Leap Confusion

[Icemyn]

I just want to know how people play this ability in their playgroups. So I'll posit a couple of scenarios and you can all state how it is handled in your neck of the woods. 

 

For Reference:

Leap: This model immediately moves up to its Cg, ignoring

intervening terrain and models during the move.

 

1) A Leap Model with Charge 6 is in base contact with a HT 10 Tower that is 4 inches across.
        a) Can you move straight to the other side of the tower ignoring the tower's HT? Fall Damage?

        b ) Can you leap to the top of the tower ignoring the vertical distance?

 

2) A Leap Model with Charge 6 is on a HT 4 Wall and wants to get to a scheme marker at HT-0 5" away behind another HT 5 Wall.

        a) Assuming you move the full 6 Horizontally would you need to take fall damage?

[Tuttleboy]

Leap works the same as flight or incorporeal when vertices distances are involved.

From the FAQ:

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).

[hypoking]

n/m

[afeinman]

My take:

 

 

 

Leap: This model immediately moves up to its Cg, ignoring intervening terrain and models during the move.

 

1) A Leap Model with Charge 6 is in base contact with a HT 10 Tower that is 4 inches across.
        a) Can you move straight to the other side of the tower ignoring the tower's HT? Fall Damage?

Yes, because you ignore intervening terrain. You take no Fall damage because you ignore intervening terrain.
 

        b ) Can you leap to the top of the tower ignoring the vertical distance?
No, because the end point of your movement is on a different height, and height matters when figuring out how far you can move. If you were Cg10 then it'd be fine.

 

2) A Leap Model with Charge 6 is on a HT 4 Wall and wants to get to a scheme marker at HT-0 5" away behind another HT 5 Wall.

        a) Assuming you move the full 6 Horizontally would you need to take fall damage?

No, because you ignore intervening terrain. This one's a bit grayer in my mind.

 

I do see that Leap as a result is extremely powerful...

[egoon]

I would agree with Afeinman.

 

Although leaping from Ht 4 to Ht 0 might actually make you take falling damage, since the ability does not state immunity to falling damage.

[Ausplosions]

I would agree with Afeinman.

Although leaping from Ht 4 to Ht 0 might actually make you take falling damage, since the ability does not state immunity to falling damage.

But you ignore terrain. That includes the height of the terrain. So no falling damage.

[The Godlyness]

If you moved in a straight line off of ht 4 terrain. You can't say that you model is floating so it has to well land. And since it fell greater than 2" it takes falling damage. Course once you move it off the terrain it would take the falling. Leap might as well say this model gains incorporeal for the rest doctor move. Since that is what it does.

[mythicFOX]

This debate might be somewhat enlightened if someone with a book to hand were to quote the falling rules?

[Vanthor]

Small rulebook pg 44:

 

Models moving off elevations and falling suffer no damage if the fall as 2" or less. If the fall was more than 2" the fall deals 1 damage per 1", or fraction thereof, fallen.

 

That's it

[mythicFOX]

Thanks.

[Gorbad]

Is there a definition of falling?

[The Godlyness]

Is there a definition of falling?

 

Not Sure if trolling......look 3 posts up

[DeleteAccount]

But you ignore terrain. That includes the height of the terrain. So no falling damage.

Last time I checked, spirits do take falling damage even though they ignore terrain, so I doubt a leaper is getting out of that one.

[dgraz]

So, I have a 8" charge and Leap.

 

I want to leap over a Ht 10 wall that's in my way......no problem because I ignore intervening terrain.

 

I want to leap from the ground to the roof of a Ht 6 building.....no problem.

 

I want to leap from the roof of a Ht 6 building to the ground..........I take falling damage.

 

No problem jumping up 10" and gracefully dropping 10" to land safely on the other side........but somehow can't drop off the roof of a much shorter building without hurting myself........

 

 

Abstractions are fun.

[Ausplosions]

Last time I checked, spirits do take falling damage even though they ignore terrain, so I doubt a leaper is getting out of that one.

Very good point.

[Ikvar]

So, I have a 8" charge and Leap.

 

I want to leap over a Ht 10 wall that's in my way......no problem because I ignore intervening terrain.

 

I want to leap from the ground to the roof of a Ht 6 building.....no problem.

 

I want to leap from the roof of a Ht 6 building to the ground..........I take falling damage.

 

No problem jumping up 10" and gracefully dropping 10" to land safely on the other side........but somehow can't drop off the roof of a much shorter building without hurting myself........

 

 

Abstractions are fun.

I have never thought of it like that... but I truly hope you are wrong, as that would be very silly :/

[Fetid Strumpet]

That's how it works.

[The Godlyness]

Funny idea use Marcus alpha a enemy that has leap make it leap vertical it's charge and .5" forward. Then watch it take massive fall damage winning.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I don't believe you can just go vertical distances without something to actually end up on. All the examples of vertical distance in the book require a piece of terrain to actually go vertically.

[dgraz]

I don't believe you can just go vertical distances without something to actually end up on. All the examples of vertical distance in the book require a piece of terrain to actually go vertically.

I would tend to agree with this.

 

Although, I believe this is one of the stupidest strange results of abstract rules.

 

It also means that if you have an 8" charge and are 6" away from a Ht3 structure that you can't leap onto it.

 

I don't travel to tournaments and to me, this is a house rule situation. I would allow leapers to leap down from a building.....and I'd probably allow the leaper in my aforementioned situation to end on that Ht3 structure.

[DeleteAccount]

.....and I'd probably allow the leaper in my aforementioned situation to end on that Ht3 structure.

There is a very good reason to not allow this since there can be a lot of abuse with Ht changes. Basically if the other guy isn't packing some ranged support, you can easily go up a few ht 3 structures and still cover a good chunk of the table, but if you have to take range into account in a diagonal way instead of straight it gives a penalty to going too high up. Also, I would have no issue adding the "no damage from ht clause" to all leapers, but seems like it shouldn't be too dire to demand immediate errata.

[dgraz]

I don't disagree. That's why I said 'probably allow'. I'd have to discuss it with my group. Our terrain collection doesn't include much in the way of tall structures, so it would be less abuse-able in my meta. We obviously have the same issue with flight. The weirdest part of it is that you don't measure diagonally in this game......you have to measure horizontally to the building, then vertically up the wall. In my meta (all casual) the easiest compromise to it would be to allow diagonal measurement for Leap and Flight.

 

And as I say, we're so casual that I would never 'demand immediate errata'. We just house-rule it. By-the-by, the 'no damage from Ht clause' would be the first house-rule we might actually use. The game is so good that we haven't needed anything. 

[DeleteAccount]

I do agree it's strange that it's the only thing that is based around using diagonals and is certainly something that is sort of omitted in vassal play since there really is no precision way to do it, at most reducing the inches of movement of a model for how much ht it wants to cover or something like that. Hell, thinking about it now, would have been a great way to do it, normal climbing is twice the ht and with terrain ignoring things it's just the ht, but it does break the whole "ignore terrain" part of the language and makes it more complicated to a degree.

 

I have played with an incorporeal heavy force a few times and it was pretty annoying if I tried to abuse Ht, at least going down isn't as costly since you can just let yourself drop and either break your legs or not care if you have wings.

[Astrella]

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). 

[r4st4f4n]

I would tend to agree with this.

 

Although, I believe this is one of the stupidest strange results of abstract rules.

 

It also means that if you have an 8" charge and are 6" away from a Ht3 structure that you can't leap onto it.

 

I don't travel to tournaments and to me, this is a house rule situation. I would allow leapers to leap down from a building.....and I'd probably allow the leaper in my aforementioned situation to end on that Ht3 structure.

Given that a "normal" model would require 3-4 Aps (Wk 4" case: Wk 4", Wk 2"+Ht 1", Ht 2", step to land over the edge) to perform that movement, while Leap is a free action, personally I wouldn't allow that...

 

 

Is there a definition of falling?

Definition of falling is "moving off elevations" by the effect of gravity, i.e. not climbing downwards

 

I don't disagree. That's why I said 'probably allow'. I'd have to discuss it with my group. Our terrain collection doesn't include much in the way of tall structures, so it would be less abuse-able in my meta. We obviously have the same issue with flight. The weirdest part of it is that you don't measure diagonally in this game......you have to measure horizontally to the building, then vertically up the wall. In my meta (all casual) the easiest compromise to it would be to allow diagonal measurement for Leap and Flight.

 

And as I say, we're so casual that I would never 'demand immediate errata'. We just house-rule it. By-the-by, the 'no damage from Ht clause' would be the first house-rule we might actually use. The game is so good that we haven't needed anything. 

I don't think measuring flight movement is confusing anymore, after the FAQ. Flight ability explicitly states the model ignores falling damage (which makes sense, as, if you're not the Balrog, you are unlikely to hit the floor and get hurt when you're able to fly)

[Astrella]

I don't think measuring flight movement is confusing anymore, after the FAQ. Flight ability explicitly states the model ignores falling damage (which makes sense, as, if you're not the Balrog, you are unlikely to hit the floor and get hurt when you're able to fly)

How does it work then when say, you fly over a wall. Do you climb and drop down, or just ignore it? Cause if you were to just fly on top of something you'd have to climb, right?

 

It just seems weird that you'd ignore a building if you'd fly over it, but have to take it in account if you want to land on top of it.