Flight Through Buildings

[retnab]

Let's say Kaeris, with Wk 6 and Flight, is on the ground and wants to move to the other side of a Climbable, Enclosed, Ht 5 building.  The errata states that "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."

Let's assume the building is 5+" wide, so it would take Kaeris more than 1 Walk to move horizontally through it.  Does she have to move up the building and then move on top of it to reach the other side?

Let's assume the building is 4" wide, so it would take Kaeris 1 Walk to move horizontally through it.  Does she literally move through it, ignoring the vertical height required to move to the other side?

If she literally ignores the vertical height of buildings, can we PLEASE get confirmation that this is an intended part of the rules?  Or an addition to the errata that Flight does or does not let models move through terrain which would otherwise require vertical movement?

[santaclaws01]

Yes.

Yes.

I'm not sure why you need to get confirmation. "A model with Flight ignores terrain for all purposes while moving." Additionally. "  Add the distance ... he model moved vertically upwards ... in relationship to its starting point" 

They ignore terrain for all purposes while moving, and vertical distance only matters when it's different from the models starting point. What more needs to be said beyond that?

[retnab]

18 minutes ago, solkan said:

Don't blame others if you're using the wrong model for what a Flight does.  

I'll assume that's a poor choice of words as there's no blaming of others going on...

I understand what Flight the rule does.  I understand that RAW, Kaeris could go through a Ht 20 Impassible rock wall if it's less than 4.8" wide.  I'm saying that it makes no sense that she could do that.  As someone who uses models with Flight fairly regularly, Flight absolutely should take the Ht of things being moved through into account, even if that's a direct cuddle to models and abilities I rely on.

[Seadhna]

 

5 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

Yes.

Yes.

I'm not sure why you need to get confirmation. "A model with Flight ignores terrain for all purposes while moving." Additionally. "  Add the distance ... he model moved vertically upwards ... in relationship to its starting point" 

They ignore terrain for all purposes while moving, and vertical distance only matters when it's different from the models starting point. What more needs to be said beyond that?

The wording on the FAQ entry is pretty confusing to get on a first read unless you cut out the irrelevant parts like you just did. 

So no need to be salty tbh

[retnab]

I understand that's how it seems to work RAW.  My question is more RAI, is this how it's meant to work by the devs.  An Incorporeal model ghosting through a building makes sense when we're talking about what's actually happening on the board, but a model with Flight somehow pulling a Juggernaut through a building (or a solid piece of rock) does not.  Especially when we're talking about restricting what's happening in AP, with my above example it's not the height of the terrain that matters but the width, which when moving through a building again just doesn't make literal sense.

I just disagree with Flight allowing the model to entirely ignore the vertical plane.

[solkan]

3 hours ago, retnab said:

I understand that's how it seems to work RAW.  My question is more RAI, is this how it's meant to work by the devs.  An Incorporeal model ghosting through a building makes sense when we're talking about what's actually happening on the board, but a model with Flight somehow pulling a Juggernaut through a building (or a solid piece of rock) does not.  Especially when we're talking about restricting what's happening in AP, with my above example it's not the height of the terrain that matters but the width, which when moving through a building again just doesn't make literal sense.

I just disagree with Flight allowing the model to entirely ignore the vertical plane.

Don't blame others if you're using the wrong model for what a Flight does.  

Look at the Enclosed trait.  The difference thematically between Incorporeal and Flight is that Flight goes "over" stuff while Incorporeal goes "through" stuff.  Mechanically, it comes out the same (not counting Enclosed and Falling).

Edit: see also one of the previous threads:

Or this one:

 

[Dogmantra]

14 minutes ago, retnab said:

Flight absolutely should take the Ht of things being moved through into account, even if that's a direct cuddle to models and abilities I rely on.

I mean it's an abstraction. Flipping a card and comparing numbers is nothing like how swordfighting works in real life either, but it's done that way because having to actually travel to an alternate dimension and live there for hundreds of years while you manipulate the threads of fate just to take the Obey action is a bit too much work for most people.

But really, if you did take the Ht into account, what would the advantage of Flight even be over Unimpeded?

[SunTsu]

On 18/3/2017 at 8:50 PM, Dogmantra said:

I mean it's an abstraction. Flipping a card and comparing numbers is nothing like how swordfighting works in real life either, but it's done that way because having to actually travel to an alternate dimension and live there for hundreds of years while you manipulate the threads of fate just to take the Obey action is a bit too much work for most people.

But really, if you did take the Ht into account, what would the advantage of Flight even be over Unimpeded?

Really, could be a great difference...

Let's say we have a building HT3 4" wide.

If the rules for flight would take the HT into account (and is NOT the case at the moment), a flying model would pay just a bit more of 8" (considering a small base) to pass the other side.

With unimpeded you get no bonus at all respect a standard model, and passing the other side would cost more then 13" (4" wide, plus 2x3" climbing up, plus 2x1" climbing down), or just 11" but suffering 4 damages.

So, in the endy, if the game designers would make a version of flight more andherent to the "realty" and the description, and more newbie friendly (because at the moment the rule in counterintuite, I can we can agree on this...), they could. Probably for simplicity they choosed to write the faqs/rules this way. We have no way to know which was the original RAI of the ruleset for flight. We know that, for the moment, without any new faq/errata about it, it could works in a strange and counterintuite way on the table...

My two cents.

[Ludvig]

On 2017-03-18 at 8:34 PM, retnab said:

I'll assume that's a poor choice of words as there's no blaming of others going on...

I understand what Flight the rule does.  I understand that RAW, Kaeris could go through a Ht 20 Impassible rock wall if it's less than 4.8" wide.  I'm saying that it makes no sense that she could do that.  As someone who uses models with Flight fairly regularly, Flight absolutely should take the Ht of things being moved through into account, even if that's a direct cuddle to models and abilities I rely on.

If I could design the flight rules I would allow models to move as far up/down as they moved along the table and vice versa. So crossing a ht 4 wall could be done if you had at least 4 movement and you would count as spending 4 movement regardless if you ended your move on top just moving two inches along the table or landed on the other side 4 inches away. Mk 3...

[solkan]

3 hours ago, Ludvig said:

If I could design the flight rules I would allow models to move as far up/down as they moved along the table and vice versa. So crossing a ht 4 wall could be done if you had at least 4 movement and you would count as spending 4 movement regardless if you ended your move on top just moving two inches along the table or landed on the other side 4 inches away. Mk 3...

And I'd be right there for you complaining that your flight rules are unrealistic.  

I mean there are games where the flying model would be required to measure the distance along the arc path, and consult look up tables for thermals and down drafts.. How can it be realistic without air turbulence?  

[santaclaws01]

2 hours ago, retnab said:

I understand that's how it seems to work RAW.  My question is more RAI, is this how it's meant to work by the devs.  An Incorporeal model ghosting through a building makes sense when we're talking about what's actually happening on the board, but a model with Flight somehow pulling a Juggernaut through a building (or a solid piece of rock) does not.  Especially when we're talking about restricting what's happening in AP, with my above example it's not the height of the terrain that matters but the width, which when moving through a building again just doesn't make literal sense.

I just disagree with Flight allowing the model to entirely ignore the vertical plane.

I'm not sure how stating the vertical plane is ignored unless you actively want to change where you are on it could be interpreted as anything other than models are intended to be able to fly through building that they couldn't actually fly over in 1 AP. This is on top of throwing the whole history with flight in the faq and errata.

[santaclaws01]

1 minute ago, Seadhna said:

 

The wording on the FAQ entry is pretty confusing to get on a first read unless you cut out the irrelevant parts like you just did. 

So no need to be salty tbh

I cut out the parts that were irrelevant to the question at hand. And what exactly is salty about me pointing out that the wording is already clear in how it works?