@inane.imp : it has been confirmed officially that a TAG can Engage through small access points. This means that the full path that a model engages do not need to qualify for the general movement rules, and that the rule (probably) exists as a way of confirming the initial Engage is (between user and any point in target's movement path) is legal.
Yes . But that rule specifically calls out narrow access no other 'impassable' path. What I'm gettkng from your argument is that placing an engaging model on a wall is a RAI extension of the FAQ and not strictly RAW?
Without actually digging the answer up and re-reading it thoroughly, my memory tells me that the answer wasn't specifically about going through a door, but rather used the door as an example. I'd also like to remember that it's been separately answered that a model Engaging another model that's super-jumping across a gap would also be able to tag along. I'm less sure about the veracity of the latter, though. Vague, I know, but the douchebaggery that you can do to Engaging models has been a known fact of the forums for as long as I've been reading the forums. Don't get me wrong, I'd like the rules to be perfectly clear and the FAQ to not muddle it up (and a few other minor changes such as not letting your opponent place your model when you're Engaging, but oh well) That said, I do think the house rule that you don't place your opponent's model in locked positions is a house rule everyone should strive to enforce - using sock-Maghribas if necessary.
Yes. And would stop Engage if your opponent ended on a vaulted position. I atillsthink it is a better way to play it if Engage is effectively a teleport. But I think requiring a legal path (except for explicit exceptions such as Narrow Access) of any distance is better.
I dont think having an exception to engage against all other meanings of the term B2B is great design.
point being though its still not what the rules say, see if you can find the old thread about it as this gets brought up a lot.
I would agree kind of and argue that you can't be placed on a wall but climb fallows the General Movement rules sadly. Also more importantly I am pretty sure it was confirmed in a FAQ that you are allowed to place someone engaging you on a wall. The example used in the FAQ was someone engaging someone else who was using climbing plus but the climbing plus was not the import part. The impotent part was that you can stick someone on a wall if they engage even if they don't have climbing plus.
Engage specifically calls out the common skill Move. The FAQ only deals with Narrow Access, I quoted it.
Sorry I am not fallowing you. Is your argument that a FAQ never specifically said you can place a model on a wall because I am pretty sure it did? Give me a bit and I will see if I can't dig it up for you.
just quote it again in full mate, Relay the argument out in a single post. it'll make it all more cohesive for everyone to read
The FAQ in question is very limited: Q: What happens if a miniature with a 25 mm base moves inside a room with a Narrow Access receives a successful Engage attack from a model with a 40 mm base? A: Both figures will end their movements inside the room, ignoring the Narrow Access. It tells you how to handle engages when they involve a very specific thing, a Narrow Access which is a feature of scenery items, I would argue this isn't even generally applied to other areas too narrow to access which a model should still not be able to engage through. The engage rules clearly don't teleport you: If the Roll is successful, then the user Dodges all Attacks against him and moves into base to base contact with his target at the final location previously declared. Engage movement must follow the General Movement rules of the Move Common Skill. You move, as per the move skill itself, which does not allow you to traverse up a wall without other special skills, and thus you cannot do so when engaging.
Hehe this is Infinity, we don't keep all the rules clarifications and FAQ's in one place. This FAQ should end the debate. http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/30668-n3-faq-based-on-forum-results/ This is the thread (I think) where you can find the discussion that lead to the FAQ being confirmed by Palanka. http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/28116-solved-engaging-a-climber-plus/?page=2#comment-667609
Add to this: http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/30758-solved-engage-round-three/#comment-670078 It does seem like Palanka's answers heavily hint that the Engaging model will attempt to declare the same or similar movement skill(s) as the model they are attempting to Engage with - meaning the way he answers you'd have to be Engaging a model that actually climbs in order to get stuck on a wall. This would still leave Engaging someone on a ladder in a bit of a limbo since we don't quite know if you count as climbing when on a ladder. http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...ging-a-climber-plus-evolution/#comment-669439 Here Palanka specifies that a Motorcycle would fail their Engage as soon as the target declares Climb, making no mention of the climbing movement being important to consider.
@Mahtamori well fuck, now I'm even more confused and I'm realising that I won't be able to grok why Engage + walls works the way it does. I'm just going to have to remember all the special cases as individual special cases (yeah!). Re: ladders. My meta plays ladders as 'not climbing' when on a ladder.
So then if I'm reading this all correctly, basically you want to be VERY careful when declaring Engage vs. a Climbing+ enemy. The reason being that, if you don't have Climbing+, then you could be stuck on a wall and not be able to CC against the model you're in B2B with since CC Attack is a short skill, and you can't do any skills while climbing. Also, it seems that IF the Engaging model can contact via silly to silly, then actually being on the wall isn't necessary. Being forced on to the wall would only be necessary if S2S contact was impossible. (I'd house rule that S2S takes priority over B2B in this case). So to summarize, if a Climb+ model declares a BS attack, maybe don't engage if there's a wall nearby, unless you REALLY want to tie up the model in CC and think you can survive a CC Attack unopposed roll on a wall.. Honestly it seems like an oversight and it wouldn't surprise me if this is fixed later. I don't think the original intention was to allow a model without Climb+ to engage an enemy on a wall, since it breaks the climb rule which states you need to start B2B with a wall to be able to Climb as an Entire Order Skill. And AROs state: "Using an ARO, the Reactive Player can only declare Skills that specifically state they are usable in ARO." - ARO rules definition. edit: sorry, I wanted to add that, in any case, if there is not enough distance from the Engaging model's starting position, to the final position B2B with enemy on wall, then the "Engage" ARO changes to "Idle", in which case this is all a moot point.
