If a trooper is moving along the wall of a building and wants to go around a 90 degree corner, are they able to cut the corner because only half the width of their base needs to be supported? In this diagram, figure 1 is how I played movement during N3 - you have to move your entire silhouette around the corner. Figure 2 shows how you could move partially through the corner with at least half a base supported.
https://infinitythewiki.com/Move Any surface they move on must be at least half as wide as their base. - And as can be seen in the example, it's possible to squeeze through stuff, it's not just limited to walking planks. I.e. figure 2 is correct until further notice, IMO.
This one should go on the Unanswered Questions list IMO. The rule requiring half your base to be supported doesn't appear to authorize walking through walls. However, the rule allowing you to squeeze through gaps does allow you to walk through walls in some cases. Per the previous thread on this subject, there's a reasonable argument that the gap-squeezing rule applies in the above case even though there's no actual gap to squeeze through. My back-of-the-envelope math says that you gain a little over half an inch of movement by cutting the corner, which is not insignificant.
If that was a narrow ledge on a corner of a building's 2nd floor, I'd say go ahead. Doing this on the ground level, with no actual "squeezing through" or "supporting" the model's base, I'd say it's a very "gamey" move. Probably legal per RAW, but uncool and I'd like to see @ijw weigh in.
@Nuada Airgetlam Gamey? I don't see how a trooper can move full speed between two walls, but can't if the second wall isn't there. That feels more gamey.
I think you forgot to detour to avoid that obstacle, that rule is there for gaps and opening too small to fit large base models in any type of terrain you got, not to make them change the way you measure distance. https://infinitythewiki.com/General_Movement_Rules When moving Troopers around the battlefield, players must measure the complete route (including, for example, any detour to avoid obstacles) and must always use the same part of the base for their measurements. Also, the example makes it real clear in wich situations you can use the half width of the base.
100% agree. I also honestly do not understand what the whole crying arms in the air about this is about... so this changed and turning corners is faster now by RAW. So WHAT? It is honestly a super small thing that is equal across all factions. We just need a clarification if RAW matches RAI, that is all.
It's an absolutely gamey, borderline WAAC gotcha. Nobody who hasn't heard about this edge case interpretation will expect you to be able to "half ghost through walls" on a corner and gain potentially decisive amount of distance this way. This is a special narrow case (ledge, thin passage, etc.) type of a rule and you're trying to apply it broadly "because it doesn't say I can't".
Agree with @Willen and @pseudonymmster Nearly everyone I've seen playing this game has been measuring by clipping half their base through corners for years. I can't even think of anyone who doesn't do it that way because of how awkward it is measuring the correct distance around a sharp corner. Now they just made the way people are measuring movement correct.
I don’t think squeezing is allowed unless physically required by the terrain. Probably needs a formal FAQ to clarify. Either way ends up with some counterintuitive results in corner case board layouts.
@Nuada Airgetlam I am far from a WAAC gamer. As @Mahtamori said, people have been measuring incorrectly for quite a while, and I wouldn't correct them, because who cares, it's a game and it takes long enough as it is. Speed it up and measure quicker.
I tend to agree. Sometimes you measure JUST RIGHT, sometimes you bend the ruler around the corner and you are basically cutting some distance. Pretending this actually matters when we cannot bother measuring each move to the tenth of an inch (this is no TTS, this is real life) tbh seems so useless. When I am off by half an inch to reach that last console sometimes I think about all those times I kept sacrificing some move when moving to cover, or when I bumped a model, etc... and it doesn´t matter. It does not make the game more fun to be tenths of inches correct. At least not my kind of fun.
Hell, figure one is bad enough because it’s clipping through the corner. There’s no way I’d let someone declare the movement path in figure two. :( You have enough room to move, so you have to go around.
Exactly. Measure far enough to clear the corner for your intended angle of movement, then measure further part of your Move. No way I'm allowing an opponent to literally cut corners either. If there's space for your base, it needs to take it.
Basic geometry - a bike on a 55mm base doing that trick gains 2 full inches and a little bit on a single corner. There's absolutely zero chance I'm allowing that in a game with me.
If you go fully out and then over with a hard 90 degree turn, that's paying too much movement. In a perfectly measured mathematical world, you would pivot around the corner in a perfect circular arc. That's difficult to measure for most ordinary people. But the fact is, cutting through the corner has exactly the same problems if you try to apply it to its maximum extent.
https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/moving-around-corners.37007/#post-337031 I did some math in this old thread and came up with a simple rule of thumb for estimating distance around a corner. I did use some assumptions that not everyone agreed with, but y’all can see what I did there.
Ah, figure 1 wasn't meant to be clipping through, but moving all the way around the edge with the base in contact with the corner. @Ayaxs That looks compelling.