Flight and moving from building to building

[Lakshman]

I'd like to ask how does flight work when moving from a Ht3 terrain to another Ht3 terrain. We've assumed so far in our community that since nothing indicates it does not fall as soon as it moves of the terrain, it has to fall and then fly up to another terrain. However, the Enclosed terrain trait contains the following example:

"A Nephilim may fly over a building or take flight from its rooftop, but may not teleport through the wall".

Does that simply mean it can fly down from the rooftop, or does it refer to flying from one terrain to another without having to fall?

Edited October 20, 2015 by Lakshman
EDIT: Tags.

[Dogmantra]

 

I think you're not taking the context of either of those two statements.

1) "Models which fall" could also be interpreted to mean that some models don't fall, such as flying models. This is probably not what they meant, but just pointing out that it's not clear.

2) "Vertical distances are measured while moving a model" - This is where I think you're not on the right track. If this was literal, then a model could not fly over a 50" building. You'd have to measure the 50" up, then the 50" down in that case. But we already both agree that the rules allow a flying model to fly from one side of a 50" building to the other side if they have enough move to cover the horizontal distance.

1. Flying models do fall as any other model does. The only difference is that they ignore falling damage.

2. Yes, this is literal, you do have to measure vertical distances when moving. However, you can ignore terrain when flying. There is no contradiction here. When on top of a building, you are clearly not ignoring the terrain and so should take vertical distance into account.

[Kadeton]

I don't think there's much to go on, here. As far as I can tell, there's not even a rule which tells us the circumstances in which models fall. Here's the entirety of the falling rules:

Models moving off elevations and falling suffer no damage if the fall was 2” or less. If the fall was more than 2” the fall deals 1 damage per 1”, or fraction thereof, fallen. (Core Rulebook, p.42)

What about models moving off elevations and not falling? The rules don't cover that.

Common sense tells us that models fall when they move off solid objects, and the rules seem to rely on that. Common sense also tells us that flying creatures don't fall when they take flight.

Personally, I would be happy to let an opponent fly from a Ht 3 building to a Ht 4 building at the cost of 1" of movement.

Also, do remember that FAQ answers cannot be extrapolated, and that a push is not the same as a move.

[Philosfr]

 2. Yes, this is literal, you do have to measure vertical distances when moving. However, you can ignore terrain when flying. There is no contradiction here. When on top of a building, you are clearly not ignoring the terrain and so should take vertical distance into account.

I don't think we're saying the same thing when we're talking about this. I agree with you that you have to measure vertical distances when you're moving when you take into account your final position. If you end on top of a 9" ledge and you started on a 3" ledge, you would need to fly "up" 6", plus whatever X-Y movement you made.

You do not have to fly "up" 2" to get over a wall and then "down" 2" to get down the other side of the wall however. We're all agreed here.

If you don't have to fly "up" to get over a vertical distance and then "down" to land on the other side, why do you have to fall "down" and the fly "up" to ignore a negative vertical distance? It's the same concept, we're just flipping the "up/down" around here.

Heck, the concept of a flying model flying during it's move already is kind of crazy. I fly up to a 9" building during my first turn. Everyone on the ground is out of my reach. My next turn I can choose to "fall" 9 inches for free. You could use this to get into engagement without "walking", since you would walk forward 1", then fall 9". There's very weird rules interactions if you really tried to manipulate the whole "flying models fall" rule. Not saying it's common or easy, but it would be much cleaner for all the rules if a flying model didn't "fall" during their move action (and needed to land at the end of the move action). Then a model that's 9" up would actually need to fly 9" to reach the ground, instead of falling and not suffering damage.

[Fetid Strumpet]

Agreed. When you are moving with flight you are ignoring terrain. So while moving there is no going down and then back up if you end on the same or lower elevation than when you started. 

[solkan]

The FaQ says models that fall, fall immediately. There's really no way around this unless we want to say that flying models don't fall.

The FAQ for pushes says that the model falls immediately.  Pushing isn't movement using flight.

 

[Adran]

 Flying models fall, there's nothing in the rules that makes them ignore that.

8) 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).

 Flying models don't ignore terrain if they want to end up on top of terrain. You only ignore terrain if you don't end up in it. (e.g. flying models still have take damage from hazardous terrain if they land in it.) So what the model has to do in this case is fall down (ignoring falling damage), move to the edge of the building, and then fly up.

Sorry for taking this on a slight tangent.  I disagree on models with flying taking hazadous terrain damage . They will do so if they activate in it, but since they ignore it during a move, they won't take it whilst entering it. 

 

[Ludvig]

I don't think there's much to go on, here. As far as I can tell, there's not even a rule which tells us the circumstances in which models fall. Here's the entirety of the falling rules:

Models moving off elevations and falling suffer no damage if the fall was 2” or less. If the fall was more than 2” the fall deals 1 damage per 1”, or fraction thereof, fallen. (Core Rulebook, p.42)

What about models moving off elevations and not falling? The rules don't cover that.

Common sense tells us that models fall when they move off solid objects, and the rules seem to rely on that. Common sense also tells us that flying creatures don't fall when they take flight.

Personally, I would be happy to let an opponent fly from a Ht 3 building to a Ht 4 building at the cost of 1" of movement.

Also, do remember that FAQ answers cannot be extrapolated, and that a push is not the same as a move.

The rules tell us ALL models fall, they leave no room for models moving off elevation without falling. That is not debatable or unclear. The possibility to not fall does not exist in the rules. There is no common sense on this. How we choose to visualize what a model has nothing to do with the game mechanics.

The flying rules do not mention the model NOT falling, therefore we must conclude that the flying rules conform with the base rules except in the specific ways mentioned. 

The falling rules could be a lot clearer on timing and interaction with flight. That is for the FaQ/Errata, this discussion is to answer: what do the rules, in thrir current form, say on this matter.

[Hagisman]

 

I think you're not taking the context of either of those two statements.

1) "Models which fall" could also be interpreted to mean that some models don't fall, such as flying models. This is probably not what they meant, but just pointing out that it's not clear.

2) "Vertical distances are measured while moving a model" - This is where I think you're not on the right track. If this was literal, then a model could not fly over a 50" building. You'd have to measure the 50" up, then the 50" down in that case. But we already both agree that the rules allow a flying model to fly from one side of a 50" building to the other side if they have enough move to cover the horizontal distance.

1. Flying models do fall as any other model does. The only difference is that they ignore falling damage.

2. Yes, this is literal, you do have to measure vertical distances when moving. However, you can ignore terrain when flying. There is no contradiction here. When on top of a building, you are clearly not ignoring the terrain and so should take vertical distance into account.

1. Only while moving. You can push a flying model off a building and they will still take fall damage.

[Fetid Strumpet]

You ignore terrain during your move. So if you can get from the roof of one building to another in 1 move you don't fall. If you would need to take a second walk action in between then as soon as you stop you fall.

the enclosed trait was added because before that trait a flying model could just go through walls because of how the flight ability is worded. 

With flight if if you can cross a building entirely in one move you don't have to spend any movement going up and over, because you are just ignoring the terrain. 

[Lakshman]

And if the destination terrain is higher, e.g. ht4, I would just need to spend additional 1" to fly to it from ht 3 terrain? (provided I can still do it in 1 AP of course)

And does it work the same for other models which ignore terrain, e.g. models with Incorporeal or charging Misaki?

Edited October 20, 2015 by Lakshman

[Dogmantra]

From my understanding of the rules, you would have to pay the cost to re-scale the next building in full.

A recent FAQ clarified that you could not push between two buildings without falling:

48) Q: If a model is pushed off of an edge high enough to necessitate a fall, does it fall immediately?
Could it be pushed far enough to reach another surface of equal height (assuming there was
such a surface)?
A: Models which fall, fall immediately. The model would be pushed off of the ledge and then immediately fall and
take any necessary falling damage upon reaching the ground. Then, if there is any distance left required by the push
(and the model is still in play), it will push the remaining distance. (9/1/15)

Obviously, models that fly don't take falling damage, and a walk is different from a push, but there is nothing saying that models with flying can't fall. I would say that they do fall as soon as they move off a building, just like any other model, since the only special interaction with falling is to take no falling damage.

However, I agree it is a little unclear. I would play it this way for consistency with the FAQ on pushes etc.

Edited October 20, 2015 by Dogmantra

[Ludvig]

I'm pretty sure it's been FaQed that you need to have sufficient movement to fly up to the height you are going for to land.

That and the fact that flying models ignore falling damage but no other aspects of falling means that you fall to ground level when leaving the first building and need sufficient movement to get back up.

Your group can of course house rule it otherwise.

[Philosfr]

I'm pretty sure it's been FaQed that you need to have sufficient movement to fly up to the height you are going for to land.

That and the fact that flying models ignore falling damage but no other aspects of falling means that you fall to ground level when leaving the first building and need sufficient movement to get back up.

Your group can of course house rule it otherwise.

I wasn't all that thrilled with the FAQ about pushes, though I can sorta understand it. I do agree that you need to count vertical distance if you want to land rather than just fly over/through.

But I really think it's a stretch to apply the FAQ on pushes to flying and if the trend is to do that, it feels like we need another FAQ to address this. Flying is flying. I could buy the pushes because not all pushes are the same. Some pushes represent a model getting thrown, others could be rolling them along the ground or something. Rather than have debate, they all fall, ok.

But flying? I'd find it extremely bizarre that you can completely ignore a 20" tall building because you have enough fly to get to the other side, but you couldn't ignore a 2" gap between two things...

[Paddywhack]

I don't have card in front of me, but doesn't Flight say during a Move? A push is not a move (SRB page 46) so being able to 'fly' during a Walk Action from one rooftop to the other (as stated above, in 1AP) and needing to fall if pushed from one to another is perfectly within the rules and the FAQ. Flight only affects the model during a move, which a Push is not so they cannot benefit from it. 

The FAQ already talks about flying from one height to another - the basic gist being if there is a difference from where the model starts and where it ends it must pay the vertical difference in inches. If you start on a HT3 terrain and end on a HT3 terrain in one move you should only be paying the horizontal distance.

If the wording on Flight is different though then just ignore this post  

[Ludvig]

I don't have card in front of me, but doesn't Flight say during a Move? A push is not a move (SRB page 46) so being able to 'fly' during a Walk Action from one rooftop to the other (as stated above, in 1AP) and needing to fall if pushed from one to another is perfectly within the rules and the FAQ. Flight only affects the model during a move, which a Push is not so they cannot benefit from it. 

The FAQ already talks about flying from one height to another - the basic gist being if there is a difference from where the model starts and where it ends it must pay the vertical difference in inches. If you start on a HT3 terrain and end on a HT3 terrain in one move you should only be paying the horizontal distance.

If the wording on Flight is different though then just ignore this post  

Please don't involve pushes in this discussion. There was a massive thread on pushes last month.  You are right in the statement that flying doesn't work during pushes however so you can for example push a flyer of a tall building to kill it (one of the times pushes are better than lure!)

[Philosfr]

 

The rules basically say that you can fly across something 50" tall as long as you land on the other side but you cannot land on it if you don't have a move stat of 50.

Since flying ignores terrain but not falling (falling is under movement and not terrain) you can't just measure at the start of the move and subtract even if that would seem like the logical conclusion.

I would give my eternal gratitude to anyone able to quote the FaQ entry on movement and height since it has relevance to this discussion.

48) Q: If a model is pushed off of an edge high enough to necessitate a fall, does it fall immediately? Could it be pushed far enough to reach another surface of equal height (assuming there was such a surface)?
A: Models which fall, fall immediately. The model would be pushed off of the ledge and then immediately fall and take any necessary falling damage upon reaching the ground. Then, if there is any distance left required by the push (and the model is still in play), it will push the remaining distance. (9/1/15)

 

8) 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). 

The FAQ is not definitive, but it reinforces my belief that flying does not "fall" while it's moving. 

[CanYaDigIT]

a model with flight does not take fall damage.

[Ludvig]

(Faq quotes)

The FAQ is not definitive, but it reinforces my belief that flying does not "fall" while it's moving. 

Thank you for quoting!

I don't agree that it reinforces your position however. I think it points out what I am trying to say:

"Models which fall, fall immediately" Flying models also fall, they just ignore the damage. 

Also "Although measurements in Malifaux are generally made from a top down view, vertical distances are measured while moving a model" 

Edited October 21, 2015 by Ludvig

[Paddywhack]

Please don't involve pushes in this discussion. There was a massive thread on pushes last month.  You are right in the statement that flying doesn't work during pushes however so you can for example push a flyer of a tall building to kill it (one of the times pushes are better than lure!)

I only brought up Pushes as that was brought in as an argument for ruling Flight works the same way. I see the argument about Flight not actually mentioning Falling and the Falling has its own section. I can see that RAW it appears that way I'm just not sure RAI is that way. All we can do is house rule or go with the rules as they are for now I guess.

I for one would have no problem with a flight model starting on terrain HT 3 and ending on terrain HT3 in 1AP. I mean if they ignore terrain during movement they they are ignoring the very thing that would cause them to Fall in the first place, right? If they ignore the terrain, then they can't fall, cause they're ignoring it 

Sadly this is one area of the rules that Malifaux doesn't manage well and a reason we have so few tables with any terrain with levels or walkways. I hope next edition can figure out some better rules for elevation. 

[Ludvig]

Please don't involve pushes in this discussion. There was a massive thread on pushes last month.  You are right in the statement that flying doesn't work during pushes however so you can for example push a flyer of a tall building to kill it (one of the times pushes are better than lure!)

I only brought up Pushes as that was brought in as an argument for ruling Flight works the same way. I see the argument about Flight not actually mentioning Falling and the Falling has its own section. I can see that RAW it appears that way I'm just not sure RAI is that way. All we can do is house rule or go with the rules as they are for now I guess.

I for one would have no problem with a flight model starting on terrain HT 3 and ending on terrain HT3 in 1AP. I mean if they ignore terrain during movement they they are ignoring the very thing that would cause them to Fall in the first place, right? If they ignore the terrain, then they can't fall, cause they're ignoring it 

Sadly this is one area of the rules that Malifaux doesn't manage well and a reason we have so few tables with any terrain with levels or walkways. I hope next edition can figure out some better rules for elevation. 

I'm with you 100% that the rules are inelegant and unintuitive but for the sake of the official rules question we need to go by the actual rules.

The best course of action in my opinion would be to house-rule in your play group and ask what ruling tournaments intend to enforce before attending to avoid unpleasant surprises.

[Ludvig]

(Faq quotes)

The FAQ is not definitive, but it reinforces my belief that flying does not "fall" while it's moving. 

Thank you for quoting!

I don't agree that it reinforces your position however. I think it points out what I am trying to say:

"Models which fall, fall immediately" Flying models also fall, they just ignore the damage. 

Also "Although measurements in Malifaux are generally made from a top down view, vertical distances are measured while moving a model" 

I think you're not taking the context of either of those two statements.

1) "Models which fall" could also be interpreted to mean that some models don't fall, such as flying models. This is probably not what they meant, but just pointing out that it's not clear.

2) "Vertical distances are measured while moving a model" - This is where I think you're not on the right track. If this was literal, then a model could not fly over a 50" building. You'd have to measure the 50" up, then the 50" down in that case. But we already both agree that the rules allow a flying model to fly from one side of a 50" building to the other side if they have enough move to cover the horizontal distance.

1 The flying rules never say that you can't fall so we have no reason to believe you don't fall. They mention that you are specifically "immune to falling damage" which reinforces the fact that you would be taking damage since you are falling but now you ignore the damage.

2 I also think that rule is very counterintuitive.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Ludvig

[Dogmantra]

I don't think we're saying the same thing when we're talking about this. I agree with you that you have to measure vertical distances when you're moving when you take into account your final position. If you end on top of a 9" ledge and you started on a 3" ledge, you would need to fly "up" 6", plus whatever X-Y movement you made.

You do not have to fly "up" 2" to get over a wall and then "down" 2" to get down the other side of the wall however. We're all agreed here.

If you don't have to fly "up" to get over a vertical distance and then "down" to land on the other side, why do you have to fall "down" and the fly "up" to ignore a negative vertical distance? It's the same concept, we're just flipping the "up/down" around here.

Heck, the concept of a flying model flying during it's move already is kind of crazy. I fly up to a 9" building during my first turn. Everyone on the ground is out of my reach. My next turn I can choose to "fall" 9 inches for free. You could use this to get into engagement without "walking", since you would walk forward 1", then fall 9". There's very weird rules interactions if you really tried to manipulate the whole "flying models fall" rule. Not saying it's common or easy, but it would be much cleaner for all the rules if a flying model didn't "fall" during their move action (and needed to land at the end of the move action). Then a model that's 9" up would actually need to fly 9" to reach the ground, instead of falling and not suffering damage.

I think it's important to remember we're talking about what the rules are and now what they should be or what models real life the best. Weird interactions don't necessarily invalidate a rule, they just mean it was potentially not intended.

I do see where you're coming from re: flipping up with down, and logic would definitely dictate that in real life, a flying creature would be able to ignore the gap. However, the table itself and empty space are not "terrain" for the purposes of the game, and so the two situations are not equivalent and a model with flying, as written, cannot ignore the empty space. There is also nothing in the rules that allows a model to stand in empty space, so I'd say the model would fall.

[Dogmantra]

There is also nothing in the rules that says a flying model falls while it is moving. That's the whole reason this has become a debate. The rules don't clearly provide a direction for this. This gives us a few options for interpretation:

I strongly disagree.

We know that models without flying will fall if there is no terrain below them. We also know that non-flying models fall as soon as possible both when they are pushed (FAQ) and when they walk off the edge of a piece of terrain (general falling rules).

The only things that flying modifies are 1. No falling damage and 2. you may ignore terrain while moving.

Therefore in every other way, a model with flying is the same as a model without flying. You don't need a rule to tell you flying models fall while moving because there is already a rule that all models fall while moving. An empty space is not terrain, therefore a flying model cannot choose to ignore it and must fall.

[Ludvig]

I don't think we're saying the same thing when we're talking about this. I agree with you that you have to measure vertical distances when you're moving when you take into account your final position. If you end on top of a 9" ledge and you started on a 3" ledge, you would need to fly "up" 6", plus whatever X-Y movement you made.

You do not have to fly "up" 2" to get over a wall and then "down" 2" to get down the other side of the wall however. We're all agreed here.

If you don't have to fly "up" to get over a vertical distance and then "down" to land on the other side, why do you have to fall "down" and the fly "up" to ignore a negative vertical distance? It's the same concept, we're just flipping the "up/down" around here.

Heck, the concept of a flying model flying during it's move already is kind of crazy. I fly up to a 9" building during my first turn. Everyone on the ground is out of my reach. My next turn I can choose to "fall" 9 inches for free. You could use this to get into engagement without "walking", since you would walk forward 1", then fall 9". There's very weird rules interactions if you really tried to manipulate the whole "flying models fall" rule. Not saying it's common or easy, but it would be much cleaner for all the rules if a flying model didn't "fall" during their move action (and needed to land at the end of the move action). Then a model that's 9" up would actually need to fly 9" to reach the ground, instead of falling and not suffering damage.

I think it's important to remember we're talking about what the rules are and now what they should be or what models real life the best. Weird interactions don't necessarily invalidate a rule, they just mean it was potentially not intended.

I do see where you're coming from re: flipping up with down, and logic would definitely dictate that in real life, a flying creature would be able to ignore the gap. However, the table itself and empty space are not "terrain" for the purposes of the game, and so the two situations are not equivalent and a model with flying, as written, cannot ignore the empty space. There is also nothing in the rules that allows a model to stand in empty space, so I'd say the model would fall.

There is also nothing in the rules that says a flying model falls while it is moving. That's the whole reason this has become a debate. The rules don't clearly provide a direction for this. This gives us a few options for interpretation:

1) We decide that if it's not clearly defined in the rules, then flying works just like walking and flying models fall.

2) We decide that if it's not clearly defined in the rules, then flying works as we think it should and flying models don't fall during their move.

3) We look at other rules like the ability to ignore flying up/down over a 5" wall and apply that to other cases where it's 5" vertical the model is moving over, but in this case it's a crevice instead of a wall. We can also apply rules like ending 4" up requires spending 4" of move to get there and saying that ending 4" down requires 4" of move to get down, rather than falling for free.

I'm not trying to argue for #2, since we already know a flying model can move through a 50" tall object, which I've certainly never seen a real flying thing do (unless incorporeal, which I also haven't ever seen). I'm saying that in this case, we have relevant rules which apply. I'm arguing for #3 because it's basically an inverse to the rules we already have.

 

The rules do provide clear directions in my opinion. The base rules apply to every situation unless directly contradicted by something more specific. The flying rules are specific in mentioning that you are immune to the damage a model takes while falling. If flying models couldn't fall then the flying rule would need to say so explicitly. They may also choose to ignore any terrain or models while moving but if you choose to ignore the terrain you start on then you are still at board level. If you choose to not ignore the terrain you are standing on then the rules clearly say that you fall "immediately" when you move off it.

You aren't moving over a crevice, you are moving from a terrain piece with a certain height to another. During that move you are affected by the falling rules. If you have a terrain piece designed as a hole that has been defined as terrain with heigh -2 and causes falling damage then the flying model can choose to ignore it. It cannot ignore the board since the board isn't defined as terrain but is the play area.

I also feel the need to echo dogmantra: No one is talking about real flying creatures. We are discussing game mechanics as defined by the creators of this game.

Edited October 21, 2015 by Ludvig

[santaclaws01]

The FaQ says models that fall, fall immediately. There's really no way around this unless we want to say that flying models don't fall.