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?

[Bengt]

Some effects, e.g. Mei Fengs Jackhammer Kick, uses the wording "...pushes directly into base contact...".

[Cy Dudley]

Okay I'm going to wade in on this one because I feel I have something relevant to say, please feel free to shoot me down in flames if I'm getting this completely wrong.

The first thing of relevance is that we can all agree on the fact that pushes happen in straight lines

I think this situation comes down to the inclusion of keywords. The words towards and away are keywords and implies upon the action a specific method for measurement (closest points to close this point). Where as the keyword base contact implies a finishing situation that must take effect as soon as it is met. Also it should be realised that the two are not mutually exclusive

So the way I read the ability is that it must travel in a straight line until it makes base contact, and must make a base contact . It therefore cannot travel through the base because it would've made base contact on the far side of the base there for halting the action at that point. It can however draw that straight line in any manner that it wishes as long as the condition is ended by base contact allowing him to flank the base of the target model or marker

On the situation of the lure. Well how many times do you think a guy has walked into a lamp post whilst looking at a pretty girl?

[Ausplosions]

Lure is not a push, so your point there is incorrrect.

 

 

Also:

 

 

Pushes. in. relation. to. another. point. are. always. directly. towards. or. away.

 

 

"into base contact" is in relation to another point.

[The Godlyness]

Some effects, e.g. Mei Fengs Jackhammer Kick, uses the wording "...pushes directly into base contact...".

wait what?

 

Um well that sets a precedent then.  we now have 5 kinds of pushes

 

Push away

 

push towards

 

push in any direction

 

push to base

 

push directly to base

 

 

So yeah Tell me again how its directly towards? when its a push into to base contact. 

 

I dont think its a contortion of the rules when its written clearly .  (now do you want a faq )

[Fetid Strumpet]

In the drawn example you would hit the wall. 

 

As an addendum, Lure has no bearing on this discussion, as Lure is a move, not a push, and functions differently.

[The Godlyness]

in the drawn example if the model was using jackhammer kick it would hit the wall. but if it was using a push to base it could do so and has to do so.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Incorrect.

 

There is no distinction between push towards, and push directly towards, they are synonymous in this edition, it would go directly towards, and hit the wall.

 

EDIT: As a side note, anyone notice the FAQ is late this month, more so than when it was late in May? Did I miss a thread that mentioned what was going on?

[The Godlyness]

you must have missed the break down and jumping into this late.

 

 

A push into base does not say towards. it says push into base contact.

 

here are some examples for you

 

You looking at me. Target model is pushed its Cg towards this model

 

wing buffet. All enemy models within p4 are immediately Pushed 3" directly away from this model.

 

jackhammer kick. Then, this model pushes directly into base contact with the target

 

peekaboo. push the target 4" in any direction, then push this model into base contact with the target.

 

next target. push this model up to 4” in any direction

 

 

there you go 5 examples of 5 different pushes. so yes  you are right there is no distinction between away and directly away but there is a distinction between push into base and push directly into base.

[Fetid Strumpet]

I didn't miss the breakdown. It's a function of the cards not having a definitive style guide. Just like when Lilith example came about about her not needing LoS for her spells vs. the Silirid's ability to not have LoS requirements ignored.

 

 

Q: Lilith’s Master of Malifaux Ability states that she does not need LoS, and the Silurid’s Silent Ability states that models may not ignore LoS when targeting the Silurid. When Lilith targets a Silurid, does she need LoS? 

A: Yes. Lilith needs LoS.

 

The issue of variances in wording are negligible because of how this edition is treating the language it uses. Justin has said that in this edition the wordings have to be interpreted more common sense. That being the case there are only to my knowledge two kind of direction rules of pushes, those where you can control the direction of the push, and those where you can't. If you can't control the direction of the push it is directly towards or away in every instance I can think of at this moment.

 

In the example the model would hit the wall.

[The Godlyness]

So again you are told to push to base and you can push to base but you just think the wall is a better place. Got it.

[Csonti]

Justin mentioned here on the forum (and maybe on his blog too) that people should NOT think too much into the different kind of wordings of similar cases. Many editors worked on the rules and unfortunately they couldn't achieve proper unity.

 

Besides that the relevant rules quoted and explained here multiple times are clear: pushes made in relation of an object are ALWAYS done moving directly towards or away. 

But since so many people look confused on this, I wouldn't mind a FAQ entry. 

[Swiglitz]

Having now read this thread from start to finish all I can see is Rgarbonzo staring at his screen whilst doing the finger pyramid of evil contemplation and cackling 'Dance Puppets! Dance!'

 

Four pages of discussion and no definitive answer, not even close. Look at what you've done!

[Cy Dudley]

Away, towards and a direct all mean the same thing surely , which is push along the line created when measuring between the two closest points between performer and target.

Where as any direction could also read without a target

base contact suggests a final destination or at least an attempted final destination if it's trajectory is intersected with terrain on a direct push

Whilst an indirect push (one not containing the towards, away or direct keyword) would allow me to draw the line from any point of my base to any point on the target base as long as it could be achieved with a straight line, correct?

[Fetid Strumpet]

 

Besides that the relevant rules quoted and explained here multiple times are clear: pushes made in relation of an object are ALWAYS done moving directly towards or away. 

[i_was_like_you]

Plus, referring back to the drawing (good enough for government work), since we do not measure center to center, measuring from the front of McTavish's base to the edge of the Scheme Marker would get us around the the wall and into base contact with said Scheme Marker within the specified distance of 3", same as the example on the left, but disregarding center to center measurements.

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Justin mentioned here on the forum (and maybe on his blog too) that people should NOT think too much into the different kind of wordings of similar cases. Many editors worked on the rules and unfortunately they couldn't achieve proper unity.

 

Besides that the relevant rules quoted and explained here multiple times are clear: pushes made in relation of an object are ALWAYS done moving directly towards or away. 

But since so many people look confused on this, I wouldn't mind a FAQ entry. 

 

Oh, but they should have. And that's where FAQs and Errata come in: To make the language consistent on the cards, going forward, and to make the rulings equally consistent.  

 

[While I still don't agree with the Lilith versus Silurid ruling, I abide by it for consistency's sake.]

 

As this has gone on for four pages, that IMO was mostly on topic and not filibuster, it is most certainly deserving of an FAQ ruling.

 

 

[hypoking]

Here's my non facetious take on this.  There are rules in this game that consider multiple end states as part of, and even a criterion for, their resolution, lure and temporal shift to name two. Given that there are rules 'smart' enough to consider how they'll work out ahead of time, and given the maximum distance clause on pushes in general I don't see why we should assume a push is 'stupid' enough to fall short. Godly makes a compelling argument here.

[Justin]

Justin mentioned here on the forum (and maybe on his blog too) that people should NOT think too much into the different kind of wordings of similar cases. Many editors worked on the rules and unfortunately they couldn't achieve proper unity.

 

Besides that the relevant rules quoted and explained here multiple times are clear: pushes made in relation of an object are ALWAYS done moving directly towards or away. 

But since so many people look confused on this, I wouldn't mind a FAQ entry. 

 

This is correct.

 

Also, no this is not in the FAQ, because the most valid arguments for putting this into the FAQ were "the rules are pretty clear, but this thread lasted four pages!" I'm all for clearing up confusion, but thread page counts are a dangerous standard to start using.