Movement on Severe Terrain

[snord]

Hi all,

Yesterday we had a game and a discussion followed on how to measure movement when moving through severe terrain. For the purposes of this discussion, lets assume a small miniature like Francisco, and just to simplify calculations, lets pretend its base has exactly 1" diameter.

Rules Manual, page 35: when measuring a model's movement, measure consistently using the same point on the model's base.

page 36: movement through severe terrain costs double the distance moved.

Francisco (Wk 5) is standing 1" away from a forest that is 3" wide. Francisco will move through the forest in a straight line using 2 walk actions (see the picture bellow).

So, he moves 1" to reach the forest, and then paying double movement, is able to move 2" more (2 * 2" = 4") into the forest. So he is standing right in the middle of the forest.

He then moves again, straight ahead. How far can he move?

Interpretation 1: since the first movement was measured using the front of the base, Francisco moves 1" paying double movement (2 * 1"=2") and since the front of the base is now outside the forest he can move 3" more.

Interpretation 2: since the back of the base will be the last thing to leave the forest, Francisco moves 2" paying double movement (2 * 2"=4") until the whole base is completely outside the forest, and then he is able to move only 1" extra.

Help?

Thanks

[Keltheos]

I'll be honest, I read the first three posts and scrolled past the rest...

Answer: While the the base is on/in the terrain the penalty applies.

It's not where you're measuring the base's movement from, it's what the base is actually interacting with.

[Hatchethead]

Using that logic, you can have a model sit with 95% of it's base within the severe terrain, and as long as you measure from the 5% edge that's out of the terrain, you will not pay any movement penalty.

This would mean you can gain all of the advantages that the terrain can offer (cover/obscuring/whatnot), but never suffer any of the disadvantages.

... but in order to get to that point, nestled so neatly within the terrain, you would've have had to move into and through, paying double the entire way (unless you were air dropped or deep strike'd into that position). A large model would be able to move over and through terrain quickly, not spend more time mired in it (but even then you need to draw a distinction between an obscuring forest, which a larger model might find more difficult, and a patch of jagged rock, which a larger model with longer strides would blow over).

Don't get me wrong, I see your point. There are ways to use and abuse both approaches. I'm honestly not 100% sure of my interpretation, but it's how we've always done it.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Hatchethead

[Hatchethead]

I'll be honest, I read the first three posts and scrolled past the rest...

Answer: While the the base is on/in the terrain the penalty applies.

It's not where you're measuring the base's movement from, it's what the base is actually interacting with.

And there you have it. Thanks Kel!

Seems so very odd to me. 8" (approx) to cover and remove oneself from 3" of severe terrain.

I predict many sad faces at the LGS this weekend ...

Edited October 14, 2011 by Hatchethead

[Dracomax]

And there you have it. Thanks Kel!

Seems so very odd to me. 8" (approx) to cover and remove oneself 3" of severe terrain.

I predict many sad faces at the LGS this weekend ...

I predict a lot of people abusing it, when the implications are drawn.

[Hatchethead]

I predict a lot of people abusing it, when the implications are drawn.

Meh. Neither is perfect. So long as I know which method the devs intended, I'm happy.

At least it's a relatively easy fix. Measure from model base front to b2b with terrain for entering severe, measure from model base back to b2b when leaving. It's not complicated. It's almost elegant and somewhat intuitive, actually.

As usual, I should've trusted my first instinct: Interpretation 2.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Hatchethead

[Lucidicide]

I don't see why interpretation 2 is odd. I know we have the answer on this, which is all well and good, but I don't see this whole "I'm paying twice!" thing in interpretation 2.

[snord]

I'll be honest, I read the first three posts and scrolled past the rest...

Answer: While the the base is on/in the terrain the penalty applies.

It's not where you're measuring the base's movement from, it's what the base is actually interacting with.

I can't believe my whole 8 months of miniature gaming life were based in LIE!!! :frusty:

Thanks Keltheos, that clarifies it.

[Hatchethead]

I don't see why interpretation 2 is odd. I know we have the answer on this, which is all well and good, but I don't see this whole "I'm paying twice!" thing in interpretation 2.

"Paying twice" was quickly discounted. I identified and admitted to the error when I posted the rejigged diagram.

[Keltheos]

I'll go back and read the thread to see how you guys have come to these alternate interpretations. I'm always interested.

Severe terrain is one of the most common/basic penalties in miniatures games. If the model's touching it, it's slowed down.

If you consider the base is the 'area' the model occupies, how would it not be hindered by severe terrain if it was still in it? "Hey, my arm's cleared this thatch of brambles I guess I can run full tilt now!" Um...

[Dracomax]

I'll go back and read the thread to see how you guys have come to these alternate interpretations.

If you consider the base is the 'area' the model occupies, how would it not be hindered by severe terrain if it was still in it? "Hey, my arm's cleared this thatch of brambles I guess I can run full tilt now!" Um...

I think it has to do with the oposite interpretation--"my arm's still inside this bramble, so I have to move exactly as slowly as when my whole body was in there!"

[Hatchethead]

I think it has to do with the oposite interpretation--"my arm's still inside this bramble, so I have to move exactly as slowly as when my whole body was in there!"

Exactly. Both interpretations ultimately result in nonsense at some point. It's merely a matter of picking your poison and choosing which specific nonsense defines your reality.

[Lucidicide]

I believe that Wyrd somewhere has described a model, from a gaming perspective, as a solid cylinder that fills its entire base up to its height. This is because models are bobbing and weaving and busting a move or two, or they would be if they were real.

As such, you can easily say "my arm is the only part of me on that side of the base" but as far as Wyrd is concerned, you're really nebulously on there, so it's just as easily something else.

That's why it makes sense to me.

[Keltheos]

Yup. In Malifaux, if you're in the terrain you're in the terrain.

[Dracomax]

I believe that Wyrd somewhere has described a model, from a gaming perspective, as a solid cylinder that fills its entire base up to its height. This is because models are bobbing and weaving and busting a move or two, or they would be if they were real.

As such, you can easily say "my arm is the only part of me on that side of the base" but as far as Wyrd is concerned, you're really nebulously on there, so it's just as easily something else.

That's why it makes sense to me.

Understand, I'm not arguing here; the ruling has been made and it's fine. That being said, the idea of the model as a cylinder doesn't really make the situation better. Assuming that all parts of a height 1 model are equally distributed throughout a 1 inch high cylinder. You still end up with situations where 98% of the model is not inside the base yet the entire model is acting like it is. if we were to assume that this was real life, and we were constantly filling a cylindrical space of that profile(whcih is not how I would recommend moving through brambles, let alone the kind you would find on Malifaux ) the what you would actually have is a logarythmic slowing as more of that sylinder was pushed into contact with the brambled area, followed by movement through the area and an exponential increase in speed as more of the cylinder pushed out of the area. Assuming consistant pain tolerance and density of the sever terrain, these two operation would cancel each other out, leaving one segment of slower movement, and one of faster movement. Now, given that very few people have time to find the slope of a curve while playing miniatures wargames, it is of course necessary to simplify the process.

[gnam]

Thanks for the clarification Keltheos

[Hatchethead]

Yup. In Malifaux, if you're in the terrain you're in the terrain.

I hate to admit, but it does make sense.

If I have a model with a 1" diameter base (for simplicity sake) and a 1" wide strip of severe terrain: If I start in b2b with the terrain and move 1" to enter it, that costs me 2". If I then move an additional inch forward, resulting in being b2b on the opposite side, that also costs me 2". It costs 2" to enter and 2" to leave. This 2" move through severe terrain has cost me 4", as per the RAW.

Some tiny, simian part of my brain still screams that this is somehow being "charged twice", but I can appreciate the ruling. Why should it be easier to leave than to enter? If it costs me 2" to slog to the middle of hard terrain, why should the slog from the middle to the opposite edge be any easier?

:facepalm