Severe Terrain

[scarlett fever]

Just moved cities (and therefore playgroups) and came across a difference in playing movement through Severe Terrain.

It's not important how its played (and in fact it took 2 games before I noticed we were playing it differently) but I'd be curious to know how other groups play it.

 

I've always played that whilst any part of the base of your model is within Severe terrain your movement cost is doubled.

My opponent played that once you enter Severe terrain your movement cost is doubled, however as soon as your base contacts open terrain you move full again.

 

Be curious to know how other groups play and if there is any consensus.

[Bengt]

Of course normal terrain is a thing. If you are walking on a grassy surface that in no way impedes or damages you, you are walking on normal terrain.

 

However, I suppose it would be more accurate to refer to it as "normal unmodified play surface" or, perhaps, "unmodified play surface."

Yeah, "normal unmodified play surface" (or NUPS ) is a thing, but it isn't terrain as the game defines terrain. I think it's quite clear from page 60-61 that from a rules perspective only stuff that creates some kind of exception from the NUPS are considered terrain.

[Math Mathonwy]

Yeah, "normal unmodified play surface" (or NUPS ) is a thing, but it isn't terrain as the game defines terrain. I think it's quite clear from page 60-61 that from a rules perspective only stuff that creates some kind of exception from the NUPS are considered terrain.

But I don't think that it matters even. A model can occupy two different forms of terrain if it's base overlaps both (e.g. right next to the severe terrain there is non-severe hazardous terrain: the model would be affected by both). So both NUPS and severe terrain and then it is affected by both (so moves at half speed since that's what severe does - NUPS doesn't do anything).

[Ausplosions]

Why are we even arguing some guys abstract "leading edge" rule that he has just made up? 

 

It is not in the rules, is not supported by any actual rules based fact, and is not at all how games work. You can't just make up your own interpretations of how a game's movement rules work. 

[Myyrä]

Why are we even arguing some guys abstract "leading edge" rule that he has just made up? 

 

It is not in the rules, is not supported by any actual rules based fact, and is not at all how games work. You can't just make up your own interpretations of how a game's movement rules work.

Why do I bother discussing anything in the rules forum, when I'm always right?

[paradoxstorm]

Why are we even arguing some guys abstract "leading edge" rule that he has just made up? 

 

It is not in the rules, is not supported by any actual rules based fact, and is not at all how games work. You can't just make up your own interpretations of how a game's movement rules work. 

 

Pg 44 small rule book:  " To move a model measure from the point of its base closest to the direction it will be moving.  Determine the distance the model will be moving, and then move the model that distance, ensuring no part of the model moves further than that distance."

 

While I am using different language (leading edge) the rule is clearly there stating that the edge of the model closest to the direction of the movement is the point from which movement measurements begin and end ("...no part of the model moves further than that distance.")

 

It is that point on the model's base that is used to define movement distance.  

 

Insisting that model movement begins with the point of the base closest to the direction it will be moving and ends with the point of the base furthest from the direction the model is moving is not playing by the rules.

[paradoxstorm]

The model enters the terrain when a part of its base gets inside the terrain. The model leaves the terrain when none of its base is inside the terrain. Seems perfectly straightforward, consistent and easy.

 

It is easy.  So what?  

 

It is just as easy to define one inch of movement in a similar fashion but everyone would agree that is cheating.

 

It is also just as easy to define entering and leaving severe terrain as I have done.  

 

If ease of interpretation is the goal how about "crossing a one inch wide strip of severe terrain has an added cost of 1" of walk?  That is way simpler than "crossing a one inch wide strip of terrain costs 2.2 inches of walk plus a 2.2 inch severe terrain cost."

[paradoxstorm]

No, there doesn't need to be an "official" ruling.

 

Really?  The fact that different play groups play the same set of rules differently is okay? 

 

I agree with the sentiment of everyone who has declared in one way or another that we have to play the game by the rules.   But as long as there is a genuine disagreement about what the rules actually mean, that cannot happen.  (And there is a genuine disagreement even if I am the only one foolish enough to bang my head against a wall trying to defend the interpretation I agree with.)

 

We are only playing the same game if the rules are interpreted to mean the same thing in all games played.  That is not the case now.  There are two different versions of the game Malifaux being played depending on the local interpretation of the impact of the severe terrain movement costs.  

 

I suppose if the groups who play by alternate interpretations never interact it wouldn't be a big deal, but they will.  In a tournament setting this disagreement has major implications for the game.  

 

A model with 4" walk preparing to walk twice and cross a 1" strip of severe terrain will move either 7" of total distance or 5.8" of total distance depending on which interpretation is in force--that has a major impact on game play.

 

As much as I disagree with the other interpretation I will play by that interpretation if there is a clear statement from Wyrd declaring that that interpretation is consistent with their intent.  Until then I will use the interpretation that makes sense to myself and the others in my playgroup.  

[Fetid Strumpet]

There are not two different versions being played. There are an almost infinite varity of MALIFAUX versions being played, because I don't know a single group that I have played with that interprets every rule exactly the same. The only time it 100% matters is if a rules interaction begins breaking the game, or at a tournament, and in such a situation if it is something you are concerned about it behooves you to ask the TO their interpretation before the tourney starts.

To my mind this isn't a situation where the rules interaction is breaking the game.

[Lucidicide]

We cannot, and will not, update the FAQ for every dispute that comes up. I don't know this will end up in the next FAQ or not, but that fact that two groups play differently does not mean there is an inherent issue in the rules. I've played with and spoken to a lot of people who play Malifaux, and there are a lot of things people do incorrectly. It is totally unfeasible to try to address them all, and there is a certain point that we've answered so many questions that they all become lost within the document and it becomes useless.

 

As to the issue at hand, I have always played it that any part of the base within severe slows you. The fact that you measure from the closest point to the closest point doesn't matter.

 

Pg 44 small rule book:  " To move a model measure from the point of its base closest to the direction it will be moving.  Determine the distance the model will be moving, and then move the model that distance, ensuring no part of the model moves further than that distance."

 

This statement doesn't make any mention of terrain, as terrain is modifying this. Severe costs twice as much movement to get through. I don't see why you would get to ignore part of your base on the movement. It begs questions like: how much of my base can I ignore? The "determine" here must account for terrain and other factors.

 

I'm mostly worried we're going to end up in Zeno's Paradox here.

[Nicodemic]

On pg 40 of the big book it defines "within"

"When an action states that an object must be within a distance, if any portion of that object's base is at that distance or closer it is considered within the stated distance."

Now this covers actions but it can be taken as the intention of the rules especially when you look at turf war etc. and how you score by having models within a area.

Someone better at this can take over...

[Nicodemic]

I would say so

[paradoxstorm]

While I disagree with Aaron's interpretation it is as close as we will get to an official  ruling.  I will play accordingly.  

[paradoxstorm]

We cannot, and will not, update the FAQ for every dispute that comes up. I don't know this will end up in the next FAQ or not, but that fact that two groups play differently does not mean there is an inherent issue in the rules. I've played with and spoken to a lot of people who play Malifaux, and there are a lot of things people do incorrectly. It is totally unfeasible to try to address them all, and there is a certain point that we've answered so many questions that they all become lost within the document and it becomes useless.

 

 

If people are playing Malifaux incorrectly because they haven't, or don't wish to read the rules that is on those people.

 

If people are playing Malifaux incorrectly because the rules are unclear/incomplete that's on Wyrd.

[paradoxstorm]

Original:  "Moving through severe terrain costs double the distance moved."

 

Revised:  "Moving while in base contact with through severe terrain costs double the distance moved."

[Adran]

Original:  "Moving through severe terrain costs double the distance moved."

 

Revised:  "Moving while in base contact with through severe terrain costs double the distance moved."

 

Doesn't actually work as you intend. I can be in base contact with severe terrain without being in severe terrain.

Its not easy to write a rule that can't be misunderstood. I think the original is clearer, and consistant with the other rules regarding if you are "in" something.

[Myyrä]

I think the best wording would be "moving within". It is actually used in the rulebook in at least one place: "Areas of terrain can effect movement which occurs within the terrain's base." (Shouldn't that be affect?)

[enderwiggin]

I believe by English rules it should be affect. I'm going out on a limb but most gaming companies don't really seem to have the entire rulesets proofed by English degree holders to the extent of eliminating every single screw up, hell one of the worst companies for it is a fully British English companies/locations with GW and I'd take Malifaux foibles over 40k fighting RAW any day of the year.

[paradoxstorm]

Doesn't actually work as you intend. I can be in base contact with severe terrain without being in severe terrain.

Its not easy to write a rule that can't be misunderstood. I think the original is clearer, and consistant with the other rules regarding if you are "in" something.

 

I am confused.  How can you be in base contact with severe terrain without being in severe terrain when everyone is telling me that any part of the base--even a single point--in contact with severe terrain puts the model in severe terrain?

 

I do agree it is hard to write any instruction set that cannot be misinterpreted.  Doesn't mean that alternate wordings should not be considered.  As I mention in the post below "through" is a poor word choice in this context because it has multiple valid interpretations.  

 

Unfortunately the rules on being "in" something vary somewhat.   For pulses, auras, engagement and the like any part of the base is sufficient.

 

But this differs for cover.  Severe terrain that also provides soft cover only provides that cover if LoS is broken.  Thus a model can be in severe terrain for movement purposes but not for LoS purposes of attacks.  

[paradoxstorm]

I believe by English rules it should be affect. I'm going out on a limb but most gaming companies don't really seem to have the entire rulesets proofed by English degree holders to the extent of eliminating every single screw up, hell one of the worst companies for it is a fully British English companies/locations with GW and I'd take Malifaux foibles over 40k fighting RAW any day of the year.

 

Proof readers are valuable.

 

The problem that I am seeing in this case is that "through" has so many alternate definitions (about 15 in the first dictionary I pulled off the shelf) that both interpretations are correct by some definition.  Perhaps a good proof reader would have picked up on that.  

[Myyrä]

Proof readers are valuable.

 

The problem that I am seeing in this case is that "through" has so many alternate definitions (about 15 in the first dictionary I pulled off the shelf) that both interpretations are correct by some definition.  Perhaps a good proof reader would have picked up on that.

How about you list the definitions here. I'm fairly confident almost all lead to same conclusion or can't possibly apply here. Then there is also the part that says that terrain can affect the movement that happens within it.

[Scott-S6]

I am confused.  How can you be in base contact with severe terrain without being in severe terrain when everyone is telling me that any part of the base--even a single point--in contact with severe terrain puts the model in severe terrain?

Because "in base contact" and "within" mean different things.

 

Two models with bases touching are in base contact but one is not within the base of the other one.

 

No-one has said that being in contact with severe terrain means that movement is impeded - being "within" (i.e. a portion of base overlap, however small) does.

[Justin]

Proof readers are valuable.

 

The problem that I am seeing in this case is that "through" has so many alternate definitions (about 15 in the first dictionary I pulled off the shelf) that both interpretations are correct by some definition.  Perhaps a good proof reader would have picked up on that.  

 

Well, we had a few thousand of them with the open beta. Not to mention our actual proofreaders.

 

There does come a point, where the answer to a question is generally understood and the argument either becomes semantic or becomes more about how people think the rules *should* have been written, rather than asking questions which legitimately confuse them. I believe we are at that point, so locking this thread.

 

If you or someone else is still legitimately confused about how this works, feel free to start a new one.