Yes, I suggest treating a 3" tall building as if it was 3" tall, or rather I would treat it as four 3" high walls (assuming it's a rectangular building) If the 3" tall building has a 1" railing, you could ignore the railing with a vault.
So if the building has 1.5" cube snug against it, an S2 can't vault up on the cube and then vault from the cube up on the building because the building is 3" tall.
Going from the ground to the cube, then the cube to the building would be vaulting two 1.5" walls, providing the Trooper's base can be placed in a fully supported area on top of the cube between the two vaults. What I'm saying the rules don't allow is using an arbitrary midair point during a jump to treat a wall as shorter than it actually is.
I’m not going to argue further but just want to say you are being overly pedantic in a way that is doing the game a disservice, Mahtamori, imho. They’ve even spelled out the RAI if the RAW wasn’t enough.
There's no arbitrariness about it, it's the exact contact point of the silhouette onto the building. That's where you need to displace the silhouette slightly less than the silhouette value, within the nominally normal rules for vaulting and in line with the vaulting that a similarly tall "other" items such as a planter would require. Of course, for most buildings, the parapets tend to be structural parts of the MDF piece and not individual objects on their own. Yes they did, so I'm not entirely sure why you are taking this extremely restrictive view of how to treat the situation when the objective is to increase the mobility of the units. I am asking this to head off clashes like these during games. I can tell you that this restrictive view that you and Colbrook are taking on the issues are neither unique to you two, nor are they anywhere near universal. I have already seen people independently of myself whom are celebrating that it is now possible to just vault parts of the building that are causing issues when performing a jump from a position close to the building.
This kind of devil’s advocate argument of obviously-incorrect approaches to the rules sucks up resources of attention and credibility that should be spent on more credible and critical problems. If your intention is to expose and explore bad interpretations that TFG might try sometime, simply accepting the sound evidence and arguments already made on this thread will do that. Doggedly pursuing baldly-incorrect assertions -helps- TFGs make annoying arguments like this. [Edit for clarity: The amount of text devoted to defending the incorrect position lends weight to that position if one just wants to justify one's own position rather than evaluate the arguments (which is common behavior on the interwebz).] You are one of the better rules interpreters on this forum and your opinions elsewhere are good, @Mahtamori . We’ve got better things to hash out.
Okay, but are you sure which is "baldly" incorrect? I'm not one to take loud shouting as a good argument and that's primarily what one of the interpretations are leaning on I'm fairly sure that this will eventually come to a rest in that people will keep measuring Jump like they have for a while now (meaning with a bunch of clipping the silhouettes through terrain, straight angle bent measuring tapes, etc) - they'll just have a ruling to lean on now "says here I can vault stuff". And yes, that stuff will include the buildings if you try to actually place the silhouette. As it always has.
I feel like the diagram provided in the FAQ makes it abundantly clear what the intention is, if CB wanted us to be using the absolute height of the silhouette to claim vaulting onto the building itself and not just over the parapet, there would be absolutely no need for the upwards diagonal movement they included, that jump could be performed as a purely horizontal jump after sliding the model directly upwards for free at the start. I get the question, because the absolute height of the silhouette is definitely how we handle basically every other vault, and a clarifying note would be great, but until then I really think trying to claim you can travel to the point the top of your silhouette just barely breaks the top of the object and then going onto it or over it for "free" does not seem to match up with the intent of the ruling. edit: I guess the other thing to consider is, there doesn't seem to be anything in the FAQ that particularly changed with regards to this either. While the vault rules gave you permission to move past obstacles without declaring climb or jump, they didn't seem to prohibit using them while climbing and jumping. The FAQ gives you permission to start measuring from a different spot, and it informs how to treat parapets while climbing or jumping, but it doesn't seem like it should change your understanding about how a mid jump vault is measured as compared to pre 1.3 unless I'm missing some forum ruling that had prohibited it?
Uh, no. The clear FAQ illustration that shows a line NOT going through the corner of the terrain cube is what these arguments are leaning on. As well as the explicit RAI statement, a measure attempting to head off willful misinterpretation. Meanwhile yours is leaning on an illustration that is clearly contradictory to the actual FAQ illustration, as well as the explicit RAI statement. Jesus man, it sucks that things like this make CB rules staff play whack-a-mole with obtuse misinterpretations instead of stabilizing the core rules. This is why we can't have nice things.
Is it just me, or is it amazingly funny how we discuss "how much vaulting is allowed" in a game, where we intend to messure 4 to 8 inches by bending metal tape measures around assymetric terrain filled with scatter and rubble. Infinity is a game that needs communication, like "before we start: how do we treat building XY" or, in the heat of battle "are you ok with my SJ modell jumping on that building by vaulting over this railing?". I dont know what bad experience some people here made, but i never met anyone yet demanding a mathematic calculation of the jumping arc. The sheer execution of movement in Infinity is everything but exact, especially with terrain, around corners, and even more with climbing and jumping. edit.: dont get me wrong. A precise ruling is key of a game which is played in a competetive manner. And it is important to now the difference between "jumping over a fence" and "difusing the modells atoms through half a building", but some comments here tend to blow this up to rocket science
Strongly agreed! This was actually one of the reasons earlier versions of Infinity were fun: N2 was so broken with timing of AROs etc. that you really -had- to discuss and agree with your opponent for the game to continue. Paradoxically it made the game more fun than a very strict/expansive ruleset with a ton of obscure rulings outside the book. Thank god for a decent FAQ at least.
without question! Gaps in rules always tend to discussions and take both speed and fun out of any game and feel inconsistent. Damn, N2..... hacking rules hidden behidn a wall of text, ODD-fields, repeater chains,.... good times :*-)
Because troopers can't phase through buildings whilst moving, except if they "squeeze" through a gap as it was explained in a previous FAQ.
Vaulting is effectively phasing through building whilst moving that's the reason why it's used. I'm also 100% sure that people in this thread don't agree how normal (non-superjump) vaulting works because vaulting rules aren't clearly written.
Except that the Silhouette moves up and down over the obstacle (creating new LoF) so, not really phasing anything....
One thing is the distance a Modell is capable to bridge, the other thing is, where the siluette moves. Like it was always with vaulting. A TAG does not "move" distance while positioning her siluette on top of a fence she passes via vaulting.
So everyone is suddenly ok that jump vaulting doesn't have to pay movement for vaulting and by triggering the (freely chosen) vault position correctly, the trooper can move further and effectively phase through buildings (assuming ofc that high point of the vault doesn't trigger any unwanted AROs). If the parkour TAG has HMG these new previously inaccessible vault high points can be weaponized to get decimate enemy cheerleaders who thought they were safe inside their deployment zone.
Absolutely. What I can’t figure is if you ask this question in bad faith or if you genuinely read something (in the very clearly worded) Faq that I cannot see. I ask because you seem to have a lot bad faith arguments lately.
