Let me double check i understand your position as i may have been misunderstanding. A wall is 4" high from ground to next floor, no parapet. A model in btb with wall wants to be on that new flooring. The model declares climb and transits from horizontal to vertical and that costs base size in movement. The model moves 4" - base size which will be btb of edge of next floor. The model then gets the horizontal move for free putting him horizontally on that floor. Huzzah the model is on the new floor as intended. So next order can walk/shoot do whatever on that new floor the model is on?
That'd irrelevant. The example I posted proves that lines with an arrow at one end are indeed sometimes used to mark dimensions, contrary to what you stated. Again, it doesn't really matter because the model couldn't move in that manner in one order without the movement being free because: " Climb allows only movement up or down vertical surfaces; this means troopers cannot use their excess Climbing movement to keep moving on a horizontal surface once they are done climbing. Once the trooper reaches a level surface, his movement ends for that Order (see diagram). " emphasis added. However, if we do take into account what we presume the models movement to be, it further supports what I'm saying, because the figure appears to be a Fusilier, who has a first mov value of 4", and he moves a total of 5" in a single order in the diagram, which would be impossible without the "free" base displacement. Saying something mistaken multiple times doesn't make it right.
In reply to kinginyellow: I'm saying that there is no free movement, period. As far as I can tell, the alternative reading is that the trooper gets to move onto the horizontal surface for free. You're the first person who's said anything about getting free movement at the start of the move.
I don't think the climbing rules are coherent on this point. We're all arguing like there's supposed to be some sublime truth at the bottom of this when there's not.
I just want my models to be able to climb up movement value" of vertical terrain (parapet or not) without having to get a fucking protractor out or estimate how much mov I need to account for based on the models base width (how many inches is 40 mm again), or measure up and down the parapet.
My intended goal of my responses was that i understand the rules to be all examples, diagrams and written wordings. I did not like your way of understanding climbing as that makes one of the diagrams incorrect. I was under the impression before this thread that the horizontal part was free as shown in example 1 but still measured from ground up for distance moved. You made the argument that this was also incorrect. So i was then attempting to pose how incorrect would all shifts being free would be. I'm not trying arguing for a position of whose right, just how to make the written rules + diagrams be correct.
There’s actually no way either of the diagrams are correct without interpretation. The first diagram appears to have a climb continue after reaching a level surface (the top). The second diagram measures the horizontal Move incorrectly (it measures back of base to front of base) The only way the diagrams can be correct is if they’re showing the measurements of the terrain: in which case they’re correct for both interpretations of the written text. (That being said @IJWs position that they show the movement but that you measure the movement along the horizontal as well the vertical is incongruous with the diagrams: whereas saying that the diagrams show the dimensions of the terrain and you move 3”, 1” and 3” is congruous).
@inane.imp Exactly. Part of why using diagrams/examples so heavily, as Infinity does, causes problems. The rules text itself should be sufficient.
I make the precisely opposite conclusion. The use of diagrams / examples are necessary because it simplifies the task of writing the rules text. Absent the diagrams / examples Infinity would be unplayable and the rules text would be massive. On topic: honestly if you consider the diagrams to be showing dimensions rather than movement measurements then the second diagram works with IJWs interpretation. There is still something funky happening in the top of the first diagram though.
TBH even if you assume that, the first diagram doesn’t work. An S2 model can vault any wall that it can climb up and down in a single order even if you disregard the width of the wall: 2x + 25mm = 100mm. x = 37.5mm. S2 height is 40mm.
... Although Kurt Vonnegut pointed out that if history teaches us anything, it’s that one people can take an entire continent from another people by simply repeating the mantra “We discovered it; we discovered it; we discovered it” over and over
Actually what that tells us is that a people with the military wherewithal and no moral hang ups can take whatever they want. Genocide is a solution to an indigenous population that doesn't want to give ups its lands (it's just a morally reprehensible one). Fortunately the man with the biggest stick doesn't get to decide rules arguments.
I can find some agreement with what Hec’s saying here inasmuch as in this situation with Climb, we could've arrived at a solid interpretation were it not for the diagrams. Not only do they not illustrate the rule, they actually obfuscate it - it’s truly absurd! And in one sense again he’s quite right - the text certainly should be clear enough to stand on its own, and the illustrations should be exactly that - illustrations of what’s been explained.
Well, we'd hope so but some people definitely take the attitude that if they think they’re in a majority or can be vocal enough to seem so, then the rules can and should be taken to mean whatever they say, and others must agree to that interpretation or else. I truly despise that kind of thinking for what it is - a stick by another name, and think it has no place in any play group or these forums; what do you think?
So as we stand, I think @Hecaton has it right that the rules just don't make any sense as they're written, which is problematic. And far as I understand their different comments, only PsychoticStorm of the team we have here seems sure about what they were supposed to mean... Speaking personally about my own feelings rather than how I read any of this stuff, I have to say I liked the 'first MOV value of measured vertical movement, plus the base-width horizontal for free' style many of us are using. It seemed a reasonable (if not entirely credible) interpretation and works nicely, especially in combination with the 'vaulting the parapet' interpretation. Furthermore, I play a lot of introductory games and with less experienced players, so normal Climb - like other Basic Skills is there to be demonstrated and explored. If I teach the rules as Storm's explained this and have to spend two Orders to scale a small building I'm also in the position of demonstrating to beginning players that their unit somehow finishes the first Order hanging halfway down the parapet, face-down to the roof, which can't be marked in any convenient way, let alone with the model itself - it's bloody silly. HOWEVER, I say again that group-think on written rules is not a very practicable solution and it's certainly never a moral one, so I myself will never be reaching for that group-think stick. Rather, if @ijw or @psychoticstorm will apply the Official Red Text, I'll teach their ruling.
I don't remember PsychoticStorm saying that the standard vaulting rules aren't applied. Why would the trooper end up halfway down the parapet?
No psychoticstorm doesnt say that we CAN'T apply the vault rule but just because its handy doesnt mean we can assume its correct especially when he said these things Call me cynical but if wanted to say "spend two orders unless you can use vault" i think he probably could. Or are we going to argue about this for a week or so and then leave gaps in the rules wide enough to drive a bus through like "well the mods didnt say you couldnt? @psychoticstorm do you think its ok to use the vault rule on the wall of a building?
