Honestly, this is pretty confusing to me when it comes to how we read Infinity rules like that in general - because this is not the only example. When some passage says basically that "you can do X and Y to many things including thing Z", and another passage says "you can do X to Z", somehow people insist this means you cannot actually do Y to Z. I'm pretty sure that's not how formal logic works, and if that was supposed to be an exception, wording doesn't make it clear since permission from common rule still stands and must be specifically overruled in order for that to become and exception. I guess the interpretation here comes from implications of certain specific interaction being mentioned in the rules at all (there should be a reason to single out that interaction seemingly covered by common rule already, so this must be an exception from it), but sometimes it's not all that clear - especially in basic rules which are often written in a manner suggesting superfluousness may actually be intended to make understanding these basics easier. Oh well. Another issue is that units can "vault" over low obstacles regardless fo their full size, and their movement is also not blocked (entirely?) by a range of things that are smaller (or of equal S Value if applicable) than its Shilouette (friendlies, small scenery pieces etc.). Those things are written separately. Does that mean an S2 line trooper can move "through" another line trooper, but can vault over friendly S4 REM that has lower height, since we still count them as "obstacles", albeit not those that "don't block movement (completely)"? If not, see my grievances from paragraph 1.
Exactly. Which is why it's so frustrating for me. It's extremely important to me to understand exactly how something works so I can manipulate it to the best of my ability. Things are easier to use that way. I'm not saying I want Infinity to be an easier game, I want it to be easier to play. I hope that distinction is clear. EDIT: What is the maximum horizontal distance a trooper can vault over an object before a Jump must be declared instead?
Very HYWPY, and I may be wrong, but "vaulting" is basically a normal movement, except rules allow you automatically elevate/lower your model just enough for it to continue its movement on top of an obstacle (or on the ground) as normal. Vertical movement is free whereas horizontal movement towards closest legal position right after you elevated it (so until model's base is in full contact with flat surface underneath) counts towards MOV limit. Jump must be declared if your unit's Silhouette is not tall enough to allow vaulting, but obstacle's length doesn't matter - as long as you can fit your model on top of it. In case of friendly units (assuming you are allowed to vault over them), you cannot finish your movement on top of that model, so you will have to end it on the other side of it. Jumping without Super-jump as Entire Order is actually disadvantageous in this case because vaulting doesn't account for vertical movement when it comes to range you can cover while Jumping does. EDIT: But this tricky because while common sense (derp, I know) dictates vaulting must allow your model to make otherwise illegal movement (when it only partially stands on new ground) in order for that rule to do anything, moving when your base is entirely in contact with a flat surface is likely supposed to be fully legal normally. And top of unit's Silhouette is hardly a legal surface to walk on. So does that mean "vaulting" is somewhat inconsistent in that it sometimes makes illegal movement legal without mentioning it in the rules, but sometimes doesn't when "nature of illegality" is different? Perhaps. By the way, Climbing and even Climbing+ are not safe from requiring this "but okay, let's pretend you can walk on the ledge with only part of your base being in contact with flat surface" house rule in order to work.
? That's how i look at it as well but the next question is, does the type of object/terrain you're vaulting over matter? What about vaulting multiple times until the trooper ascends to a ridiculous height? A bit like very large stairs.
"How You Would Play It". Basically describing a way certain person applies rules, as opposed to RAW (Rules As Written) or RAI (Rules As Intended*). * - some say "I" stands for "Interpreted", but that would be too similar to HYWPI. Hard to say considering that vaulting requires you to make movements that are already illegal strictly by RAW. But in my opinion, RAI is that "vaulting" is there to allow you to ignore small (i.e. less than your current Silhouette's height) height differences between flat platforms, but nothing more. You don't actually move through air when "vaulting". Also note that "vault" is not a proper rule name / defined gameplay term. That's kinda what stairs are for though. And apparently it's possible. But note that ability to walk up using actual stairs with each platform smaller than unit's base can be... controversial. Because you see, if you can move through 4 inches of horizontal range on a terrain that is super-illegal to stand on (small stairs, duh!), why can't you do the same with rough terrain with not a flat patch on it? Or even friendly remotes (possibly using them as a ladder to get higher, lol), since apparently they are "obstacles" too. Probably not. I may just be ignorant of some obscure rules here, but it seems to me that these vault / Climb / Climbing+, as well as scenery element "stair" (which certain CB's partners are so fond of even though they have very shaky RAW support) things only run on tradition and gentlemen's agreement rather than RAW.
I'm not aware of any rule there either but I've always played movement very loosely. I still can't tell the intended ruling for allied camo markers blocking movement or not. I just know I could never tell a player they can't pass through their own camo markers. Does sloped terrain extend to vaulting your silhouette height multiple times as well?
That's the most hard approach to the situation, I must admit. Although technically they are often a set of small platforms. I'm not a great English buff, but I think it doesn't qualify as "sloped" plane either.
Sorry, got it mixed up with a different game. Stairs and ladders are no different. Regular move skill, no vaulting, no climbing, etc. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/General_Movement_Rules
Well, yeah, that works. I'm not sure whether diagonal stairs like these can be used to stop in the middle of stairway. I guess they are otherwise more clear when it comes to moving through them. Edge cases that have to do with transition from staircase/ladder to horizontal surface still stand as issue though. From the example we know that you can make that transition, but how exactly that happens can be controversial when edge case LoFs become involved.
So you're saying you can't pass through a friendly camo token's space? If, in this case, "allied trooper" doesn't refer to both models and markers, what about all the other rules where "trooper" has been interpreted as referring to both models and markers?
Sorry, 'exception' probably wasn't the best word to use. It's rather that the 'obstacle/vaulting' rules don't need to be used for troopers with a lower Silhouette Attribute, and can't be used for enemy troopers due to contact stopping movement. Rules-wise it's just a diagonal surface, as mahtamori said. Rules-wise I think it's probably not possible due to the text not specifying 'enemy', just that you can't get into contact. That said, locally we play that you can move through your own markers (assuming Silhouette Attributes are appropriate), and I've not come across anyone playing it differently.
Sorry, IJW, I've been reading this thread and I just want to get clarity on something you mentioned. Does this mean that you can vault a friendly model? The reason I ask is twofold, because if you can vault a friendly model: 1: A S2 model can vault a S3 or S4 model, so your dudes can butt-slide over your remotes. 2: A S2 model could vault another S2 model to get an elevated firing position, because as per the FAQ, Troops are considered to be moving "up and down" the obstacle, even though it does not cost MOV. I don't know when this would be particularly useful, but I imagine there could certainly be situations in which it would be, and it might seem like 'shenanigans'. So I just want to make sure I understand what you are saying. Edit to add non-sequitur: It is pretty common in wargames for models to 'ignore' friendly models when moving, and so I think it feels 'natural' for lots of people to play this way. Infinity is a lot more explicit about tracking a model's XYZ position on the table at all times than many other systems, and not without good reason in the context of the rules. Hence interesting questions like this come up.
Somehow, mental image of Grey standing on volunteer's shoulders to shoot over tall fence is pretty hilarious.
That last bit is pretty big. Rules wise would stop the mine drop on a corner. Also that interaction has connotations with enemy camo markers. If equipment , either friend or foe, doesn't stop movement. And rules wise you cannot move through your own camo, if that is allowed surely you could move through enemy camo concealing mines. Even without that muddyness the first part is pretty important imo as that tactic is everywhere.
