Looking into this more, it's not just "fully supported" that I was reading in. Even the word "supported" doesn't appear anywhere in the rules (except unrelatedly in the Place Deployable rule). My recollection that the trooper needs to be "supported" by a surface must have come entirely from @ijw 's post about double-vaulting. So, even if @Mahtamori is correct that @ijw 's post is irrelevant to the present question, that just leaves us with no requirement at all that a trooper's base be "supported." The actual rule is in Move and says "The Trooper’s base must always be in contact with the surface on which they intend to move." I can see three possible interpretations of that: 1. The specific rule for vaulting trumps the general rule require contact with the surface, so the trooper doesn't maintain contact with the ground while vaulting. 2. When vaulting, the surface the trooper is moving on is the object being vaulted, which remains in contact with (a part of) the trooper's base at all times in order to comply with the Move rule. 3. The trooper stays in contact with the ground by moving through, not over, the obstacle, but simultaneously moves over the obstacle only for LoF purposes. (1) and (2) lead to the same result: the trooper moves up (and therefore A can hover above B). (3) is my understanding of @Mahtamori 's interpretation, and results in A being unable to hover over B because, since A is really still on the ground, he reaches silhouette contact with B. The arguments for 1 or 2: - The vault rule describes a Trooper moving "over," not "through," an obstacle. - The vaulting diagram shows a Trooper moving up over the obstacle. - Having a trooper occupy one position for LoF purposes but a different position for silhouette contact purposes seems counterintuitive and unnecessarily complicated. It seems unlikely that's what the rules team had in mind. - If the Trooper doesn't move over the vaulted obstacle then it would be impossible to vault up onto a surface and stop there, which would be a drastic change to the way we all currently play. The arguments for 3: - The vault rule says that "the Trooper counts as moving up and over the obstacle for the purposes of LoF," which implies that he doesn't move up for non-LoF purposes. - It is arguably most consistent with the requirement that the trooper's base remain in contact with the surface moved on.
Dislocating where a trooper can see and be seen from and where they actually are is almost certainly a bad idea and would probably generate some nightmarish corner cases. Template weapons would interact with this interpretation in nasty ways, for example, since they interact with silhouettes extensively. I'm sure there would be more cases as well.
Hello, I can't find anything in the rulebook to prevent this particulary movement interaction, neither I see any kind of problem with it, it looks to similar to the "move a little beyond that corner and go back" in order to gain LoF we do every time every game. While we must do movement with the base touching always the game surface (maybe is a difference between English/Spanish version), "vaulting" obstacles makes this hard to fullfill, I presume the "go up and dow" when we do this overlaping is a way to simplified the movement without making our troups "Like ghost". I understand this case as a movement to see what is beyond the barricade and back to your position. This is what I think, for what it is worthy. Best regards!
Vaulting doesn't break the "being in contact with the surface the trooper moves on" part of the rules. It let's you ignore having their base fully supported by the surface temporarily. RAW I don't see any reason why you would be blocked from vaulting on a parapet, or moving alongside the parapet and getting on the roof in an unobstructed position. You're never touching the Prone Trooper either way.
When climbing a ladder, I thought you had to 'snap' to the first position where you base fit? Wasn't there already a thread going over how you never actually had a position on the parapet?
I can't really find someone with a claim to authority specifying whether and how you're able to vault between surfaces with different orientations (and thus different sensibilities as to what is up and down). Vaulting over an enemy that's blocking a ladder would require this to be possible, but when you set the scenario up you can see how determining what position is higher or lower than the silhouette gets messy. The specific rule says that "the obstacle’s height is equal to or lower than the height of the Trooper’s Silhouette Template, on both sides" which essentially means that it's impossible to vault from a ladder up over an obstacle on the roof since the entirety of the roof is a 'lower' position than the starting position on the wall - unless we're talking about higher or lower with respect to Earth's centre of gravity in which case vaulting over things while climbing becomes impossible. I think that is/was about how Climb works (specifically how to measure the distance) and not Climb+ or Ladders, though I can find where IJW argues that it makes no sense for Ladders and Climb to work differently in respect to getting up (argues, not rules, and that comment is early N4).
So, if there is a parapet, you cannot hover over an enemy model blocking a ladder like in this diagram @Diphoration created:
and if there was no enemy, you still can't complete the movement because one side of the vault is the roof and the other side of the vault is a 10 meter fall into the abyss ? if we do play that without the enemy the vault is legal; then with the enemy the vault - is still legal if you count as occupying the same space as your LoF silhouette (ie. going up and down as you vault, and not ghosting thru the obstacle) - but illegal if you count vaulting as occupying the underlying surfaces (at least the part on the roof side; not the part where another enemy is at the base of the ladder too).
I guess my question is: When climbing over a ladder will A1 snap to the position at A2 or A3? I have always played that it will snap to A3, but I could be wrong. If the model snaps to A3, then the question of if a model can hover while climbing a ladder is moot.. If the model snaps to A2, then were back to the OP question and it looks like people are leaning towards this would be possible.
i played that you snap as A3, with the understanding that you will be going thru A2 as an intermediate position (which is an important point if it results in LoF going over a far away obstacle). If there is no ladder, a climb has to snap as soon as it goes back horizontal and also end there. It can snap at A2 but can't end there. So I play that it goes all the way to A3 and ends the Order there; for scenery play-ability issues. The presence of a ladder just means things gets easier, so since you are doing a Move rather than a Climb, you can stop at A2 then retreat back to A1 as your final (supported) position. Is how I'd play it.
I can not read IJW's mind and I also don't know if the changes to how measuring climbing distances would have changed this since then, but... what'd happen would be that you'd get to the top of the vertical surface and then, if you have enough movement left (typically 25mm for the base and 3mm for the railing) you would place the miniature as close to the section you were climbing as possible. If there is an enemy there you can't climb up. At face value, if ladders are meant to work the same way then it wouldn't matter if you had enough movement to clear the enemy with margin since you'd not be able to shift to the horizontal surface due to the blocking enemy. But the big but is that I don't know if this is intended still as it is not really written in the rules. However, vaulting over doesn't pass harsh inspection. In the strictest sense, when you do a Climb Entire Order skill, you are not allowed to move horizontally, so the snap has to go directly to A3 without intermediate A2. But A3 is also lower than A1 form A1's perspective so it runs foul of vaulting restrictions. A2 compared to A1 also runs foul of vaulting restrictions without 90+ degrees corners so sharp you'd be able to shave with them.
but A3 is not touching A1, so in a Climb order you'd teleport rather than going thru A2 ? i'm fine with both (both cases are odds, which is why i generally dislike N4 Climb rules - and Ladder rules too - in regards to the terrain we have to play with)
Yes. As long as we're talking about climbing and not ladders I can say with confidence that this is the correct way. Both IJW and I believe Helllois have confirmed that the "teleportation" placement is the correct way to end a Climb. FAQs have altered to and from whether you have to "pay" the movement distance for it, and at present you have to "pay" the distance, but the silhouette doesn't pass an upright position. F.ex. in the N3 FAQ they described this as a "placement" rather than a movement. The same is true if you climb over a fence, btw, which is what I found IJW discussing when searching. You flip directly from one side of the fence when you reach the top to the other without placing the silhouette on top of the fence.
Gonna have to dig it up again. Edit. Was mainly between IJW and inane.imp, if it even is the page I found at work the other day https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/vaulting-over.39373/page-4#post-398061 Bear in mind that it is not discussing ladders directly which is why I'm not drawing hard conclusions from it, it is mainly hashing out vaulting and the fact that a unit may never, ever, over-hang unless it is forced to "squeeze".
If I remeber correcly in N3 ladders where like stairs rulewise, not sure if that changed. I would not compare ladders to climbing directly as a ladder is meant to be more accessable in regards to playability.
Hmm, interesting. The thread @Mahtamori cited asked about this scenario: The unit has climbing plus and wants to move from the red to the green position, passing through the blue position on the way (to get maximum height in order to see and shoot at a target). I've definitely seen it played that way, but @ijw ruled that the unit can't occupy the blue position because it breaks the vaulting rule (the distance to the ground under blue is farther than blue's silhouette height). So the unit snaps directly from red to green. The suggestion I think is that that in @Methuselah 's scenario, above, the unit may be able to snap directly from A1 to A3, skipping A2, in the same way that red can snap directly to green, skipping blue. I'm not sure that the lack of a ladder is a big difference between the two scenarios. The big difference I see is that blue isn't a legal position (breaks the vault rule), but A2 is a legal position. For example, if the unit started at A3, it could unquestionably move to A2 and then back to end its movement at A3 - that's standard vaulting rules (note in this scenario there's no enemy trooper in the way). I think it follows that the unit could move from A3 to A2 to A1, for example if it wanted to descend the ladder but get A2 height on its way to take a shot at something. That seems to follow from the ability to move from A3 to A2 - surely from A2 it can then descend the ladder. Could the unit instead choose to snap directly from A3 to A1, skipping A2? I'm skeptical that it would be allowed to skip a legal intervening position. In the other thread, green is the first legal position after red. If blue were a legal position, then I doubt the unit could choose to skip it. It seems to me that a unit at A3 that wants to descend the ladder would have to first move as close as possible to the ladder, which in this case would be A2. I'd think that snapping only happens when it's necessary to get from one legal position to the next. If I'm right that a unit going from A3 to A1 is required to pass through A2, then I think the reverse would also be true and a unit going from A1 to A3 would be required to pass through A2. Even if I'm wrong about that, it's still the case that A2 is a legal position (since it can be reached by vaulting from A3), so surely the unit coming from A1 could choose to move to A2, even if it has the option to instead snap directly to A3. So I think my opinion on @Methuselah 's question is that the unit coming up the ladder can, and probably must, snap to A2 prior to snapping to A3. Which, as @Methuselah says, would bring us back to the original question of whether A2 is still a legal position if there's an enemy unit prone under it, and I think he's right that the thread is leaning towards "yes," it's still a legal position.
