Push Base to base with a scheme marker

[rgarbonzo]

Just what the title says when you push b2b with a scheme marker can you go over the marker to the other side or do you stop the moment you hit B2B contact?

[Tuttleboy]

Any rule that has a question frequently asked about it should be added to the FAQ. That is the reason we have a FAQ.

[Ausplosions]

The FAQ should be filled with questions and answers regarding ambiguous rules. Not obvious ones interpreted incorrectly.

If people frequently ask "can I use Dice instead of cards" should that be included in the FAQ?

[Tuttleboy]

Yes. If it is a Frequently Asked Question.

[mythicFOX]

<MOD HAT>

 

Friendly reminder to play nice kids.

 

</MOD HAT>

[StuffedKiwi]

I was agreeing with Ausplosions that we don't need an FAQ ruling because the rules are very clear as they're stated, right up to the point where he drew the opposite conclusion to me. So when reasonable people are reading the same paragraphs as 'obviously' meaning quite different things, it makes me think that we do in fact need an FAQ ruling. For those not convinced that there's a case for the side I'm on, I'll make it as clearly as I can.

The rules for Pushes have already been quoted above, I won't repeat them here, but it's clearly worth reading them carefully. The rule book makes a point of describing "some" pushes as being in relation to some other object, and says "such as towards or away from another model." It uses the "directly towards (or away from)" clause ONLY in that paragraph, in relation to those pushes, the ones that are relational. So some pushes, like Teddy's "push the target 4" in any direction", don't have that "directly towards or away from" rule governing them, because they're not relational -- you're not pushing them away from Teddy, you're pushing them in any direction.

Clearly, the rules are allowing for pushes that are not "in relation to another object" -- the question is whether "into base contact with" another object ought to be governed by the "directly towards" rule, whether "into base contact with" is another version of "in relation to," just like "directly towards or away from."

I would argue that for pushes like McTavish's (and Teddy's follow up push -- "then push this model into base contact with the target") the relationship isn't between the model and the target but between the model and some as-yet-unspecified point on that target's base -- otherwise, I'm not sure why the different wording for 'into base contact' exists, instead of using "towards"? So once I've declared that point on the target's base, then I have to follow the rules for a push: straight line, can't pass through impassable terrain, etc. But I am given the option of choosing that point, rather than being required to head directly for the center of the target model.

I can see both sides of this. It's equally plausible to say that a push "into base contact with" something is clearly a relational push, that my precise attention to language is rule-lawyering, and the pushed model is pushed "in relation to" the object it's moving into base contact with, so "directly towards" applies and we need to measure center to center, shortest distance, etc. But my sense of the rule book is that the other interpretation, the one I'm arguing for, is what's intended for McTavish here, else why have two sets of wording for "towards" and "into base contact with" spelt out on different models' cards?

Anyway, that's why I think an FAQ clarification would be helpful.

[Joel]

Teddy is pushing into base contact with another model - that's another object so same rule applies - direct push, centre-to-centre.  I don't see how that can be argued otherwise.

[Adran]

My personal reading of Base contact is that it allows the push to not need to state a distance. There are plenty of occasions a push into base contact doesn't reach base contact because the push reaches other models or impassable terrain before it reachs the base you are pushing to. It could also be argued that push the model x" towards the target, could confuse. What if I'm less than x" away? Can I push x slightly sideways to miss the blocking object? I'll still move x"

 Obviously upto x" would allow the pusher to make extra choices.  

If I made an ability that slowed down pushes then push x inches will work differently to push into base contact.

Push 3" towards a scrap marker within 3" will move me further than into base contact with a scrap marker within 3" would do. And I would then have the akward moment when I had to lift my model off the table to remove the marker I had just ended up on top of, and then have to try and get the right placement again.

 

 

I can't see an arguement that works to state that Push into base contact isn't in relationship with an object. We already have clarified what base contact is, its when 2 or more bases are touching. So to push into base contact I have to push towards the base until either my push is stopped or I reach Base contact.

Its push into base contact with ... not push into contact with a chosen point of the base of... 

 

So this might be a frequently asked question, especially because it works differently to how it worked in 1st ed, but only very slightly, and so ikt might eb worth answering in the FAQ, but I can't see how it would come up with any answer other than

"Pushing into base contact with a target is a push directly towards the target and will move the model until it is either stopped by a blocking object, or reaches the nearest point of the base"

[mythicFOX]

 

 

Clearly, the rules are allowing for pushes that are not "in relation to another object" -- the question is whether "into base contact with" another object ought to be governed by the "directly towards" rule, whether "into base contact with" is another version of "in relation to," just like "directly towards or away from."

I would argue that for pushes like McTavish's (and Teddy's follow up push -- "then push this model into base contact with the target") the relationship isn't between the model and the target but between the model and some as-yet-unspecified point on that target's base -- otherwise, I'm not sure why the different wording for 'into base contact' exists, instead of using "towards"? 

 

I understand your argument, however it requires a significant logical contortion; That pushing 'into contact with X' isn't pushing in relation to X. Its by far the more logical interpretation that when your push is governed by the position of something that you're pushing in relation to it.

 

The difference in wording would appear to just be use of the language.  You don't need to state a separate direction when you're pushing into contact with something, because you can only be pushing towards it. There's no physical alternative, so why add needless text to state it?

 

 

Also:  There is no centre to centre measuring in Malifaux, only closest point to closest point.

[StuffedKiwi]

Yeah, I think I talked myself out of my argument as I wrote the post. Let's avoid logical contortions, I agree all pushes involving model-to-model or model-to-marker relations ought to be in the direction of closest-point to closest point. (And yes, I know we don't measure center to center, but the way most of us work out the line for closest-point-to-closest point is to draw a line through both centers, right?)

[Tuttleboy]

As worded a push into base contact will let you move in a line that isn't center to center if there another model or piece of terrain in the way that would stop you if you did move c2c. Could be intentionally worded that way.

[mythicFOX]

As worded a push into base contact will let you move in a line that isn't center to center if there another model or piece of terrain in the way that would stop you if you did move c2c. Could be intentionally worded that way.

 

Can you expand on that? I don't see where you're getting that from in the text?

 

"The model must move in a straight line while obeying these restrictions, moving directly towards (or away from) the specified object."

[The Godlyness]

I think push into base would supersede the direct part. If I can make base to base by not going in a straight line. But can't make base to base by going in a straight line then going to the side is the only way I can complete my ability, trigger,action. Otherwise I have failed to do what I was told to do.

To reiterate. Direct route object of some sort prohibits me from pushing into base. Push to side no object is prohibiting me from pushing into base. Then I must push to the side since I must push into base.

Now if we take all objects out of the equation. Pushing straight gets me into b2b. But so does pushing to the side.

I believe push into base is a more specific rule.

[Tuttleboy]

I'm hoping that the sweet picture I've drawn here will help illustrate what I'm talking about. Just pretend that it's not crappy and I think you'll understand what I'm talking about.

 

The push on the right side will not end with the models being in base to base, which is the requirement of the more specific rule written on the card. It does however follow the rules in the book.

 

The push on the left side does follow the more specific rule and ends with the pushed model in B2B. But it doesn't follow the less specific rule in the book.

 

This is why I think we could use a bit of clarification in the FAQ.

 

 

[mythicFOX]

You're both using the 'more specific' rule, from page 19 of the small rules manual (emphasis mine);
 

Models in Malifaux have many unique rules which override the core rules. This goes for any special rules, even those from terrain or an Encounter. When a special rule explicitly contradicts these core rules, follow the special rule rather than the core rule.

 

For instance, an Attack Action that States it does not require Line of Sight (pg. 40), is allowed to disobey the normal Line of Sight rules, and it may therefore choose a target in Range, even if it cannot see it.

 

In the rare instance that two special rules contradict each other, the more specific of the two rules takes precedence.

 
So firstly, the 'more specific' rule only applies where two special rules contradict each other. 

 

The test for overriding a core rule is; does the special rule 'explicitly contradict' the core rule.

 

In other words does a 'push into base contact' rule explicitly contradict the push rule that states you have to go directly towards the model? No it doesn't, it doesn't say anything about being able to push at an angle.  If we were to use your logic we'd be able to push through a solid wall as the push into base contact would be considered to override the rule for impassible terrain. Clearly that doesn't work.

 

The example in the text underlines what they mean by 'explicitly contradict', it means it tells you the rule doesn't apply.

[Joel]

So in the drawn example above, you would push and get stopped at the wall.

[Ausplosions]

Tuttleboy, while your picture is amazing, it is incorrect.

You MUST move DIRECTLY towards. Regardless of objects in the way that is EXACTLY what is in the manua.

[Ausplosions]

So in the drawn example above, you would push and get stopped at the wall.

Correct.

[The Godlyness]

Heck you might be right, but at the same time in that sweet picture one gets you into base contact. one does not.  one does what your abilty action tells you to do. one does not.

 

So if you can get pushed into base cause your told to, but you don't cause you don't want to, isn't that like not following the rules?

 

So if you dont push into the base you did not do what your abilty trigger etc is forcing you to do.

 

Saying ahh man this wall is in front of me lets completely ignore the fact that i can still push into base but dont want to,

 

That's how i see it. and yes this needs a faq. it will come up again. As will something to do with after damaging and prolly something to do with killjoy.

 

I will give you that you must take the most direct route that gets you into base. but if you can end in base then you must end in base even if its not the most firect route.

[Ausplosions]

It says. In plain English, that pushes in relation to a point are directly towards.

It's that simple. You hit the wall. It does not need an FAQ because it is already clear. Despite people doing some impressive contortions.

[The Godlyness]

Call me dick Grayson I run this circus.

[rgarbonzo]

Okay so now that we have covered Teddy back to the original question, can one push oneself OVER a scheme marker to be in B2B on the other side?

[Joel]

No.

[Ausplosions]

Okay so now that we have covered Teddy back to the original question, can one push oneself OVER a scheme marker to be in B2B on the other side?

No.

[hypoking]

Yes.*

 

* Honestly, I haven't been this amused in the rules forum for a good long time.

[r4st4f4n]

It says. In plain English, that pushes in relation to a point are directly towards.

It's that simple. You hit the wall. It does not need an FAQ because it is already clear. Despite people doing some impressive contortions.

I tend to agree with you, and I still don't think a push in base to base lets you end on the other side of a marker or incorporeal model.

But I must admit that the existance of two different wordings, one that says "push model towards x" and one "push model in base to base with x", makes me think the two of them have slightly different purposes.

If not considering the entire base as the landing place, at least the exposed half(when you pass the middle, that's when you start moving away in relation to the target)(which is Tuttleboy example. Though MythicFox answer is convincing too...)