3" push and 3" melee range

[StuffedKiwi]

This came up in a game tonight. Lilith, who has the Living Blade upgrade (Ml range increased to 3"), is in base to base with Fuhatsu. Fuhatsu performs his Madman with a Gatling Gun action; Lilith fails the WP duel, and is pushed 3" away from Fuhatsu. So the question we had was whether Lilith and Fuhatsu were still engaged? Could Fuhatsu shoot? Did Lilith need to charge in order to attack him, or could she stand there and swing?

Thanks in advance.

[Snakeshit]

It wont be 3 inches + a really tiny amount. If it was you would be moving to much as the push you measured was more than the 3 inches they told you to push the model only 3 inches. Therefor he is in still engaged. I agree with most of the posts that its meant to be fun and I don't see how anyone can debate this issue I see it as straight forward.

[Ausplosions]

It's not like I would get out the magnifying glass and start arguing over millimeters or fractions of an inch in the midst of a game.

It's that even with the absolutely clear definition of 'within' you can come to different conclusions, depending on whether you consider base to base contact to be a distance of 0 or infinitesimal greater than 0. Which to the best of my knowledge isn't addressed anywhere in the rulebook

I'm not arguing any more or less than anybody else in this thread, just going from a different premise.

Except your argument and viewpoint is proven incorrect.

By the rules.

In the Rulebook.

[Al Shut]

Just to be clear, I'm not dis agreeing on the definition of within. I'm also aware that 0+3=3, I know as much math as that.

 

If there was a part of the rules that said "Models in bases to base contact are considered to be at a distance of 0" I'd be the first to agree that a 3" push would mean the model is still within 3".

 

However I can not find such a statement. At this point I can only pray that I haven't been overlooking it the whole time, that would look really stupid.

 

I do believe that a distance of more than zero for two models in base to base contact would be technically correct, therefore a 3" push would  mean the model is pushed beyond being within 3" (x>0 +3 <=> x>3).

 

realize however that looking at two models in base to base contact and saying the distance  is 0 because I can't see any free space between them is very intuitive and I wouldn't put my money on whether the rules were meant to be understood this way or the other.

[AnythingBut]

Just to be clear, I'm not dis agreeing on the definition of within. I'm also aware that 0+3=3, I know as much math as that.

If there was a part of the rules that said "Models in bases to base contact are considered to be at a distance of 0" I'd be the first to agree that a 3" push would mean the model is still within 3".

However I can not find such a statement. At this point I can only pray that I haven't been overlooking it the whole time, that would look really stupid.

I do believe that a distance of more than zero for two models in base to base contact would be technically correct, therefore a 3" push would mean the model is pushed beyond being within 3" (x>0 +3 <=> x>3).

realize however that looking at two models in base to base contact and saying the distance is 0 because I can't see any free space between them is very intuitive and I wouldn't put my money on whether the rules were meant to be understood this way or the other.

Wait what??

Base To base CONTACT. How much more clear in the use of the English language could it possibly be? They're In CONTACT.

Why would it need to specify that the distance is zero? There are probably hundreds of situations in the rulebook when basic understanding of the definition of words is deemed enough and things arnt spelt out multiple times with the same outcome.

I feel you realise that this is the case but are just trying to justify some sort of logic from you're original statement.

It's in the rulebook in black and white and there are rules out there like Mei fengs and rusty Alice's that back this up.

If a bit of common sense can't win in these situations It's a sad state of affairs.

[Trax]

Anybody who really worries about those 100th's of an inch really aren't worth playing in my opinion. Malifaux is a game, it's supposed to be fun and anybody who argues over 1/100th of an inch obviously not in it for the fun, they are there to win a victory no matter how petty they have to be to get there. Don't take this as a personal attack, I know there are many people out there who agree with the point you put across. I just feel those particular people aren't worth the 2 hours of gaming time when all you're gonna do is have a raging debate over weather or not you actually are or aren't within 3". 

 

While the problem is really "solved" for Malifaux (since it's explicitly written in the rules), there's no reason to mark people who *would* argue the definition of "within" if it *wasn't* in the rules.

 

It's not about "winning a victory" or whatever nonsense you might want to call it, it's about a clear-cut rules definition that's notoriously lacking in other games' manuals. Every single Warhammer player I've played in my entire life agrees with the non-Malifaux definition of within - are all "those people" not worth playing? No, they just go by the convention.

 

It's a question of definition, not of malevolence or whatnot, don't mistake those two. It's not like the arguing party would have an intrinsic advantage if they were right since it goes both ways.

 

Let's just be happy that Wyrd actually put out some clearly written rules.

 

@Al Shut

 

I don't know what you're trying to achieve here, arguing for arguing's sake? "if a model is *at* a distance, it is *within* that distance." That's the rule. Do you really want to argue that some things that are *touching* each other are at a distance larger than 0?

[J_D]

Just declare exactly what you are planning on doing, saves problems all around. So in this case:

'I'm moving Lilith/Fuhatsu into base with you'

'Agreed. Now I am moving Fuhatsu back his 3'

'That's fine, I have 3 inch Ml range so we are still engaged'

'That makes sense to me, let's continue our game'

[Al Shut]

Wait what??

Base To base CONTACT. How much more clear in the use of the English language could it possibly be? They're In CONTACT.

Why would it need to specify that the distance is zero? There are probably hundreds of situations in the rulebook when basic understanding of the definition of words is deemed enough and things arnt spelt out multiple times with the same outcome.

 

See, I was taught that the basic definition of distance includes that if you have two different points, one on one, the other on the second base, the distance is not 0.

 

If the word contact implies otherwise I'm not sure if that's part of the basic understanding of an in part international readership.

 

That's why I would say it should be specified if it's supposed to be different.

 

 

@Trax

 

Yes, that's my point. I never wanted to question whether a model at 3" distance is within 3", only the exact distance after the push.

 

And I don't want to argue for arguments sake or to be right,  I wanted to voice my disagreement with the consensus, hoping to spark an official clarification, especially since I believe that designer's intent could go both ways (I'm way too lazy to check all relevant actions and then try to figure out which way makes more sense)

 

 

By the way, can anyone think of an action or ability that only works in base to base contact and is clearly labelled as range 0? That would should me up for good.

[AnythingBut]

See, I was taught that the basic definition of distance includes that if you have two different points, one on one, the other on the second base, the distance is not 0.

 

If the word contact implies otherwise I'm not sure if that's part of the basic understanding of an in part international readership.

 

That's why I would say it should be specified if it's supposed to be different.

 

The online Cambridge Dictionary entry for contact is as follows: "the fact of two people or things touching each other"

 

Its also written in the rule book that if you are 'at' a distance you are also 'within'.

 

I admit that sometimes the rules of malifaux are not quite so clear cut but this one is, and this thread has backed that up numerous times. If you feel the need to try and argue against it then im not here to stop you, just point out that you're wrong to help anyone else reading this thread with a genuine question. 

[mythicFOX]

<MOD HAT>

 

A reminder to keep things civil.

 

You don't have to agree but you do have to be nice to each other.

 

</MOD HAT>

[Al Shut]

Touching each other is also what the faq says about contact. But touching doesn't mean distance 0. For that two bases would have to actually share a common point. That's what I would call overlapping (in one single point). Which is something models aren't allowed to do and that is different from touching (see the multiple use of the term 'touching but not overlapping' in the rules)

 

 

I hope I'm civil enough, I certainly try to keep some of my less civil thoughts for myself and as the sole representative of one site of the argument I don't have any civility complains.

[Thaarup]

Touching each other is also what the faq says about contact. But touching doesn't mean distance 0. For that two bases would have to actually share a common point. That's what I would call overlapping (in one single point). Which is something models aren't allowed to do and that is different from touching (see the multiple use of the term 'touching but not overlapping' in the rules)

 

 

I hope I'm civil enough, I certainly try to keep some of my less civil thoughts for myself and as the sole representative of one site of the argument I don't have any civility complains.

 

Just to be sure I understand you...If you are touching something with you finger (say an apple) you are saying that you are at a distance to that object?

[Al Shut]

Technically,  yes.

 

An incredible small distance, but a distance greater than zero because my finger and the apple don't share the same space.

[Trax]

Now we're getting silly. Like, seriously.

 

As per your definition of "contact", there is no contact in the world of miniature gaming, then.

 

If one of your models gets struck by Barbaros' Cyclone Crush and gets thrown against a wall that's 2" behind its back, do you argue that it doesn't get the Slow condition since it can't end up in contact with the wall, because the model and the wall "don't share the same space"? With your reasoning, this ability could never procc, since no model is in contact with anything ever. I mean, like, technically.

 

Next think of the Lure action and what the FAQ says about it: It's not allowed to move a model with Lure if the Lurer and the target are already in base contact. Why would that be, if there was any kind of distance between them?

 

And that's it, I'm at my wits' end, I can't find any more arguments for someone who defines contact as "some small distance between two things". We're playing with miniatures here, not with abstract geometric figures and shapes.

[Al Shut]

I never said that there's no such thing as a contact, I said that in a situation that you, me and everyone else here would define as contact or touching, there's still an infinitesimal small distance between the models.

 

 

 We're playing with miniatures here, not with abstract geometric figures and shapes.

 

And that's exactly why I think there's no distance 0.

[Thaarup]

Technically,  yes.

 

An incredible small distance, but a distance greater than zero because my finger and the apple don't share the same space.

So how are you feeling the texture of the apple if you are at a distance to it?

[dgraz]

I was curious why this thread was still going on. I'm glad I checked back....the entertainment value was worth it.

[decker_cky]

If the models are touching, we can all agree they don't occupy the same space. However, what matters is the space between them, which is 0, since they're touching. 

[Al Shut]

So how are you feeling the texture of the apple if you are at a distance to it?

 

Repulsive force? I never paid that much attention in physics class.

 

 

I don't want to be repetitive but I hope this is more structured and clearer than what I've said before, my point broke up in three easy steps.

 

 

1) In order to determine the distance between two models in Malifaux you take two points, one the base of the first model, one on the base of the second model.

 

2) Even when the two bases are in contact, i.e. touching, those two points are not the same but two different points.

 

3) The distance between two points that are not the same is always greater than 0. It's in the definition of distance.

[mythicFOX]

<MOD HAT>

 

Rude post deleted.

 

THE NEXT PERSON WHO IS RUDE TO SOMEONE IN HERE IS GETTING SANCTIONED

 

I'm having a good week, don't make me end it on a down note.

 

</MOD HAT>

[Trax]

I never said that there's no such thing as a contact, I said that in a situation that you, me and everyone else here would define as contact or touching, there's still an infinitesimal small distance between the models.

 

Trax, on 15 Aug 2014 - 5:17 PM, said:

 

 We're playing with miniatures here, not with abstract geometric figures and shapes.

 

 

And that's exactly why I think there's no distance 0.

 

The point is, the miniatures are an abstraction of the mathematical ideal. We cannot play with distances of zero, that's why we play *as if they were* zero. Contact means the smallest possible distance between two things. The smallest possible distance is not an infinitesimal small amount, but 0 . Without this approximation, there's no base contact by your definition. For the purpose of gaming, contact *has* to be distance 0, and 3" *has* to be 3" (and not 3" + infinitesimal small something), otherwise you end up with Zeno's paradox of Achilles and the tortoise.

 

I already feel like I took the greatest troll-bait ever, but it's too late now...

[decker_cky]

There's only one point that matters - the point of contact. Having that point is a necessary precondition to base to base contact. The distance from one point to itself is zero. 

[Al Shut]

The point is, the miniatures are an abstraction of the mathematical ideal. We cannot play with distances of zero, that's why we play *as if they were* zero.

 

If that's the case I'd say a mention of that in the rules would be really helpful.

 

But hat I didn't quite understand about your post is the "need" for the distance to be zero. The only situation I can think of right now where the distance of two models in contact plays any role is the one presented above, trying to figure out the distance after a push without measuring by adding the push distance to the original distance at contact. Which works fine for both interpretations only with different results.

 

What actual game situations would I be breaking with an base to base contact distance of greater than 0. Just to be clear again the distance I'm talking about is purely theoretical, I use the same standards as to whether or not something is in contact as anyone  else and I doubt we would ever disagree about such issues if we would ever play a game.

[dgraz]

 

What actual game situations would I be breaking with an base to base contact distance of greater than 0. Just to be clear again the distance I'm talking about is purely theoretical, I use the same standards as to whether or not something is in contact as anyone  else and I doubt we would ever disagree about such issues if we would ever play a game.

Because every time a rule says 'place in base contact' you wouldn't be able to. Dropping Scheme Markers would be impossible. If there's distance between, then it isn't in contact.

[Cunning]

While in the Physics world Al Shut is correct.  

In everyday life if things are touching then the shortest distance between them is 0.

 

If were wanting to be exactly exact we could never play the game as I can guarantee you always get your distances slightly wrong.  But we dont, so you dont.

[Al Shut]

Because every time a rule says 'place in base contact' you wouldn't be able to. Dropping Scheme Markers would be impossible. If there's distance between, then it isn't in contact.

 

But I am able to. II can place a marker that is touching the base, we both would agree that they are in contact, only that I would say, if the issue should ever arise, that the distance is greater than 0 while you would say that it is 0.

 

 

 

It just hit me that this isn't exactly a rules question, obeying the rules completely would mean to just measuring the distance and than argue if the result is exactly 3 or 3.1 if you feel like it. But of course if the measurement brings a result that you feel is theoretically impossible it's kind of dissatisfying.