1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Double vaulting

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Snare, Dec 8, 2020.

  1. Snare

    Snare Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2018
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    35
    [​IMG]In this image can the TAG get to the top of the building in one move, by vaulting onto the box and then making another vault on top of the building?
    (When standing on the box which is smaller than 1/2 its base its silhouette is higher than the building.)

    [​IMG]
     
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Will your base be fully supported at all points in your movement? While vaulting you are supported by the combined gaming surface beneath the miniature, provided it is within the distance your unit moves upwards or downwards. Double vaulting means you'll not only start a vault unsupported and finish the first vaulting movement way out of height restrictions, but also that at some point in the movement your unit won't be fully supported.

    So in short; no.

    If you want to use that as a leg up you're going to have to agree with your opponent to define it as a stairs or a ladder.
     
    Snare and inane.imp like this.
  3. LZ35SRX

    LZ35SRX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    222
    Citation on that, please?
    General Movement Rules:
    ◼ A Trooper can move over any scenery item whose height is equal to or lower than the height of the Trooper’s Silhouette Template, with no need to declare Climb or Jump.
    ◼ This vertical movement is not taken into account when measuring how far the Trooper moves, but the Trooper counts as moving up and over the obstacle for the purposes of LoF.

    Nowhere else is it stated, that the base must fully be supported during the whole movement distance, nor is it stated that you have to be 'supported' by the 'combined gaming surface'. The only clause close to that is the requirements of Move Common Skill:
    ► The Trooper’s base must always be in contact with the surface on which they intend to move.
    ► Any surface they move on must be at least half as wide as their base.
    ► The Trooper must be able to finish their movement on a surface that’s equal to or larger than their base.

    And even then, zero mentions of 'combined surface'. In Snare's example the only case that could prevent his 'double-vault' is if that box is less than half width of TAG's base. And note the wording - RAW it's 'half as wide as their base', not 'half the size/area'.

    Edit: And if we go with 'half the size of the base' interpretation (which is stretching RAW), then small barriers from Wildfire/Kaldstrom terrain packs are not vaultable. Which is patently ridiculous, and IIRC contradicts the official battle report.
     
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    The Move and Obstacles example on page 37 has an illustration of what is essentially a double vaulting movement with the added quirk that each individual vault would be legal if it wasn't for the fact that the combined total is not.

    Edit: yes, the Move skill requires only half the surface to be supporting the unit, but do try to explain how you have "moved over" an obstacle when there is no end point to said movement.
     
  5. LZ35SRX

    LZ35SRX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    222
    Oh really?
    upload_2020-12-8_15-34-41.png
    Seems pretty legal to me.

    And anticipating your next argument - the next image is not a legal vault.
    upload_2020-12-8_15-35-28.png
    The obstacle is higher that Silhouette height from the right side. Nowhere in this example a double vault happens, unlike the first one.
     
  6. Snare

    Snare Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2018
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    35
    Am I right in saying then that 55mm base TAGS can use objects that are 55mm x 28mm or larger as steps.

    This is certainly a consideration when laying out terrain as I wouldnt necessarily want TAGS to be able to zip around too easily, undermining climbing+ & superjump.
     
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    That's two obstacles on the second image, one upwards and one downwards. And do explain where your end point is in the OP's image once you've moved over the box.

    Also, given your seeming preferred interpretation, I promise you I can take the piss to such a point that Climb+ becomes pointless because everyone will just teleport upwards or downwards as necessary.
     
  8. LZ35SRX

    LZ35SRX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    222
    THAT is a very difficult question. RAW I'd say that any object that is at least 28mm wide in one dimension can work as a vaultable object to a S7 TAG (remember, there are S6 and S8 TAGs as well), but that feels both wrong and right. Right because of the small barriers problem I mentioned in my first post, wrong because it'll give every base size a bit too much mobility.

    I think it's better to get an intent clarification/ruling from @ijw
     
  9. LZ35SRX

    LZ35SRX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    222
    Even if you interpret that triangle as two obstacles - it will be either way illegal, since the second one is taller than Silhouette, not because of any kind of 'combined surface'. In OP's example both vaults - ground to box and box to tower - are less than TAG's height.

    >end point
    I'd say it's obvious. Though it can be argued, that the 'gate' is too narrow for a TAG base to fit through - remember the 'squeezing' clause. The 'gate' is more that half width of the base, I'd say it fits here.
    upload_2020-12-8_15-45-14.png

    >take a piss
    Sure, go ahead, measure the nanometers that the base enters the sheer wall. I wonder how you'll do that without looking like a clown.
     
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Adding this to the unresolved thread since, simply put, this has been undefined rules behaviour for the past 7+ years.
     
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Yeah, because I'm the one arguing that's within the rules. Totally.

    Care to moderate the language or is ad hominem your preferred modus operandi?
     
  12. LZ35SRX

    LZ35SRX Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2018
    Messages:
    179
    Likes Received:
    222
    Care to provide the citations where I'm arguing outside of RAW?

    And going back to your edit - the end point of the movement is at the end of another vault, which is supported at least by the correct example of vaulting from the p.37 of the rulebook:
    upload_2020-12-8_16-1-4.png
    As you can see, the movement 'over' the first obstacle does not end fully supported by the surface, nor does it end at the same surface level as the start of vault.

    >ad hominem
    You haven't started arguing for nanometer vaulting yet. Hopefully.
     
  13. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    That's not two obstacles chained in a way that getting on top of the second obstacle depends on the height gained or lost during the first obstacle.

    You did bring up a good point about the requirement of Move and it's unclear in the original image if the box is sufficiently large to accommodate more than half the base. As for the gate, I hadn't considered the gate at all, but considering that IJW answered on the WGC Facebook that squeezing through non-passages for convenience shouldn't be a thing, I'd say that moving through the gate is not as clear cut as it might seem.

    I think the Gang Ties boxes are made of 3mm MDF and that the internal surface is just barely sufficient to place an S2 unit without having that S2 unit stand on the raised edges of the box, making the box itself 29x29mm. I don't quite have the time to re-learn how to calculate the intersection of a square and a circle, but given that the box is standing up against the wall you can't maximize the surface of the square inside the base' circle, so my best guesstimation is that it won't qualify for 50% of the base.

    >ad hominem
    Not the measuring nanometers the part where you pre-empt an argument by calling me a clown should I make it.
     
  14. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    I'm short on sleep and irritable, so may not be wording this in the most diplomatic terms.

    Have you reached a point where your base is supported? If you haven't, then you are still vaulting, and are therefore any vertical movement will be limited by the Trooper's Silhouette height.

    The situation in the original post is waaaaaaaay out, and is definitely 100% not allowed. It would involve vaulting much higher than the Trooper's Silhouette.

    There's a grey area for intermediate 'steps' that don't fully support the base but are at least half the width of the base, but even there, I strongly recommend that you don't try this in a game without having discussed it with the other player before the game starts.
     
  15. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    Sorry to be cheeky, as you said you're busy and stressed so don't take it personal.

    But that's assuming hindsight or clairvoyance.
    You just don't know where you're gonna try to move turn 2 or 3 in a game and what S the trooper you're moving is gonna be.
    It's entirely possible you're playing on a table the first time and terrain features on it might not be entirely neat geometrical box shapes.

    Movement Rules interacting with creative terrain could really use a cleanup.
    Heck I still don't know how vaulting interacts with a railing or parapet in N4 RAW (both ways, up and down a roof are different cases)..
     
    #15 Teslarod, Dec 8, 2020
    Last edited: Dec 8, 2020
  16. Snare

    Snare Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2018
    Messages:
    32
    Likes Received:
    35
    Thanks for taking the time to answer! Your effort in assisting the new edition change over is highly appreciated.
     
    Methuselah likes this.
  17. deltakilo

    deltakilo Bear of Butcher bay
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    684
    Likes Received:
    1,809

    I agree with you IJW. I think double vaulting particularly with tags is busted and requires a level of thought in table design that if missed creates some really bad games and gives tags a level of mobility most of them aren't paying for.

    I would like vaulting cleared up far better than it is because it's so vague that anyone can have an opinion that is hard to dispute or rule on.

    Theres a whole lot of issues I see with how it's articulated. It shows itself here in mobility and there's also weird interactions with elevation and cover which are also confusing.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation