Lures, Climbing and Falling

[James Gus]

So an interesting scenario cropped up in a game a couple of nights ago.  I've dug around looking at FAQ's and other threads, but haven't yet found a complete answer.  

A Freikorps Trapper was on the edge of the front edge on top of a Ht 7 tower with a ladder down the center of the tower.  A demure and sweet Rotten Belle, with what can only be assumed to be good intentions, lured that Trapper.  So right away, it's obvious that he doesn't go down the ladder.  Standing at the front would require him to move away and end up further away (as his move 5 would end up on the ladder at the center of the tower's footprint.)

So assuming the tower is climbable, there are two remaining options.  A.)  The Trapper climbs down the side of the tower or B.)  The Trapper leaps off the tower to his death.

The FAQ clearly allows for B if the tower isn't climbable.  However, if the tower itself is climbable, will the Trapper abandon his suicidal thoughts and climb down (dropping the final 2" presumably to end up closer)?  The idea being that ending up at the bottom of the tower alive is actually ending up closer than the swan dive that ends in death.  Or will he not count the falling distance in his calculation and plan on ending 5" in front of the tower after the fall, only to find gravity is a cruel mistress?

Thanks yall!

James.

[Fetid Strumpet]

If climbing down gets you as close or closer at the end of your move as jumping, the. You can climb down. If not, you jump, even if it kills you. I'm hard pressed to imagine a situation where spending half movement down gets you closer than no move and damage to change elevation, but I thought I'd include the possibility. 

In 99.999999% of occurrences I feel you are just going to jump.

[solkan]

10 hours ago, James Gus said:

Absolutely nothing.  If the fall were survivable, there's no doubt he would jump, nearly die, but continue on.  And conversely, if the tower were unclimbable, there's no doubt he would jump to his death.

But in this scenario, the fall is certain death and the tower is climbable.  Which means technically, the base of the tower is as close as the model can get whether it jumps to it's doom, or whether it climbs down.  There are two choices, both of them get him to the exact same spot.  What about the lure means he should pick certain death over not dying?

Where do you see being able to survive the fall specified as a concern concerning the cliff?  If it's not a concern for the cliff, why do you think it's a concern for falling off the Climbable surface?  The fact that the path is could kill the model doesn't change what the shortest path over the cliff is.  Go back and read over the FAQ on being lured over the cliff says--the model is moving along the shortest path to the luring model--even though you've calculated that the fall will kill it.

I think another issue is that you may have the idea that you can declare the move half way "jump off the tower" see what happens and then declare the rest of the move.  The action declaration rules require that all variables for the action are declared when the action is declared.  So in the strictest sense, the path the Rotten Belle is going to force the target to take is predetermined if there are any choices, then you find out what happens.  That holds the same whether the model is moving over a cliff, through hazardous terrain, or whatever.  When the movement is declared, you could have any number of special abilities which might prevent the damage, from falling.

If my Rotten Belle targets your model with Lure, the Rotten Belle is controlling the move.

Quote

Lure (...) Move target model its Wk.  The target must end the move as close to this model as possible.

Who is the rule talking to?  It's the player controlling the Rotten Belle.

So the player controlling the Rotten Belle specifies what the path among equal paths the model takes, not the model that was lured.

 

 

 

[Seadhna]

I do believe that the whole "move" part in the wording is intended to differentiate Lure from a push effect. 

If it were a push, it would be useless due to terrain, since it would either be "toward" which always means "directly toward" or "any direction" which would defeat the idea of a Lure. 

 

Thus, it seems like the RAI is "move as close as possible" == "push toward while going around obstacles by the shortest route". 

[Ludvig]

The trapper does his best to get as far as possible so jumps down I think.

[Four_N_Six]

33 minutes ago, James Gus said:

Absolutely nothing.  If the fall were survivable, there's no doubt he would jump, nearly die, but continue on.  And conversely, if the tower were unclimbable, there's no doubt he would jump to his death.

But in this scenario, the fall is certain death and the tower is climbable.  Which means technically, the base of the tower is as close as the model can get whether it jumps to it's doom, or whether it climbs down.  There are two choices, both of them get him to the exact same spot.  What about the lure means he should pick certain death over not dying?

I don't think death should play a factor.  If the model jumps down, assuming it is at the edge, then it's wasted maybe 1" to fall, giving it extra movement once it hits the ground.  Climbing down definitely wastes movement.  The Lure action doesn't specify that the model avoids hazardous or damaging obstacles, so it would probably dive off the edge like an Assassin aiming for a hay bail.

[Dogmantra]

Remember that measurements are taken top down, so climbing and ending partway down a piece of terrain wouldn't count as being any closer than being at the top of it (and similarly would be no further than being at the bottom of it).

[Joel]

since you don't measure vertical distance travelled when jumping down, falling is always going to get you closer to target than climbing down stairs/ladder is.  therefore you jump.

[enderwiggin]

Just now, James Gus said:

Well, I've convinced one, but judging by the "-1"'s on my posts, I'm not convincing the player base as a whole! Haha!

Not to ruffle any feathers but it's just people giving their opinion on a post without having to write anything. Take it for what it is, but don't get too wrapped up in that. One thing I suggest to many players (if it's a friendly game) just flip to see who "wins" the argument if there's no clear consensus and take it up at a later time after the game and preferably over jokes, beer/pretzels, etc.

[Four_N_Six]

I definitely see your point of why it would climb down, and I understand the confusion on the situation.  My personal problem with this scenario is that I'm thinking way overboard on it.  I'm not looking at the rules because this situation isn't specified anywhere, so it would probably be better to do what enderwiggin suggested and just flip for the situation when it comes up.

I'm looking at it as a roleplaying aspect.  If this were an RPG (I know it isn't, and I know the rules are supposed to be what's considered), then it would be different.  I'm looking at it as if the models are interacting beyond simple mechanics.  In an RPG with this situation, the Trapper isn't thinking "I need to get to her safely," or "This fall will kill me."  He's just thinking "That's one sexy ass zombie and I need to rub up on her."  So logically he'd just swan dive at her.

Like I said, there's no rule referencing anything like this either way, so I'd flip for it.  Even if the same thing happens again, just flip every time in the essence of fate.

[Ergonomic Cat]

9 hours ago, James Gus said:

In this scenario, it doesn't get you any closer at all.  Falling leads to the model being dead at the base of the tower.  Climbing down 5" and dropping the remaining 2" gets you to the exact same spot.

See, this is really compelling to me.  Personally, I would say that each of them ends up in the same spot, so the model's controller can determine it.  

My related question - isn't there a middle point that maximizes the distance?  I don't know his wounds and walk, but isn't there a point where he can climb a bit, fall and survive, then have movement left to use?  He'll take enough damage to be at 1 wound, but alive, and then can stagger > 0"?  Because if we're accepting you can choose the path, that's the path he'll choose to get as close as possible....

[Fetid Strumpet]

Because it doesn't work that way. Think of it more as a programed route, when you are affected by lure you consider what is the absolute closest point you can get to the belle in one move, all other considerations aside. In general there is precisely one spot on the table that correlates to that calculation. The model then executes what it must do to reach that point in one move. You don't consider, well, this is the closest I can get without dying, because the rules don't tell you to consider that. 

[Clement]

2 hours ago, James Gus said:

I'm going to need some sort of citation for that then.  Based on what are you "programming routes" and why?  The rule says "move the target ... the target must end the move as close to this model as possible."  It seems pretty clear to me that the model is going to move to the closest possible point it's movement allows.  If one route causes the model to die further away than it could have reached going another way without dying, then it has failed to "end it's move as close as possible."  

All this programming talk seems added from somewhere, I'm just not sure where!  What am I missing?

While they're researching, I have a question for you about the underpinning of your assumption.   Why is it that if you were to die mid movement, that the location where you died count as "ending the move"?  I'd argue that a model that dies while moving never actually gets to ending it's move action.  From the book:

Quote

To move a model measure from the point of its base closest to the direction it will
be moving. Determine how far the model will be moving, and then move the model
that distance, ensuring no part of the model moves further than that distance.

There is no line about "if you happen to die due to hazardous terrain, falling, etc. end your move there".  As such, if you die en route, as your hypothetical trapper will, I don't think you ever actually *end* the move action, the trapper died on the way.

[santaclaws01]

1 minute ago, James Gus said:

Yes, but knowing that you WOULD die because of the hazardous terrain is impossible, and therefore moving through it is still the shortest route and closest move _possible_.  This is different from the tower because you know exactly how much damage you will take falling off the building.  You know, for instance, that climbing 2" and falling 5 will get you closer than simply falling directly off the top.  You don't know that from flipping damage for hazardous terrain.

I wasn't addressing that part of your argument, I was addressing the part I quoted. You said if it doesn't technically end the move because it dies, then no model that dies along the path could ever be lured because it says the "move must end". I added the full quote from the rules that was "the move must end as close as possible", meaning that by your interpretation of "the move must end", as meaning that the move absolutely 100% has to end then the move must also 100% have to end as close to the luring model, and as such any point along the path that causes the model to die would be breaking that rule.

[enderwiggin]

Another important thing of note (since the OP made this mistake) climbing up/down costs 2 inches of a models movement per inch moved vertically. It's not 1:1 unless you and your opponent agreed before hand.

[James Gus]

11 minutes ago, enderwiggin said:

I agree with your viewpoint if the Belle is at the bottom/only room to base with her. Since you still control the model (albeit with the limitation to get as close as possible with the movement), then you can take any route that gets you in B2B whether it takes you 1 inch move/fall 7 or 4 inches of movement/fall 5.

Well, I've convinced one, but judging by the "-1"'s on my posts, I'm not convincing the player base as a whole! Haha!

[James Gus]

1 minute ago, enderwiggin said:

Not to ruffle any feathers but it's just people giving their opinion on a post without having to write anything. Take it for what it is, but don't get too wrapped up in that. One thing I suggest to many players (if it's a friendly game) just flip to see who "wins" the argument if there's no clear consensus and take it up at a later time after the game and preferably over jokes, beer/pretzels, etc.

This is exactly what we did.  All yall are my "taking it up later" with the community at large.

[Fetid Strumpet]

This. 

[James Gus]

16 hours ago, Ergonomic Cat said:

See, this is really compelling to me.  Personally, I would say that each of them ends up in the same spot, so the model's controller can determine it.  

My related question - isn't there a middle point that maximizes the distance?  I don't know his wounds and walk, but isn't there a point where he can climb a bit, fall and survive, then have movement left to use?  He'll take enough damage to be at 1 wound, but alive, and then can stagger > 0"?  Because if we're accepting you can choose the path, that's the path he'll choose to get as close as possible....

Yeah, I actually think you're exactly right.  You start to get into some grey area, because movement is measured by fractions of inches, but terrain is not, right?  So yes, with a move 5 on a Ht7 building, he would be able to climb down 2" (using 4 movement) drop 5 inches but survive with 1 wound left, and then stagger forward his remaining 1" of movement.  Really solves the entire issue, to be honest!

[Ergonomic Cat]

1 hour ago, James Gus said:

This is actually an excellent point, which I admittedly hadn't considered.  The Belle is the one who controls the movement.  Given equal paths, she would certainly kill the trapper.

In light of Ergonomic Cat's point about climbing and the point of surviving a fall, however, the Belle can't suicide the model, because climbing down still results in the model being closer, no?   Because the rule isn't just "take the shortest route" but also "end up as close as possible."  So by climbing down and still having a fraction of movement left the model gets closer than he would if he just died.

 

The main question is how ironclad the "end as close as possible" bit is.  Can the Belle choose a path that results in a death, and isn't closer, because it would have gotten them closer, ignoring the death?  Or does the Belle have to evaluate every option and then choose from among those that all provide equal distance from her?

I suspect the intent was totally not - the Belle chooses a spot for the model to end up, and if it happens to die on the way, oops!  But I'm intrigued.

[James Gus]

1 minute ago, Ergonomic Cat said:

 

The main question is how ironclad the "end as close as possible" bit is.  Can the Belle choose a path that results in a death, and isn't closer, because it would have gotten them closer, ignoring the death?  Or does the Belle have to evaluate every option and then choose from among those that all provide equal distance from her?

I suspect the intent was totally not - the Belle chooses a spot for the model to end up, and if it happens to die on the way, oops!  But I'm intrigued.

The rule as written is the model must end it's move as close to the Belle as possible.  I don't know how you don't consider death the end of the move.  As such, I don't understand how the Belle can choose to kill the model when a path exists that gets it closer without death.

[Ludvig]

Yes, the text is very short for a complicated interaction. The way I see it is: Pre-measure the path that would take a live model closest to the belle. Try to execute that move and see what happens to the model. I'm not sure either side will find absolute support in the RAW about this,

In mk 1.5 there was a lot of text in the rulebook and two pages of faq with several pictures to try and sort this interaction. In m2e the developers tried to simplify that so that it worked in about the same way as in 1.5 withouth the two extra pages. 

If this discussion is to continue I would advice anyone not familiar with m 1.5 and it's faq to look that up since this particular wording must be understood from the viewpoint the devs and beta testers were in when this wording was chosen.

 

I know some people want the one line of rules text to make complete sense for everyone at a glance but the truth is that the rules aren't always that clear, especially with the insanely complicated interactions that sometimes arise. I choose to see this game as a social activity, rules should preferrably be taught by experienced players so that ambiguous rules are interpreted by the more senior player who has a wide background knowledge of why certain rules are sometimes interpreted in a not so obvious way. I have also run across rules were different playgroups simply can't reach a concensus and keep playing their own way, that is also fine since the main purpose of this game isto provide enjoyment in the form of games, not lengthy rules debates (although I'll be the first to agree that rules debate should be made into a new recognized aspect of the surrounding hobby and have it's own events). 

[James Gus]

6 hours ago, Ludvig said:

I know some people want the one line of rules text to make complete sense for everyone at a glance but the truth is that the rules aren't always that clear, especially with the insanely complicated interactions that sometimes arise. I choose to see this game as a social activity, rules should preferrably be taught by experienced players so that ambiguous rules are interpreted by the more senior player who has a wide background knowledge of why certain rules are sometimes interpreted in a not so obvious way. I have also run across rules were different playgroups simply can't reach a concensus and keep playing their own way, that is also fine since the main purpose of this game isto provide enjoyment in the form of games, not lengthy rules debates (although I'll be the first to agree that rules debate should be made into a new recognized aspect of the surrounding hobby and have it's own events). 

I completely agree, which really is the main point of continuing the conversation.  This was a very situational case (that I believe through the course of the conversation has actually been solved/discredited) and the rules devs certainly can't be expected to nail down specifics on every possible scenario.  However, through the conversation several helpful folks have pointed out things I missed and rules I was misinterpreting.  So the conversation has been fruitful for me at least.

I reckon if I can't be playing with folks, talking about playing with folks is an interesting diversion until I can be playing with folks again!

[santaclaws01]

4 hours ago, James Gus said:

My assumption is that all the words in that sentence mean what they typically mean in standard conversation and no other layers are laid upon them. This quote from the rules seems pretty clear.  "Determine how far the model will be moving, and then move the model that distance."  Well, it moves from the top of the tower to the bottom and stops because the model dies.

If that were the case you wouldn't be able to announce when you intended to leave engagement range for for a disengaging strike, because it would be impossible to determine how far you are moving as that would require information that you have no way of knowing.

[santaclaws01]

Additionally, I'll throw in an example for hazardous terrain, a model with 4 wd is lured by a belle with hazardous terrain in the middle. If it survives, going through the hazardous terrain would get it closer than going around, but if it doesn't then going around will get it closer. So the model takes the path through hazardous terrain, and takes severe damage from it killing it as soon as its base enters the hazardous terrain. Is this now an illegal move, as you seem to think so based on your use of this: 

4 hours ago, James Gus said:

Well, I don't think you necessarily want to take that route, because if killing the model means "never ending it's move" then by the rule as written you could never kill a model with lure as it specifies the model "must end it's move."  

Because strictly speaking it didn't end it's move as close as possible.

[James Gus]

6 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

If that were the case you wouldn't be able to announce when you intended to leave engagement range for for a disengaging strike, because it would be impossible to determine how far you are moving as that would require information that you have no way of knowing.

This one I don't follow.  I'm afraid I need a little more clarification.