Is Climbing a change in direction?

[Boomstick]

I'm going to apologize about the wall of text, but it's an involved thought process. Please add to it constructively.

So I've seen on here questions about charging (or not) over climbable terrain, and my question is on the same subject, but I have a particular point I want to bring up and get some expert advice on:

Several fellow players and I have been discussing it, and Charge has 4 requirements as per pg 39 in the mini rule book: 1) the target has to be in LOS, 2) the charger must move in a straight line up to its Cg range, 3) the charger must end the move with the target in engagement range, and 4) charges can't be declared while engaged.

Now, on page 14 is "all measurements are done from a top-down perspective. Elevation is not factored in to the measurement, although model and object height are used in other ways."

From what I've seen this statement is usually what comes up as allowing charges over climbable terrain, just factor in the distance penalty for the climbable trait and you're gold. But that seemed a bit off. Sure, seems straightforward when climbing over a Ht1 box, but what's to stop me from charging a Coryphee up the ladder on a Ht 3 building at a vantage point sniper? So I looked a bit closer at the wording in the rules that seemed to factor in to the situation in question

So the top-down factors into measurement, as in, just determining the distance between things. You then have to take into account terrain traits. Severe, Climbable, etc, and adjust for the actual movement.

Here's where it gets interesting: The climbable trait says models may move vertically up and down the terrain in question. Going from moving horizontally to climbing, and therefore moving vertically, isn't a straight line of movement, so climbing should invalidate a charge.

The thing people say makes it ok to climb during a charge is the top-down measuring, but it's measuring, not moving. In order to climb as is ruled, you have to change directions to go up. So charging through climbable terrain shouldn't be possible unless you're incorporeal (even flight has to obey elevation as per the latest FAQ).

Am I missing something?

[Jokerboy]

If someone tells you to walk in a special direction until you reach for example a tree. And there is a wall in your way that is half your height, would you tell the person that is not possible because climbing the wall changes the direction you move?

I would not. :/

Another example. A Model stands on a ht1 box with the climbable trait and wants to charge an enemy on the ground. Not possible because you change your direction in moving down?? Sounds strange to me.  

[Lims.Krigma]

Just a thought about flight, it says that you ignore all terrain for the purpose of moving. From the FAQ it appears that the vertical height is accounted for in the distance moved, but it doesn't say you are changing direction in the flight movment, just that you have to add in the vertical movement when accounting for the total distance moved. I would think you can still charge over climbable terrain with flight, as you ignore the terrain when you are moving, it's just that you have to factor the vertical height of the terrain you charge over when calculating the distance you have moved (so if you have a charge of 8" and there is a 4" high climable terrain in front of you, the horizontal charge distance you could manage would be 4")

[Boomstick]

The FAQ is actually what got me thinking about it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but while they don't say "you change direction" they do say you move x inches up and then x inches over, which is two different directions, not a straight line, logically. And since a direction change isn't a terrain thing, ignoring terrain wouldn't get you around it. It just baffles me that everybody sees the top-down measurement as top-down movement even when they're has to be vertical movement for so many things.

[Boomstick]

21 minutes ago, solkan said:

Please set up your Malifaux table and put a curved hill on it.  Then place two models on opposite sides of the hill so that they can see each other. 

If you believe that moving in a straight line from one model to the other is impossible because of the curve of the hill, I question whether you've played other tabletop wargames.  Because that's a straight line between the two models along the table, even though it's not a straight line through the air.

The horizontal and vertical distance aspect to movement using Flight and Incorporeal is there because the alternative becomes ludicrous.  Charging over hills, and climbing while charging isn't the same as Flight or Incorporeal ignoring elevation differences.

 

Not to be rude, but I'm not talking about hills. I'm talking about boxes, ladders, and other things with the Climbable terrain trait. Hills in other games (like 40k, which I've played since 5th ed) are less of an issue, because of how those games' rules work. But in Malifaux they have their own rules, which are more tricky in some respects. Either way, I'm asking about Climbable terrain, which specifies a change in direction from horizontal to vertical. As concerned in the Malifaux rules, specifically. Not "other wargames" which have even less bearing on this question than hills do.

[CapnBloodbeard]

A hill would be more likely to be severe though, wouldn't it?  Different kettle of fish to climbing.

I like to think a model can climb on a charge.  Theatrically it makes sense.  I think the laws are a little ambiguous on this.

[Lims.Krigma]

1 hour ago, Boomstick24 said:

The FAQ is actually what got me thinking about it. Correct me if I'm wrong, but while they don't say "you change direction" they do say you move x inches up and then x inches over, which is two different directions, not a straight line, logically. And since a direction change isn't a terrain thing, ignoring terrain wouldn't get you around it. It just baffles me that everybody sees the top-down measurement as top-down movement even when they're has to be vertical movement for so many things.

From the FAQ:

A: A model with Flight ignores terrain for all purposes while moving. However, the distance the model moves is still limited by the length of the move the model is allowed to take. Add the distance the model moved horizontally in relationship to its starting point to the distance the model moved vertically upwards (downwards movement is falling and it is never counted against a model’s movement total) in relationship to its starting point. This value may not exceed the distance allowed by the move the model was making.

I agree, it could be a bit of a curly one, but I think the FAQ isn't saying the model 'moves' up and across then down, but purely measuring the 'distance' the model has moved you add up how much it has moved up to how much it has moved horizontally. Arguably the model has 'moved' in a diagonal line but measuring the horizontal axis and the vertical axis then summing the squares to work out the square of the diagonal distance (from memory) is a ridiculous amount of calculation for a single movement in what is just a fun game. So the easy way to resolve it is just to roughly calculate the diagonal distance by adding the horizontal and vertical distances. That's just my take on it though.

The idea of the vertical change being equal to a change in direction (for models without flight) just to keep it simple is an interesting one, but then (as someone else pointed out) it could be argued if you charge along a horizontal line and up a gentle slope at an enemy on a hill that you are changing direction so that charge is illegal. If it needs clarification it may be simplest to either make it that only a change in the horizontal plane makes the charge illegal, or that only a vertical change of 90 degrees (or onto climable terrain perhaps) makes the charge illegal. Again, just thoughts.

[Dogmantra]

I agree with you.

I also think that the hill argument doesn't work because there are no terrain traits as defined in the book which could be used for a slope, and so a hill would be abstracted weirdly as a sort of stepped pyramid.

 

Mostly though I'm surprised this hasn't been FAQed one way or another.

[Bloodworth]

I think this a great topic of discussion. I've seen plenty of games where this sort of interpretation for movement has been abused. I tend to agree with the point about charging and the straight line point. Why is it that a model can not charge someone around a corner (provided they can see them) but can charge up a ladder? I've also seen players 'leap' their models over walls, fences and other obstructions during a charge. It would only make sense that if a models has to climb at any point during a charge that the would essentially prevent them from charging. This would also mean that models with flight, incorporeal would gain an advantage for having that trait which is why their is a cost associated with that trait.  I would love to see an FAQ on this for further clarification. 

[santaclaws01]

2 hours ago, Bloodworth said:

This would also mean that models with flight, incorporeal would gain an advantage for having that trait which is why their is a cost associated with that trait.  I would love to see an FAQ on this for further clarification. 

They already have an advantage for having those. They wouldn't have to pay the movement cost to go up and over the terrain pieces.

[solkan]

Please set up your Malifaux table and put a curved hill on it.  Then place two models on opposite sides of the hill so that they can see each other. 

If you believe that moving in a straight line from one model to the other is impossible because of the curve of the hill, I question whether you've played other tabletop wargames.  Because that's a straight line between the two models along the table, even though it's not a straight line through the air.

The horizontal and vertical distance aspect to movement using Flight and Incorporeal is there because the alternative becomes ludicrous.  Charging over hills, and climbing while charging isn't the same as Flight or Incorporeal ignoring elevation differences.

 

[AoS]

Climbing terrain is thought as another kind of movement penalty, as I understand. I mean, if my Cerbero cannot charge through a Ht1 little box, or if my Raptors cannot start the Charge at Ht1 and finish the charge at Ht 2, (because there is only 2 kinds of movement defined in Malifaux) then... I don't wanna play this game anymore.

Joking

 

 

[Flib Jib]

On 5/26/2016 at 11:18 PM, Shen Long said:

If someone tells you to walk in a special direction until you reach for example a tree. And there is a wall in your way that is half your height, would you tell the person that is not possible because climbing the wall changes the direction you move?

I would not. :/

Another example. A Model stands on a ht1 box with the climbable trait and wants to charge an enemy on the ground. Not possible because you change your direction in moving down?? Sounds strange to me.  

Unfortunately a models Ht is a mechanic that often gets abused by being incorporated into other mechanics that it was never meant to. the Ht mechanic is used to determine LoS and doesn't have relevance where it would seem intuitive to include. 

Here are a list of commonly abused mechanics that a models height might seem natural to include and I see lots of people instinctively throw them in but actually do not pertain to the actual mechanics: 

Charge actions: e.g. charging over claimable terrain that is less than a models Ht.

Overpasses or ledges lower than a models height: e.g. taking a Wk, action under a bridge, ledge, pole, or any obstetrical.

Vantage Points: This is a big one! e.g. adding a models height to the terrain height for a total height is completely wrong and often a mechanic I see in game play.

Engagement and attacks: another mechanic that is often abused. i.e. Ht:3 model attempts to attack a Ht:2 model but is denied because there is a Ht:4 model in between and blocking. This actually often is accidentally played correctly because the intervening model has a large enough base to block the attack. Read Pg. 14 of the rules about measuring.