Climbable and Impassable walls and charging

[thecapopriest]

So I searched the forums trying to find an answer for charging through walls that are defined as climbable and impassable and found these two threads that seem to be at odds with each other.

The contention for not being able to charge seems to be that you can't charge in a straight line if you move vertically, therefore you can not charge; but on page 24 of the rule book under Measuring it says "In Malifaux, all measurements are done from a top-down perspective. Elevation is not factored into the measurement, although model and object height are used in other ways." To me that seems to mean that the charge would still qualify as being in a straight line, am I missing something?

 

[PeregrineFalcon]

I am in total agreement that charges can go over climbable terrain but have to take the movement penalties associated with it. 

With that said if a model ends a charge (within engagement range of target) and on the piece of terrain, the rules are slightly less clear. In that case we place the model on the other side of the wall if the majority of the base makes it over the wall. This is a worse issue for larger base models like 40mm and 50mm.

Regardless, I think @solkan really provides the most accurate information to answer the OP's question, you are able to charge over climbable terrain.

[solkan]

Look at the FAQ entry concerning flight:

Quote

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).

Vertical distance matters while moving.  Climbing specifies one rate for changing vertical distance, falling specifies another.

That's part of the support for the 'vertical directions matter' side of things.  And it's why, if you're going to allow charges including climbing, the movement cost of the climb is going to be included in the movement.

 

On the other hand, the better arguments in favor of including climbing while charging is hills.  There's a hill between you and your target, are gentle of a slope are you going to allow going up and down the hill to still be considered the same direction?  I've never played a game where someone has denied me the ability to charge across a hill, even when 45 degree inclines or staircase steps were involved.

 

[solkan]

'Hills don't really exist'.  Really?

 

Quote

Hills are gently sloping rises in the terrain. Hills have the blocking trait if models on the other side of the hill's crest are drawing LoS to each other, but do not block LoS to models that could realistically be seen.

That's from page 61 of Malifaux 2nd edition.

"You can charge up a hill, but you can't charge back down" appears to me to be someone claiming that their table is broken and doesn't work properly.  Would you like the list of the various wargames where a "straight line of movement" bends as the table changes shape?  The list includes Warmachine/Hordes, champion rule set of literal rules system approach.

[CapnBloodbeard]

Ultimately, this is why it matters whether a wall is severe or climbable.  The movement cost is probably the same.

Thematically I feel llike you should be able to charge climbing.  If you run up to somebody in a rage you're not going to stand there going 'well, crap, now what?' if you come across a waist-high wall

 

Maybe it's not a bad habit to come to an agreement on the movement cost when moving over a wall and the charging issue when defining terrain at the start of the game, so both are clear on the implications of the terrain decisions.  

[Dogmantra]

Pg 24 under measurement specifies that Line of Sight and Measuring are always done top down - determining whether something is a straight line is neither LoS nor measurement and therefore is not done top down.

 

24 minutes ago, solkan said:

On the other hand, the better arguments in favor of including climbing while charging is hills.  There's a hill between you and your target, are gentle of a slope are you going to allow going up and down the hill to still be considered the same direction?  I've never played a game where someone has denied me the ability to charge across a hill, even when 45 degree inclines or staircase steps were involved.
 

I disagree with this argument because in the Malifaux ruleset, hills and slopes do not exist. There is no rule for modelling a slope or any sort of gradual incline - there is no Ht 1.5. Thus you can only really rule a hill as a series of steps, each 1 height higher than the last.

The terrain piece might look like the black hill, but the rules would treat it like the red - therefore imo by RAW you can charge up a hill to the point where you would change Ht, at which point you are changing direction and moving vertically.

 

EDIT: The absolute easiest way to make it so that you can charge over obstacles such as fences? Just make 'em severe instead of impassable/climbable. There's nothing wrong with a Ht1 severe soft cover fence.

[Dogmantra]

30 minutes ago, solkan said:

'Hills don't really exist'.  Really?

There are no rules for modelling the slope of a hill.

I'm not sure what you mean by the broken table comment.

And it doesn't matter how other rulesets define hills, what matters is how the Malifaux 2e ruleset defines hills, specifically the slope of a hill. And that is not defined as any different from the standard Height system.

[thecapopriest]

Thanks everybody for the fast responses! I had been playing this incorrectly and charging across walls and then I watched a game at my LGS where that came up that it was not allowed and just wanted to double check.

[Paddywhack]

1 hour ago, Dogmantra said:

EDIT: The absolute easiest way to make it so that you can charge over obstacles such as fences? Just make 'em severe instead of impassable/climbable. There's nothing wrong with a Ht1 severe soft cover fence.

Except you can push through Severe terrain. You can't push and climb though. So all those walls and fences become non-existent for pushes and can open the table quite a bit in some crews (teddy and Baby kade come to mind) from personal experience). Just one thing to think about. We personally allow it, as I couldn't find anything specifically denying the charge to go over a climbable object, whereas a Push spells it out specifically. 

[solkan]

Disclaimer:  I have a bad habit of occasionally having 40k rules fight flashbacks and becoming furious when someone uses two certain three letter acronyms in rules discussions.  That bad habit is particularly aggravated when those three letter acronyms are being used to defend a non-productive position on the rules.

The problem with the naive literalist interpretation of a straight line is that no one writing wargame rules uses that interpretation.

Here's an excerpt from the Hordes rulebook where the movement of a charging model is described:

Quote

After declaring a charge, the charging model turns to face any direction that will bring it to within its melee range of its target, ignoring terrain, the distance to the charge target, and other models. The charging model then advances its current SPD plus 3 ̋ in that direction, in a straight line. The charging model cannot voluntarily stop its movement until its target is in its melee range, then it can end this movement at any point. Once the charge target is in the charging model’s melee range, it must stay in the charging model’s melee range for the entire charge or the charge fails.

The movement rules which are needed to understand that include this part:

Quote

Advancing refers to any movement a model intentionally makes, not to any movement caused by other effects such as being pushed or being slammed. A model can change its facing at anytime during its advance, but when it moves it must always move in the direction it is facing.

 

The key elements:

• A model either changes direction, or it moves forward in the direction it is facing.  In Warmachine/Hordes all movement is composed of a sequence of line segments, there is no such defined thing as "movement along a curve"
• A charging model chooses a direction, and then advances in that direction until done.  This is what "in a straight line" means in this context.

Note that the extent to which the terrain rules deal with hills is not at all.  A charging model advances towards the hill, then advances up the slope of the hill, advances across the hill, and then advances down the other side of the hill, all the while moving along its straight line that is not at all a geometrically straight line.

-----

Now, let's compare that to Malifaux.

Quote

(2) Charge: Target a model within LoS. Move this model up to its Cg in a straight line. This model must end the move with the target model within its engagement range or this Action may not be taken. This model then takes two Range y Attack Actions against the target model. Each of these Actions must have an AP cost of 1. A model may not declare this Action if it is engaged (see Engagement, pg. 44) or if it has a Cg of "—".

So the charge is specified to be in a straight line, just like Warmachine/Hordes.  So what does "in a straight line" mean?

Let's look at somewhere else in the rules that uses "in a straight line":

Quote

A push is an effect that moves a model in a straight line, such as an explosive force shoving a model back, or a model being thrown by a larger friend. Talents that cause a push (instead of a move) will state that the effect is a push.

So, how straight is a straight line?  Suppose you're standing on a ledge, and someone pushes you off the ledge.  What happens?  You move off the ledge, fall, and then the push continues.  So you have a straight line with a potentially huge bend to it caused by the fall.

Spoiler

Quote

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.

 

Note that nowhere in the FAQ answer is any concern given to the fact that the push's "straight" line is discontinuous, and that the push overall isn't a straight line any more, the instruction is simply to push the rest of the distance.

Since that's how a straight line works for pushes, why would it be expected that the "straight line" for a charge is referring to the geometric concept and not what would otherwise be considered "movement in the same direction along the table"?

 

This has been my daily venting. 

[Hateful Darkblack]

<Mod Hat>

Let's keep this conversation respectful, please.

</Mod Hat>

[Artiee]

21 hours ago, Dogmantra said:

EDIT: The absolute easiest way to make it so that you can charge over obstacles such as fences? Just make 'em severe instead of impassable/climbable. There's nothing wrong with a Ht1 severe soft cover fence.

Then that will allow you to push though a fence.

[Guy in Suit]

This is why I stick by my rule of thumb - if a piece of terrain isn't large enough to put a model on top - don't make it climbable!  I generally apply this to everything Ht1 as well. 

[CapnBloodbeard]

3 hours ago, Guy in Suit said:

This is why I stick by my rule of thumb - if a piece of terrain isn't large enough to put a model on top - don't make it climbable!  I generally apply this to everything Ht1 as well. 

Yeah, I don't make it climbable unless you can stand on top (eg fences are severe, crates are climbable).  

[HalcyonSeraph]

You don't even have to make low walls severe if you don't want. You can just have them be Ht1 Blocking Cover (soft or hard as you see fit). That way they don't affect movement at all, which makes sense to my playgroup because a waist-height wall would barely even slow down someone who can easily vault over it. The fact that you can then push through it is fine, whatever is forcing that movement can easily be imagined as either pulling you straight through it or making you vault over it. 

[Shadowdragon]

 

23 hours ago, CapnBloodbeard said:

Yeah, I don't make it climbable unless you can stand on top (eg fences are severe, crates are climbable).  

 

On 2016-03-23 at 2:48 PM, Guy in Suit said:

This is why I stick by my rule of thumb - if a piece of terrain isn't large enough to put a model on top - don't make it climbable!  I generally apply this to everything Ht1 as well. 

Actually you both seem to have this backwards. Severe terrain means you can end your movement anywhere within said terrain, which means a model could end it's movement with it's base anywhere on top of the fence. Climbable just means you can get to the top of the piece of terrain, and since there isn't enough room at the top of a fence for a model's base it must jump or climb down the other side. So, making fences climbable is the best way to make it so models can't end their movement on top of the fences. Sadly, neither severe nor climbable really work well for ht 1 fences. Models shouldn't be able to stand on fences, but having it cost 2" of movement to jump a fence seems a bit steep. Maybe climbing should cost 1" per ht climbed if the model has a higher ht than the ht of the terrain. So a ht 1 model has to climb normally over a ht 1 fence, just like a ht 2 model has to climb normally over a ht 2 fence, but the ht 2 model can vault over a ht 1 fence for only 1" of movement reduction.

[lusciousmccabe]

To be fair hills like that don't really exist under the Malifaux rules. If you wanted to define a height 2 slope in terms of the terrain rules it would have to jump from 0 to 1 and 1 to 2 somewhere along its base. 

The rules for elevation are vague enough that this is usually (or always) going to fall into the realms of house rules for your own terrain. No one should have problem with running along an incline, some people are ok with vaulting a fence (or count them as severe terrain to allow this) and relatively few would consider charging up a building to be legal without flight.