Dead Doxy and Rotten Belle movement actions, Flight vs. Incorporeal vs. Hazardous Terrain

[benjoewoo]

Dead Doxy & Rotten Belle Question

 

For Dead Doxy, her Take the Lead action results in the dead doxy pushing towards the target model--does this mean that from start to finish Dead Doxy just has to be closer, i.e. she can take a longer route and move around stuff so long as she's closer by the end of the push, or must she move straight line towards the model? 

 

Also, as a result of Dead Doxy's Take the Lead, can either Dead Doxy or the targeted model change directions mid push?

 

I ask about the path Dead Doxy has to take as a result of Take the Lead because on Rotten Belle's stat card for Lure, it specifically mentions that the model must end the move as close to the casting Rotten Belle as possible.

 

I saw this thread about pushing here: http://wyrd-games.net/community/topic/101232-push-towards-and-push-directly-towards/.

 

That thread discusses push only, and I can't tell if it's in reference to 2E or 1.5E. Is the push "no distinction" status still the same?

 

Does Rotten Belle's lure work differently because it says move instead of push?

 

 

 

Flight vs. Incorporeal vs. Hazardous Terrain Questions

 

In a recent game I played, a player attempted to move a flying model into a hazardous terrain area. I pointed out that the model would take damage, which could potentially kill the model. The model owner countered that Flight allows models to ignore terrain when moving, and the rules manual references that when models enter it, are pushed, moved, or placed in it--the model owner argued that because the model ignored terrain, and hazardous terrain is a terrain, it would not have to take damage on that turn. I argued that even if the entry was ignored, once the model stopped on top of hazardous terrain, it would necessarily take damage because it's stopped flying at that point.

 

How does this resolve? What if the model just flew over the hazardous terrain to turn a corner but ended the Wk action outside of hazardous terrain?

 

During a push, do flying models ignore terrain? I.e. can they be pushed to the tops of buildings? There's no index entry for flight and I can't seem to find a reference.

 

I found an older thread regarding flight and incorporeal. But, it seems to have been posted on during 1.5E, so I am unsure if that information is still good.

 

For Incorporeal, would a pushed Incorporeal model be pushed into a building or on top of a building if pushed by an enemy model? Who chooses, assuming going base to base with the building doesn't require stopping the push? 

 

What would happen if a flying model was pushed into a building? Could it be pushed on top during that or would it stop once it went into base to base contact with the building?

[Fetid Strumpet]

Towards and Directly towards are synonymous in this edition. The Doxy must push center to center directly towards the target model, with no deviations in the movement. She may not move around things, change direction mid push, and if even the tiniest corner of an impassible terrain or model gets in the way she stops. The target can be pushed in any direction, but it is still a push so once you nominate the direction the same rules apply. The Belle's ability is a move, not a push.

 

For the flying question. The model only ignores terrain while moving. If it stops it is no longer moving and no longer gets to ignore terrain. If the model moves into the terrain and lands in between moving again with a second AP they would take damage. If they flew over it but never stop inside it, they would not take damage because they were still moving so they would ignore it.

 

Page 43 of the big rule book under pushes. Pushes are not considered a normal move and do not count as a move for rules purposes. Push a flying model and it does not get the benefits of it's flight rule. One of the Reasons Wings of Darkness is slightly less good for Pandora as most of her movement comes from pushes.

 

Again for incorporeal, Pushes do not count as a move for rules purposes. Incorporeal models only get their benefit while moving, pushes do not count as movement for rules purposes, so no you cannot push an incorporeal model thorough a wall into a building. No you cannot push a model up onto of a building.

 

A flying model pushed into base contact with a building would instantly stop as soon as it contacted the edge of the building.

[benjoewoo]

If Rotten Belle Lured an incoporeal model, would it in theory drag the incorporeal model off the ledge, provided sufficient Wk stat to get up a building and jump off? Rotten Belle's Lure says move, not push, so would an Incorporal model ignore terrain then? If the terrain was a roofed building, could the Belle owner choose to have the incorporeal model go no the roof instead of through the wall, since distance wise it would be the same and allow for the belle to potentially cause the incorporeal model to take fall damage?

 

Largely the same example with a flying model, during the lure move, would the flying model ignore the Ht of the terrain in moving towards the rotten belle? Once it reached an edge, it jump off, but take no damage, right?

[Fetid Strumpet]

Actually I have to retract my opinion on incorporeal after re reading it. Incorporeal works during pushes specifically because it says it does.

As for your belle question, I don't see how the Los would work, but assuming the belle had Los to a model on the other side of the building , maybe.

You, nor your opponent do not get to control the move of a belle's lure. When you lure a model from its starting position there is exactly 1 spot in the board that is as close as the model can possibly get to the belle with its move. That is where the model moves. So if the model moving up to the top of the building, which don't forget costs movement to move vertically, and the moving off it got it closer to the belle then it could possibly get by any other movement, like going around it instead, then yes you could do that.

Yes the incorporeal model would walk through the building if it got it closer, you don't get to chose what it does, whichever gets it closer is what it does.

In your roof example, no, the distance isn't the same. Here is one of the weird rules. an incorporeal model can move through the building, but if you want to land on the roof, you need to spend movement moving vertically. There might be an instance where going up would get you closer then through, but I can't think of one.

[benjoewoo]

Ok, I was thinking that if you had LoS past a corner of the building, such that both the target and the belle's bases could have a line drawn just outside the corner of a building, but is otherwise blocked by the corner of the building, you could still cast the lure. Assuming the target had flying, it wouldn't need to move vertically, unlike an incorporeal model, so a straight line movement towards the belle would take it over the building--this won't damage the flying unit but you could achieve the effect.

 

Where can I read the part about push and incorporeal? Is it in the rules manual or only in the big book?

[Fetid Strumpet]

On any model which has incorporeal on it's card. The cards are printed in the BRB. If you have a Hanged, or a Graveyard Spirit it would be on them. Onryo, Chiaki, the Ikiryo, Datsue-Ba, and Seishin are also all incorporeal.

 

In you example if you have Line of sight you can cast the lure, but, and I could be picturing it wrong, my assumption is that in most cases the model would just walk around the building, or possibly through it, or over it, but I don't think in any case climbing or moving up the building would get you closer than any of the other options.

 

Also remember a few things A flying model can fly past a building and just totally ignore it. If it wants to land on the roof it has to spend movement moving vertically, and it can't just ignore walls, to some extent if the building has the enclosed trait.

[benjoewoo]

I'm a bit confused by that last comment regarding flying having to move vertically for landing on top of a building. I thought that was one of the exact things it avoids?

 

In my example, the model with flying wouldn't climb, it would fly. But, any model without flight would just walk around. 

 

I was re-reading Incorporeal on a copy of The Hanged, and I also have to ask how incorporeal would need to spend Wk moving vertically to the top of a building? I'm not sure I get it--is it because even though they can ignore terrain, they don't ignore that the climbable portion of a building counts as area they have to walk, which they turn into a normal terrain vs. the climbable type requiring 2" of walk for 1" of movement?

 

I guess I don't quite understand, because Incorporeal explicitly ignores terrain. So, provided you had LoS, shouldn't it go onto the roof of a building? E.g. your 2" model is on a Ht 5 building that overlooks a Ht 3 building and 4" behind the Ht 3 building is the target 2" model you're luring. Obviously for the example, the total distance from where the luring model is to the target model would have to be legal for range purposes, so just assume a fairly thin building  between the two models with minimal distance between the buildings so that a model's base could fit between them.

[Fetid Strumpet]

From the official FAQ:

Q: A model with the Incorporeal Ability ignores terrain when it moves. If it is on the ground floor of a building which is 10” tall, can it end its move on top of the building, even if its Wk stat is less than 10, since it ignores the building while moving? Same question for a model with Flight in regards to vertical terrain.

A: No. Although measurements in Malifaux are generally made from a top down view, vertical distances are measured while moving a model (see pg. 42 of the rulebook, Movement & Terrain). If the model with Incorporeal ends its move on top of the 10” tall building, it would have moved 10” and, unless it has a Wk of 10 or greater, this is not a legal move. However, if the Incorporeal model has a sufficient Wk stat to complete the move, it would be able to end the move on top of the terrain, ignoring the usual rules for climbing, etc. Flight works similarly, except in the case of Enclosed terrain (see Enclosed terrain, rulebook pg. 60).

[daniello_s]

 

Again for incorporeal, Pushes do not count as a move for rules purposes. Incorporeal models only get their benefit while moving, pushes do not count as movement for rules purposes, so no you cannot push an incorporeal model thorough a wall into a building. No you cannot push a model up onto of a building.

 

 

Not sure about this Incorporeal and push.

 

'Incorporeal: This model ignores, and is ignored by, other models and terrain during any movement or push...'

 

That means you can push Incorporeal model through the wall and shouldn't be affected by hazardous terrain as the terrain ignores such models.

[Dirial]

Correct. Fetid retracted his comments about Incorporeal and Push.

[benjoewoo]

Ok, makes sense. So then for a model with flight, even if it wanted to fly over and past a building, it would have to factor in the vertical distance going up the building, but not the vertical distance going down?

 

And as a question on the FAQ, does that mean that an incorporeal model could in theory on its own activation go partway up the building and rest there before walking again, but a lure could not achieve the same effect?

[Fetid Strumpet]

Incorrect. If the model had sufficient movement to move past the building in one move it would not have to figure the vertical distance at all. It is only if it wants to, or has to, land on top of the building that the model would have to spend movement going vertical. It's just a gimmick of the rules, rather than making a narrative sense.

 

So for example Consider the Valedictorian. The Valedictorian has flight with a move of 6". If you have the Valedictorian in Base to Base contact with a building 4" wide in the direction she is moving. Assume the building spans the width of the board, like a wall, and that all movement in this example is a straight line forward, just to make the example more clear.  She could fly completely over the building to the other side, just barely (remember the entirety of her base has to pass over the building), so she can do so. The height of the building is irrelevant. She did not attempt to go over the building, she just ignored it, because that's what flight does.

 

(Note: She could not fly through the walls and into the room on the ground level just on the other side of the wall, unless the building did not have the enclosed trait, which we will assume it does.)

 

Now, if we assume that instead of being 4" wide the building is 5" wide, she could not directly fly over it in one move. In such a case the height of the building now becomes relevant. Because she cannot pass over the building in one move, if she wants to get past it she must land on top of the building with her first move, before moving off the building with her second.

 

So, because she is on a 50mm base, and 50mm is 1.969" we will just round her base to being 2" wide. So she will need to move 2" forward, plus the height of the building in vertical inches to land on the roof. So if the building was 4" tall she could with 1 move land on top of the building with the back edge of her base in contact with the back edge of the building. She could then, indeed, fly forward with her second AP and just ignore the vertical distance down.

 

If the building was taller than 4" she could not land on top of it in one move. She would have to fly as many inches upward as she could and then cling on to the side of the building, assuming the building has the climbable trait. (Note: climbing buildings and hanging in mid air are addressed in the FAQ. However this is probably one of the most house ruled aspects of Malifaux, and it would be a good idea to ask how a new group treats climbable buildings if you are playing outside your own meta.) She could then continue her move with her second move.

 

However if the building did not have the climbable trait, and it was 5" or more tall, as well as being more than 4" wide in the direction she wished to travel, the building would effectively act as a wall that she could not pass, again assuming there were no way around it.

 

I know that is not likely to happen, but I hope the visual construct I've described helps.

[Guy in Suit]

Great write up Fetid - This is  always confusing for players, even veteran.  Consider your example stolen. 

[benjoewoo]

It makes a lot more sense now for flying. 

 

Could you please clarify the incorporeal question I posted as well? I'm not sure how I could apply the flying example to incorporeal models potentially receiving different treatment on an AP Wk vs. a lure that causes a move equal to Wk.

 

Also, for purposes of the move then for a flying model, you could only go onto the building if the back most portion of the base was at least at the edge of the building, but not over. 

 

What about falling off? Do you only fall off if the back most portion of the base would go off, or if any part of the base begins to over hand the edge?

 

I don't see a clear indication in the rules manual on pg. 44, which discusses models taking damage if they fall more than 2".

[Myth]

For the flying question. The model only ignores terrain while moving. If it stops it is no longer moving and no longer gets to ignore terrain.

 

Right, but hazardous terrain only deals damage at certain times. My understanding is that a flying model can land safely in hazardous terrain (since it ignores the terrain while moving, which is when the terrain deals damage.) However, hazardous terrain also deals damage when models start their activation in it, and so the flying model would still be affected by that on their next activation.

 

Fetid Strumpet, on 10 Jul 2015 - 12:59 PM, said:

So, because she is on a 50mm base, and 50mm is 1.969" we will just round her base to being 2" wide. So she will need to move 2" forward, plus the height of the building in vertical inches to land on the roof. So if the building was 4" tall she could with 1 move land on top of the building with the back edge of her base in contact with the back edge of the building. She could then, indeed, fly forward with her second AP and just ignore the vertical distance down.

 

Here's a question - is there any reason why a flying model can't move diagonally when trying to reach the top of the building? I had thought I had heard that they could (since that is also how LoS is measured when dealing with elevation), but can't find anything in the rules that makes it clear either way.

[Myyrä]

Here's a question - is there any reason why a flying model can't move diagonally when trying to reach the top of the building? I had thought I had heard that they could (since that is also how LoS is measured when dealing with elevation), but can't find anything in the rules that makes it clear either way.

You can't find it because there is absolutely nothing in the rules about how to handle Flight and changing elevations. Only thing we have is a somewhat unclear FAQ entry. I kinda wish this could be addressed properly in some later FAQ as an errata. It doesn't seem like it could cause further problems down the line...

[Fetid Strumpet]

I would argue no you can't. All the rules for movement, and the FAQ entry specifically relate to orthogonal movement, horizontal and diagonal. The fact that the rules do not give you permission to move diagonally mean, to me at least, that you can't. 

[sharpobjects]

You can't find it because there is absolutely nothing in the rules about how to handle Flight and changing elevations. Only thing we have is a somewhat unclear FAQ entry. I kinda wish this could be addressed properly in some later FAQ as an errata. It doesn't seem like it could cause further problems down the line...

 

 

That would be called M3E

[Myyrä]

That would be called M3E

 

I would imagine that would involve a lot more than just clarifying the movement of flying and incorporeal models.

[zFiend]

I would imagine that would involve a lot more than just clarifying the movement of flying and incorporeal models.

Well hopefully yes. But hopefully it's not coming out before all the waves are finished for m2e.

[moorhed]

Hi, I was looking for the answer in this tread without success.

I have liitle bit different question:

Can be Incorporeal Model be hurt by Hazardous Terrain?

From the rules is seems YES, which is guess because of rules, but it was not meant to be possible.

Incorporeal says - ignore terraind DURING any movement or push.

And Hazardous Terrain: deals damage to models that Activate while within it, or enter it (if they are Pushed, Moved or Placed within the terrain).

So, incorporeal ignore Haz.terrain during move/push, but when starts activation while standing in, it gets damage. I feel that this is wrong.

 

[Adran]

Yes, both Flight and Incorporial are subject to Hazadous terrain when they activate in it. (But not during their movement)

It isn't wrong. There are some models that are immune to hazadous terrain. If they wanted incorporial models to always be safe from hazadous terrain, then they would have put it on the rule. 

From a fluff stand point, the models have to have enough corporeality to interact with things, so whilst they can ignore somethings, they can still be hurt by physical things. 

[Artiee]

You can think of them moving as the Twins in Matrix does if that helps.

[moorhed]

Yes, both Flight and Incorporial are subject to Hazadous terrain when they activate in it. (But not during their movement)

It isn't wrong. There are some models that are immune to hazadous terrain. If they wanted incorporial models to always be safe from hazadous terrain, then they would have put it on the rule. 

From a fluff stand point, the models have to have enough corporeality to interact with things, so whilst they can ignore somethings, they can still be hurt by physical things. 

Hey, that is good explenation. Thank you, I am satisfied with the rule.

[lusciousmccabe]

It may be a good explanation, but it has to lose some point for referencing such a tragically disappointing film. 

[Adran]

It may be a good explanation, but it has to lose some point for referencing such a tragically disappointing film. 

Hey. My quote mentioned no films! I want my points back.