.  For example, none of the characters can walk ON water.  But you can stand ON a roof, i.e. enclosed terrain and structures.  If you and your opponent decide you can't stand ON buildings, then no problem.

We also discussed Zipp's smoke clouds because of this.  They are terrain, but there's no way anyone could ever stand ON smoke, that's just absurd .  So, while TECHNICALLY if you could convince your opponent that Reva can walk ON water (in the hazardous example) she could be ON the terrain, but in actuality, she would be in the terrain.  The rules specifically call out that only certain terrain features can be stood on "... and that models may stand on (such as the roof of a building)" p. 42 

While hazardous terrain does require you to be in it, you'd be hard pressed to find any judge rule that you can stand ON it. 

Really what I think it comes down to, like everything involving terrain, is that you just make sure that you and your opponent discuss the terrain features before a game begins.  If you don't want vantage points, or anything going on top of anything, just discuss it before hand and everything is fine.  If you'd like to be able to stand ON certain features, and fully use vantage points, and abilities like Zipp's, just discuss it before hand.

[WWHSD]

1 hour ago, PirateCaptain said:

I was actually talking about this with Duncan yesterday, basically for something to be able to be "on" it already has to be agreed upon before the game starts. So Hazardous terrain, 99% of the time can't be stood ON.  For example, none of the characters can walk ON water.  
 

If you don't want people to walk on water it should be defined as Impassable, not Hazardous. It seems kind of pointless to have Severe or Hazardous terrain that can't be walked or pushed through.  

[PirateCaptain]

12 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

If you don't want people to walk on water it should be defined as Impassable, not Hazardous. It seems kind of pointless to have Severe or Hazardous terrain that can't be walked or pushed through.  

you can walk through the hazardous water, clouds, whatever it happens to be, but you're in that terrain feature, just like if you were in a structure.  Even if it isn't represented on the table in a 3 dimensional fashion

[WWHSD]

9 minutes ago, PirateCaptain said:

you can walk through the hazardous water, clouds, whatever it happens to be, but you're in that terrain feature, just like if you were in a structure.  Even if it isn't represented on the table in a 3 dimensional fashion

It seems like we're into house rule and personal interpretation territory here.  

[PirateCaptain]

34 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

It seems like we're into house rule and personal interpretation territory here.  

I could say the same with your interpretation of any rule, ever. I am trying to come up with as solid a ruling as I can on a rule that I would like an official ruling on.  Until then, all we have are interpretation and debate, hopefully to come to a good enough conclusion that people can know what to expect from a judge they've never met an event so they can practice how they'll play.

[WWHSD]

1 minute ago, PirateCaptain said:

I could say the same with your interpretation of any rule, ever. I am trying to come up with as solid a ruling as I can on a rule that I would like an official ruling on.  Until then, all we have are interpretation and debate, hopefully to come to a good enough conclusion that people can know what to expect from a judge they've never met an event so they can practice how they'll play.

I'm not saying there's no value in talking about it. The Malifaux rules very much seem like they were written to be played as a 2D game with the 3D rules slapped on as an afterthought. It was more of a flag for anyone that hits this thread later to know that what's being discussed has left the realm of answering a rules question with actual the actual rules and is now firmly into the people making up rules to cover gaps in the actual rules. 

The water example seems like a bad example of what you were trying to express. I don't think that I've ever seen a piece of water terrain that wasn't height zero so there's is no functional difference between in it or on it. If you are playing with deeper water you'd need to add create some rules for vertical movement while in the terrain.

 

[Adran]

15 minutes ago, PirateCaptain said:

I could say the same with your interpretation of any rule, ever. I am trying to come up with as solid a ruling as I can on a rule that I would like an official ruling on.  Until then, all we have are interpretation and debate, hopefully to come to a good enough conclusion that people can know what to expect from a judge they've never met an event so they can practice how they'll play.

Why is on the ground in a piece of forest which contains a Ht element as well as dense and soft cover not "In"

Why is on top of a Ht0 Hazadous terrain feature not "in". (But is within?)

If the ability is only supposed to not work on enclosed terrain why does it not specify enclosed?

I can't understand any reasoning that only counts in terrain as inside enclosed terrain as being followed within the rules of terrain, and would be interested in seeing you try to explain it

 

[PirateCaptain]

1 hour ago, Adran said:

Why is on the ground in a piece of forest which contains a Ht element as well as dense and soft cover not "In"

Why is on top of a Ht0 Hazadous terrain feature not "in". (But is within?)

If the ability is only supposed to not work on enclosed terrain why does it not specify enclosed?

I can't understand any reasoning that only counts in terrain as inside enclosed terrain as being followed within the rules of terrain, and would be interested in seeing you try to explain it

 

And I guess that's really the problem I'm trying to solve, the issue is the way the terrain and vantage points are worded, it's very clear that you can be "on" some things, and "in" other things.  So, it doesn't only count inside enclosed terrain, that's just an example.  it does however specify that there are certain things you can ON, and since those are different, is what got us thinking about this.

That's where my issue is, and frankly I really don't care what the ruling is, but the language is a bit rough.  As you said, there are better ways it could be worded, but it isn't worded that way sadly.  So, as much as i want a RAW interpretation, it's very difficult to come to.  The rules have precedence for a difference between "on" and "in" so with this rule is my problem with it. I really want o not only highlight the issue with this rule, but the terrain rules in general.  There are plenty of weird interactions all over the place.  Granted I think the game as a whole has great rules, and most of the time the terrain rules work fine, but there are weird instances like this where it is unclear.