Ht and Melee range

[scarlett fever]

So I think I must have been playing this wrong.

 

I was sure I read a thread in the forums which stated that melee range was measured from the base of the model and that Ht difference between the model and the target had to be taken into account.

For example, Misaki is next to a Ht 2 building her base touching the base of the building. Misaki's melee range is 2", it must take into account the Ht of the building, Nekima standing on top of the building with her base at the edge of the buidling is within Misaki's melee range. However if Nekima is 1/2" back from the edge there is no way Misaki can engage it.

 

However in the recent thread on Aura'a and Ht (which I had also been playing wrong, counting the aura as a cylindrical volume with height equal to the models Ht) Justin says;

 

"All measurements in Malifaux are made from a top down view, this is regardless of the Ht of the objects being measured to/from.

 

The Ht stat of a model does not affect whether it is within range of another model, since the measurements are done top down."

 

As one of my fellow players pointed out this would mean that melee range is uneffected by Ht. So in the above example as long as Misaki's target is within 2" of her from a top down view it's within her melee range. However if this is the case what happens if the target is on a Ht 3 building? Or if Misaki is on the Ht 2 building and her target is a Ht 1 Bert Jebsen at the bottom?

 

 

 

[Bengt]

Engagement Elevation box, p44. Add the elevation difference unless the lower models Ht is greater than elevation difference.

[Ausplosions]

Determining range for auras and pulses is not determining range for melee. Different mechanic, different thread, different rule, different outcome.

You add the Ht difference to the horizontal distance unless the model on the lower elevation is taller than the elevation the higher model is standing on.

[The Godlyness]

Do you have that rule on copy paste Ausplosions? I have seen you say that before. A few times.

[scarlett fever]

Oh Duh, thanks guys, I should have spotted that.

[Marat]

I need to ask to be sure:

 

1) Model A standing at edge of HT2 terrain directly bellow is model B with Ml reach 2" = model B can attack model A

2) Model A standing at 1/2" away from edge of HT2 terrain directly bellow is model B with Ml reach 3" = model B can attack model A

3) Model A standing at 1/2" away from edge of HT2 terrain directly bellow is model B with Ml reach 2" = model B can't attack model A

4) Model A standing at edge of HT2 terrain directly bellow is model B (HT2). Model A has a Ml reach 1" = Model A can't attack model B

 

?

[SpiralngCadavr]

"edge" and "below"

 

I think 1 & 2 are correct and 3 &4 aren't, though I'm having a little trouble understanding what you mea.

 

Models are cylinders of their height and base width. Add the horizontal and vertical distances between the nearest point on them to their target. If the total equal to or less than their melee range, they have range to it. 

[Myyrä]

"edge"

 

I think those are correct except the last.

 

Models are cylinders of their height. Add the horizontal and vertical distances between the nearest point on them and their target. If it's equal to or less than their melee range, they have range to it.

Wrong. Ht does not matter unless the lower model has Ht greater than the terrain the higher model is standing on.

Marat got everything right. (Assuming model B is always Ht 2.)

[SpiralngCadavr]

Hmm. Now I'm confused.

 

So, if I'm reading the callout correctly, a melee range 1 model can never attack/engage a model on elevation equal to the attacker's height?

[Myyrä]

Hmm. Now I'm confused.

 

So, if I'm reading the callout correctly, a melee range 1 model can never attack/engage a model on elevation equal to the attacker's height?

If by attacker you mean the lower model and by elevation you mean something more than Ht 1, then you are correct.

[SpiralngCadavr]

Yep, I did. Thanks.

 

Well, that's a confusing rule, then. I think I may have played it wrong once or twice, but usually I've played with low enough terrain that I don't think it would have mattered or high enough that it was deemed impassible, for balance. Good to know the correct way, though.

[StuffedKiwi]

Yeah, as I understand the rule, a crucial piece of information is actually missing from Marat's post, which is the Ht of model B. If Model B is height 3, then you can ignore the elevation difference entirely, in determining the engagement range of both A and B; if Model B is Ht 1 or 2, then you will need to include the 2 inch vertical height difference in determining the engagement range of both Model A and Model B, in relation to each other. In other regards, Myyra is (as far as I know) right.