It is mildly absurd, but I also don't feel like it's a terribly common scenario. I'd rather have something rare (large models needing to move around corners into narrow alleys) be absurd than something common (any model going around any corner ever).
I had this come up in a game recently. My opponent had a bike, and there was a building maybe 35mm off the edge of the table (clearly wider than half his base, but not nearly big enough for his full base. We weren't actually sure how that would be handled and IIRC he ended up deploying. Can you squeeze in a tight space along a table edge?
I'd say absolutely that's effectively a "corridor", so even in the most restrictive ruling it'd be allowed.
@Mahtamori add this to the Unsolved questions thread please. It's the same question as was just asked here https://forum.corvusbelli.com/index.php?threads/38663/ I think you can probably go with a tentative "yes this is all legal, but remains controversial so an FAQ is desired".
Given the Ian clarification on corridors, is it still the consensus that you can 'peek out' with half your base or some such from a rooftop?
I'd assume so, since he explicitly stated it must be a physical limitation of terrain imposing the use of the rule, not a choice for convenience.
Is that what he said? Citation required. Note I'm not having a go at you, but rather pointing out that there really needs be a clarification on the forums because WGC isn't persistent enough to actually function as as reference.
I would say that Ian's response on Facebook to the squeeze through does mean that vaulting over the edge would not be allowed. If vaulting over the edge to look below was possible, then there would be no need for squeezing over a thin bridge.
I screenshotted that comment for later reference because Facebook is, among other things, profoundly harder to search than the forums. The specific text written was: I think the fact that, geometrically, a building has to be pretty tall before a S2 model can't see another S2 model up against the base of the building directly below makes the question semi-moot: If the building has no parapets, then a model right up against the edge can reliably see a 3x3mm square of the model at the bottom even on buildings up to 1 meter tall, which would be a hell of a table. If there's a parapet, then it gets tighter, and the specific dimensions of the parapets start to matter. For a 15mm tall, 2mm thick parapet, a S2 model against the parapet can reliably see 3x3mm of the model at the bottom of the wall as long as the building's not more than 24-25 centimeters tall...presuming a geometrically perfect setup, anyway. I think a good rule of thumb is you can get LoF from the rooftop model to the model at the base of the wall, presuming both are up against their respective terrain edges, as long as the building has no parapets, or has parapets but is 20 cm tall or less. I'd also presume the model at the bottom of the wall gets partial cover since it's up against a scenery element that's blocking some part of its silhouette from rooftop visibility, even if the building's pretty short.
I'm not sure how the ability to vault along edges would remove the need to have a rule for catwalks, since vaulting covers things that block movement due to small changes in verticality. Could you explain that one, I feel like I'm missing something obvious? You wouldn't need to "vault" to peek out over a flat roof edge since there's no verticality, right? Vaulting up to pop up onto a parapet briefly and then back down seems like a legal (but very short) movement path as long as your model doesn't stick out into open air, so you'd lose cover from anyone on a nearby rooftop but gain the ability to see past a parapet even on very tall buildings, plus gaining some height to take a shot at anyone standing on, say, a crate on the same rooftop as you, thus denying them cover from their own elevation. Side note: I assume that the squeezing rule does permit models to clamber along narrow ledges where one side is a vertical barrier too tall to clear via vault and the other is a drop-off, in addition to the more iconic catwalk and alleyway examples. +1 for cinematic gameplay.
@wes-o-matic so part of the issue is that @ijw quotation is taken out of context. It was specifically in reference to cutting corners, and it's clear by that point he's quite frustrated. So the manner in which he expressed his answer is - perhaps - less well considered than it could be. I mean, taken at face value, it prevents moving on a narrow ledge (ie between an obstacle and open space) or up/down a narrow ladder. Was this what he intended to say? I don't think it was. Nuada's interpretation of @ijw statement is perhaps more reasonable (it must be a physical limitation of terrain imposing the use of the rule, not a choice for convenience) - but that is not what he explicitly said. Overall its a mess, indeed it's *more* messy than just playing it RAW (Any surface they move on must be at least half as wide as their base) as that's at least not ambiguous and doesn't rely on people following a FB conversation. I think the best way to resolved this is: "A Trooper's SIL cannot overlap terrain, except where that is necessary to squeeze through narrow gaps between obstacles as described by the diagram in the rules. Remember at least half the width of their base - measured perpendicular to the direction of travel - must be supported by the surface they move on." This would allow troops to move along narrow ledges or up/down narrow ladders while closing the exploit of phasing through terrain purely to cut corners.
Because the implications of IJW's answer is that vaulting strictly requires the trooper to be fully supported by the terrain they are moving over (as in, by terrain within either one silhouette upwards or one silhouette downwards), as otherwise squeezing onto a plank wouldn't be needed as a rule because you could just vault over the edge of it otherwise. (I'm writing that logically with the premise that IJW confirmed last and the conclusion first, by the way) From a rules mechanical stand point, it does make a lot of sense that the rule that the trooper must be supported is fulfilled even while vaulting, even if it isn't ever explicitly spelled out how to calculate what supports the trooper.
Thinking about this, it seems to me that when a unit squeezes through a gap, it should be considered to reduce its base size to fit through the gap - it literally squeezes through. I think so because of this scenario: here is a gap between two thin walls. The trooper is moving through the gap as shown by the three positions on the right: The trooper's silhouette is actually extending past the walls. So the enemy trooper on the left can see him through the wall. That's too weird to be intended. The better result is that the moving trooper becomes narrower by up to half his base width in order to fit through. If I'm right, then it follows that you can't use squeezing to look over a ledge. Even if you move along a narrow bridge, your silhouette will only be the width of the bridge while you move.
Not quite what I wrote. You can't straddle a thin wall, with part of the silhouette on either side of it, if one or both sides have a large drop in excess of the silhouette's height.
Oh, OK, straddle as in climb on top of it and stay on top of a thin wall - sure. Half of the base needs to be supported. Thought you meant "needs to be supported at all points of movement", so you couldn't vault over thin stuff that's <1/2 base size. That would be silly.
I might need to elaborate a bit more. What I mean is that the answer implicits that; when the unit that is vaulting is moving, its silhouette needs to have 100% ground cover under it (not 50% - remember what thread we are in, this is about trying to accomplish a Lean Out, this isn't about literally cutting corners!). If it is moving over a planter or a bench or other irregular object, the unit will be touching a tiny fraction of the object with the silhouette, but within one silhouette height (SH from now on) there is solid ground. The same is true for when you're moving on a small box or on top of a car, when you're standing partially over the edge you have solid ground within SH of your miniature in total. If you're on a balcony with a railing (which is effectively a low, thin, wall) with the top of the railing more than 1 SH up, you will not have your trooper fully supported because you have <100% total ground under the silhouette within 1 SH from the bottom of the sillhouette at any given point in the movement. Since the balcony is large enough for the trooper to stand on, you can't use the squeeze rule. The railing itself is also much less than 12.5mm wide so you won't be able to squeeze-stand on that one, either, and - I think this is an important consequence of IJW's answer - even if it were a railing that's 13mm wide (like a stone railing/balustrade/whateveritscalled on a bridge), you are capable of being on the space you're trying to squeeze through normal movement, so you can't use the squeeze rule there, either. ---- Basically, what I gather is, he's saying you can only use the squeeze rule if you can't otherwise move over the area you try to squeeze on/in. Therefore, on a narrow bridge you have to squeeze because you can squeeze, meaning by extension you can't vault because you can't stand there during normal movement - which is what vaulting is. As such the conclusion is that you can't stand partially in mid air except for on narrow bridges.
I agree with the first part (italicized). However not sure if I agree on the vaulting part. "Squeezing through" seems like a special case rule which affects all normal movement. It's not a different type of move, doesn't seem to me. Same as vaulting isn't really that much different. Vaulting is an movement rules addendum, it allows you to go over things, as long as they are not taller than your Sx. "Squeezing through" is a similar addendum, it allows your to move between things, but not remain between them, and all of that as long as the external requirement of "half of your base is still supported / fits between the things" is still kept. Case 1, you can't remain / end movement in the middle position because less than half of your base would be supported by the thin wall. It doesn't mean you can't get over it to the other side, but you can't stay on top. Case 2, you can't remain / end movement in the middle position because even though half of your base is supported there, it's not a legal placement. "Squeezing through" allows you to move between the too-tall-to-vault obstacles, but you need to end movement in a legal position. Case 3, you can remain / end movement in the middle position because the base is supported there. After all that, I would say you aren't allowed to stick half of your base off a roof because you're not squeezing through, which calls of the "half of base supported" exemption. If there was a cover wall at the edge of a roof and a half-base+ lip ledge beyond it, you could walk out to that ledge and have your base stick out, because this would be effectively equal to Case 3 here. Side observation for Case 2 - if any of those obstacles would either be small enough to be vaulted, the move would be illegal. Not sure how the ability to scale them in a single Move Short Skill plays into it with Climb, Climbing+, Jump and Super Jump in play since those give you other options to traverse the obstacles than squeezing through.
