Flying Over An Alley

[Boomstick]

So it was brought to my attention the other day that Flight ignoring terrain doesn't mean it ignores the impassible/climbable wall of a building, so it still has to measure up the wall to fly up. Makes sense, thank you FAQ.

But that brought to mind this question: If a model with Flight begins its move on, say, a Ht 2 building and wanted to walk to the next Ht 2 building which is across an alley, is it considered to drop down, cross the alley, and then fly up the wall to the roof of the second building? Or is the model considered to stay at the height it began the move, fly the width of the alley, and land on the second roof? What if it's doing this, but the second building is Ht 3?

I feel like the second option makes more logical sense, but I can't find anything that says which to do for sure. Please help.

[solkan]

What it comes down to is three things:

1.  Flight does not make the model immune to falling.  That means that if the model attempts to move to an unsupported position (traveling through the air) it's going to follow the falling rules and move to the ground.  The model's immune to falling damage, the same way that the Rail golem is immune to damage from Burning instead of being immune to Burning.

2.  "may ignore any terrain or models while moving" has to mean that the model with Flight is ignoring all of the traits of the terrain, the important trait being impassible.  So as far as the game mechanics are concerned, the model with Flight goes from one side of a building to another by ignoring its way through it--effectively ignoring the impassible trait.

3.  If you want to complain about it, the FAQ specifying that flying and incorporeal models have to pay vertical movement to move to the top of scenery is there because it's obvious.  "I have this flying model, it would be a tremendous advantage if I could get to the top of that structure without using any additional movement."   

Yeah, as far as a video game or RPG experience goes, that's a terrible model of flying.  But it's a decent and practical model for a wargame because it eliminates the alternatives:

- "I activate my Watcher and it double walks twelve inches straight up into the air.  I demand that the air counts as vantage point terrain."

- Arguments about models floating in mid-air in general.  Because the model doesn't teleport from the top of the Ht3 building to the top of the Ht5 building on the other side of the alley way, it has to move across the intervening terrain to get there, which means that at some point it's either floating in the air or its on the ground.  And if the model can float in the air while moving, why can't it stop there? 

In short...

Why is flying "terrible"?  Because the game is designed around models moving along the ground, and the flying models don't cost nearly enough to violate those principles by allowing "real" flight.

[santaclaws01]

The way I see it is this; ignoring things which are completely unsupported by the rules like ignoring a gap, there are two possibilities for the scenario that a model on a HtX building wants to move across a gap that is y" long to another HtX building.

The first is that, the flying model ignores the terrain it starts on, and is therefore at Ht0, meaning it would have to pay the X" again to move back up. 

The second is that the model ignores the terrain it starts on, but stays at HtX because flying models are able to move vertically as well as horizontally as that would be the only way it can move up a building without paying double for the climbable trait, as they can't pick and choose what to ignore about terrain.

We are however all in agreement that this needs an overhaul.

[Fetid Strumpet]

This is a grey area as defined by the rules. Given the way other flying moment works I think you'll find a good amount of people on each side who will argue it one way or another. For myself I would argue as long as you can complete the move in a single walk action you wouldn't fall down and then have to fly back up, though the rules do not specify one way or another. However if it would take you a double walk to complete the building to building transfer then yes, you would need to fall down then fly back up.

[Myyrä]

The only thing that people can agree on is that the current FAQ answer raises more questions than it answers.

[Dogmantra]

Just now, Myyrä said:

They don't follow the normal rules for climbing.

So they might not follow the normal rules for climbing, but there's nowhere it says they don't follow the normal rules for falling outside of not taking falling damage, right?

[Boomstick]

Well I'm glad I'm not alone in this confusion.

[Myyrä]

2 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

There was a big thread about this a while back. It was FAQed.

From the FAQ

The relevant part is the quote "Models which fall, fall immediately" therefore you fall off the edge (not taking damage due to flight) and must re-climb up.

This doesn't answer the question about whether models with flying fall at all.

[Boomstick]

4 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

This doesn't answer the question about whether models with flying fall at all.

I guess this would be the more succinct version of my question. The example in the FAQ focuses on pushed models, which has been clarified to be different than a walk or charge for flight purposes. And logically speaking, if you can fly, why would you drop, flutter along the ground, and flap back up. I realize this is looking at it RAI vs RAW, but that disconnect is what made me scratch my head to begin with.

[Dogmantra]

Just now, Myyrä said:

Be that as it may, the FAQ answer you quoted has nothing to do with the question at hand.

It's one of the things that came up in the thread that prompted that FAQ answer, this question is almost exactly the same as my original one, only with the framing of flight instead of a push. The "Models which fall, fall immediately" sentence doesn't specify that it's only talking about pushed models and we can generalise to all models anyway because there's no reason a model without  flight wouldn't fall during a walk, and since flight says nothing about not falling either*, then we can see that models with flying fall as usual and this is the answer we have for when you fall when trying to cross a gap. There's no precedent for models being suspended in mid air, and the answer I quoted is more than relevant.

 

*getting to ignore terrain during a move could be interpreted as ignoring the gap, but a] empty space is not terrain and b] by starting your move on top of a building you've already chosen not to ignore the terrain.

[Dogmantra]

1 minute ago, Boomstick24 said:

Except if the edge of a building is terrain, which would make sense, as buildings are terrain, the flying model would ignore them when moving, and therefore ignore that they would fall all together.

If you were ignoring the terrain you couldn't begin your move on top of the building.

There is nothing suggesting that models with flight don't fall.

[Boomstick]

1 minute ago, Dogmantra said:

If you were ignoring the terrain you couldn't begin your move on top of the building.

If the model were Incorporeal, maybe. But because Incorporeal specified moving through solid objects and Flight doesn't, I don't see how this works.

[Dogmantra]

Just now, Myyrä said:

It is also unclear whether "models that fall" includes models with flying. Ergo, still not relevant.

Flying models fall, otherwise they wouldn't have to specify they don't take falling damage (due to not being able to fall in the first place). Please point to the rule that says that flying models don't fall.

4 minutes ago, Boomstick24 said:

If the model were Incorporeal, maybe. But because Incorporeal specified moving through solid objects and Flight doesn't, I don't see how this works.

Actually I've just realised it doesn't matter whether you ignore it or not.

If you choose to ignore the building when you start your movement on top of it, you're standing on empty table essentially, so Ht0, which means you would climb up the second building. If you choose not to ignore the building, you fall as usual like every other model does when it walks off a building and have to climb up the second building.

[Dogmantra]

1 minute ago, Myyrä said:

Since when has Ht of terrain or anything been in relation to the position of the model?

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. I'm not saying you need to physically move the model to ignore the building or anything.

The question is about whether you need to climb up the second building if you start on top of a building of equal height and have flight. We're all agreed that if you start on the table you need to pay movement to climb up the first building.

What I'm saying here is that if you choose to ignore the building you're standing on due to your flight ability "This model is immune to falling damage and may ignore any terrain and models while moving", you ignore the fact you're standing on a Ht2 building and so in effect you start your move on an empty table.

[Dogmantra]

3 minutes ago, Myyrä said:

(Whatever that means. Doesn't help at all to narrow it down how they move between elevations.)

This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. Why should a flying model move between elevations any differently from a non-flying model?

[Adran]

4 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

This is one of the cases of the FAQ contradicting the rulebook, which does suggest you must climb as normal even with flight or incorporeal. The FAQ answer given only suggests hovering in the air during a vertical move and to cross such a gap you would need horizontal movement, and so I think it's fairly safe to assume you still fall.

I agree it's less clear than I first suggested, although I still believe I'm right. I'm definitely correct by the rulebook alone.

The rules lead us to funny places as soon as elevation is added. I can get from one side of a building to the other, but can't stop on top of it, even though the only way I could have got past it is to fly over. 

And Whilst I can fly over the building, if instead its a hole in the ground I can't fly over it, I have to go to the bottom of it. 

[Myyrä]

2 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

Nope, the only place that permits moving vertically in the rulebook is the climbable trait, and ignoring the terrain (and therefore that trait) would mean ignoring the climbable trait and not being able to land on top of it at all. And they would definitely still fall because an empty space is not terrain and they can't ignore that.

Do you mean the part that says that stairs and slopes aren't climbable terrain?

 

2 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

And I don't think it's irrelevant at all because the FAQ answer is a modification to the rulebook and so you need to know what the base was before you changed it so you know how everything else works.

The FAQ answer doesn't even bother to change anything. It basically says that this works differently from how it says in the rules, but doesn't bother telling how it actually works.

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, Dogmantra said:

It doesn't say they let you move vertically.

Oh, it only talks about those completely flat stairs and slopes. My bad, totally misunderstood that one.

[Myyrä]

6 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

That's obviously not what I meant. I meant that rules are permissive not restrictive and if they don't give you permission to do something, you can't do it. Measurement et al is done on a flat surface in Malifaux, with the exception that climbable terrain allows you to move vertically. If something is not climbable terrain then by the rules you can't move vertically.

I'm confused. Are you saying that it is permitted to move up stairs and slopes or not?

Also, measurement is done from a top-down perspective. That is completely different from what you are saying.

[Myyrä]

1 minute ago, Dogmantra said:

Models with flying are immune to falling damage and may ignore terrain. There's nothing about not falling there, so of course they fall.

Be that as it may, the FAQ answer you quoted has nothing to do with the question at hand.

[Myyrä]

5 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

It's one of the things that came up in the thread that prompted that FAQ answer, this question is almost exactly the same as my original one, only with the framing of flight instead of a push.

This may or may not be true, but it doesn't really matter if it is. The FAQ answer is about pushes, this question is about movement. It is also unclear whether "models that fall" includes models with flying. Ergo, still not relevant.

[Myyrä]

2 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

If you choose to ignore the building when you start your movement on top of it, you're standing on empty table essentially, so Ht0, which means you would climb up the second building. If you choose not to ignore the building, you fall as usual like every other model does when it walks off a building and have to climb up the second building.

Since when has Ht of terrain or anything been in relation to the position of the model?

[Myyrä]

16 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

The question is about whether you need to climb up the second building if you start on top of a building of equal height and have flight. We're all agreed that if you start on the table you need to pay movement to climb up the first building.

What I'm saying here is that if you choose to ignore the building you're standing on due to your flight ability "This model is immune to falling damage and may ignore any terrain and models while moving", you ignore the fact you're standing on a Ht2 building and so in effect you start your move on an empty table.

And what I'm saying is that it is pretty much useless to discuss this because FAQ says:

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).

Which actually means that:

1. Pg. 42 has relevant information for the question at hand. (It doesn't. It basically says that vertical movement doesn't cost anything if you don't climb.)
2. A model can't move 10" up unless if has Wk of 10. (Were not trying to move up.)
3. Flying and Incorporeal models ignore the usual rules for climbing. (Whatever that means. Doesn't help at all to narrow it down how they move between elevations.)

[Myyrä]

Just now, Dogmantra said:

This is the part I'm having trouble understanding. Why should a flying model move between elevations any differently from a non-flying model?

They don't follow the normal rules for climbing.

[Myyrä]

2 minutes ago, Dogmantra said:

So they might not follow the normal rules for climbing, but there's nowhere it says they don't follow the normal rules for falling outside of not taking falling damage, right?

Well, they can move up without climbing which at least implies they can float in the air during movement, which would mean they ignore falling under certain circumstances. Unfortunately, it's quite unclear which circumstances are those.

[Myyrä]

Just now, Dogmantra said:

This is one of the cases of the FAQ contradicting the rulebook, which does suggest you must climb as normal even with flight or incorporeal. The FAQ answer given only suggests hovering in the air during a vertical move and to cross such a gap you would need horizontal movement, and so I think it's fairly safe to assume you still fall.

I agree it's less clear than I first suggested, although I still believe I'm right. I'm definitely correct by the rulebook alone.

You are definitely wrong by rulebook alone, because models with flight or any ability to ignore terrain would just ignore all costs involved with vertical movement. Technically they might still fall, but that wouldn't really matter.

Also, completely irrelevant.