Jump to content
  • 0

Base partially supported by climbable terrain.


Terk

Question

12 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0

I seem to remember the variations of this wording getting argued over in the beta.

One of the important situations is:

You've got a 30mm wide piece of terrain that you're using for a wall.  You've declared that wall the standard Blocking, Climbable.

A 30mm-bassed figure climbs up the wall, crosses it, and climbs back down.

Next, a 40mm-based figure climbs up the wall, gets on top, and encounters the "How much of my base needs to be supported?" question.

Quote

If a model is ever without any of its base supported by terrain or the table, that model falls and suffers falling damage equal to half the distance it fell in inches (rounded down). It then continues any remaining portion of its movement as normal.

Given the various options, it's less problematic to allow models to float on ledges supported by slivers of their base, than it is for them to immediately fall as soon as a sliver of their base passes the edge of a surface.  (Especially when the paragraph describing using Walk to climb

Quote

When resolving a Walk Action (see pg. 22), a model may move vertically along Climbable Terrain. To do so, it uses any amount of its movement distance to move vertically instead of horizontally. If a model moves in this way, it does not fall during this movement so long as it remains in base contact with the terrain. If the model’s base is not supported by terrain or the table at the end of this movement, it falls as normal.

basically describes a model moving up the side of the terrain with the side of its base touching it (base remains parallel to table), rather than doing the Infinity style "Batman" climb (base is parallel to wall surface).  So at least during a Walk, it's not possible to enforce a "completely supported" standard in a meaningful manner.

But, probably more importantly, in order to be able to use the Climbing rules to climb down from the top of a roof or wall, you have to let the model move from a position where it's supported by the terrain to a point where it's only in base contact with the terrain without falling (yet).  And the model should probably have to pay for that horizontal movement to get there.

And because offensive pushes and moves exist in the game, it's less problematic if it takes the whole base being unsupported to make the model that was standing on top of a rooftop or wall to fall off.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
15 minutes ago, solkan said:

Given the various options, it's less problematic to allow models to float on ledges supported by slivers of their base, than it is for them to immediately fall as soon as a sliver of their base passes the edge of a surface.

And trying to adjudicate a percentage  (ie more than half, etc) is just adding a bigger problem for a solution. 

There's a good reason that Mali is boolean with most things. Something either is, or it isn't. So the options are sliver on or sliver off.

As you point out, with opposing pushes, sliver on is the better option.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0

So how would you mitigate any cheesy tightrope walking shenanigans? I've had a couple games in 2e where enemy models climbed up fences and walked as normal across a razors edge then dropped which skirted the intended rules of the terrain and resulted in a poor play experience. the fence was climbable so no rules were broken but it didn't feel right. 

Making a blanket rule where railings, banisters, and other 'sliver' pieces of terrain are Impassable might help solve the issue but the problem with declaring all 'tops' of things like fences as impassable is that models would not be able to climb over fences at that point. 

So any ideas on how to solve tightrope walking?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
27 minutes ago, Thimblesage said:

So how would you mitigate any cheesy tightrope walking shenanigans? I've had a couple games in 2e where enemy models climbed up fences and walked as normal across a razors edge then dropped which skirted the intended rules of the terrain and resulted in a poor play experience. the fence was climbable so no rules were broken but it didn't feel right. 

What's cheesy about that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
On 10/11/2019 at 11:03 AM, santaclaws01 said:

What's cheesy about that?

Cheesy in both fluff and mechanic.

Mechanically it would seem cheesy to render outmaneuvering and tactical positioning moot. If you take away players agency to counter their opponent through maneuvering and positioning it would greatly detract from the game IMHO. 

From a Fluff standpoint it doesn't "feel" right if a lumbering size:4 golem pirouetted atop a clothesline to avoid the opponent's counterplay. Obviously fluff has no grounds in a rules debate but it's nice when mechanics complement the fluff as much as possible leading to a good immersive game experience IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
59 minutes ago, Thimblesage said:

Mechanically it would seem cheesy to render outmaneuvering and tactical positioning moot. If you take away players agency to counter their opponent through maneuvering and positioning it would greatly detract from the game IMHO. 

That's a lot of words to say not that much. How does being able to walk along a fence render either of those moot? In what way is being able to do that strictly better than just being on one side or the other aside from the extreme corner cases of the fence being on the exact line that a model wants to move.

 

1 hour ago, Thimblesage said:

From a Fluff standpoint it doesn't "feel" right if a lumbering size:4 golem pirouetted atop a clothesline to avoid the opponent's counterplay. Obviously fluff has no grounds in a rules debate but it's nice when mechanics complement the fluff as much as possible leading to a good immersive game experience IMHO.

It also doesn't feel right from a fluff standpoint for a ht 1 wall to stop a ht4 model from charging, but it does.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
16 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

That's a lot of words to say not that much. How does being able to walk along a fence render either of those moot? In what way is being able to do that strictly better than just being on one side or the other aside from the extreme corner cases of the fence being on the exact line that a model wants to move.

 

It also doesn't feel right from a fluff standpoint for a ht 1 wall to stop a ht4 model from charging, but it does.

Not arguing that fluff should be a basis of mechanics. I was making a point that it's satisfying when they seem to Complement each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
22 minutes ago, santaclaws01 said:

How does being able to walk along a fence render either of those moot?

So if there's effectively no way to deny opponents through positioning tactics than it's pretty moot. If you wanted to 'lock down' a passage, ally, bridge, or some choke point and there's  seemingly no mechanical way to do so than that feels moot. 

Would you mind giving me an example of how models that can create terrain or markers intended to 'control' areas of interest be at all effective in these tightrope walking scenarios? It seems to me that these models in essence want the ability to control the board through manipulating movement access and if they cannot than I am unsure of their fundamental purpose. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
3 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

So if there's effectively no way to deny opponents through positioning tactics than it's pretty moot. If you wanted to 'lock down' a passage, ally, bridge, or some choke point and there's  seemingly no mechanical way to do so than that feels moot. 

Would you mind giving me an example of how models that can create terrain or markers intended to 'control' areas of interest be at all effective in these tightrope walking scenarios? It seems to me that these models in essence want the ability to control the board through manipulating movement access and if they cannot than I am unsure of their fundamental purpose. 

You're making quite the leap from "models can walk on top of terrain" to "terrain is completely useless to impede movement"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 0
5 hours ago, Thimblesage said:

 

Mechanically it would seem cheesy to render outmaneuvering and tactical positioning moot. If you take away players agency to counter their opponent through maneuvering and positioning it would greatly detract from the game IMHO. 

Outmaneuvering and tactical positioning can occur on an empty table, so I'm fairly sure it can happen even with the least restricted move options as long as both players are playing the same rules.

It might take more resources, but you could still block that bridge if you had a model touching each edge of it for example, then there isn't enough for even a tight rope walk. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Answer this question...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information