Measuring Circular Distance

[currentlyunknown]

I searched around for any threads relating to this, but perhaps I'm using the wrong terminology.

The wording of movement tends to suggest that circular movement is not possible within the game (models move according to the center of their front arc, in that direction and measured from there). First, is this understanding correct? So bendy tape measures and such forms of measurement are explicitly forbidden?

Secondly, if the above is true, and you have two models(A and B) in base to base contact, and a third model (C) some distance away, all of which align such that a straight line can be drawn through the 3 center points of the models. Can the model that is furthest away from model C move "towards" model C? If you can't move in a circular manner, then mathematically, this would be impossible (any movement while the 2 bases are tangent would cause an overlap, unless the first movement is along a perfect horizontal line, which would fail at moving "towards" model C).

[ShockwaveIIC]

Bending tape measures are frowned upon. Due to the tape being place to move models too close to walls and such not counting for the 15mm+ of the models base. Hence straight lines.

[DemonCalibre]

Here is the thing, you can't measure circular distances in Warmachine.

The movement rules are pretty clear all movement in the game is done in a strait line, measuring from the front of the base. While yes you could approximate a circle by doing an infinitely small increments to get very close to a circle, but since it's by and large impossible to measure to that precision, it is impossible. I recommend you move your models as you are directed to in Prime. Measure a distance from the front of the base, move the model that far, that model has expended that much movement, rinse and repeat till you are done with that models movement or run out of movement. The game does not direct you to bend your tap measure, so don't do it.

[currentlyunknown]

Thanks for the responses. This is how I generally felt about it, and I am definitely against the idea of bendy tape measures.

So, given that, the second question seems obviously correct. To use a concrete example, a steelhead halberdier model on a small base moves into base contact with Mulg. Ashlynn advances so that there is a straight line between the center of her base, the steelhead halberdier, and Mulg. She shoots at the Troll warlock, and Mulg cannot Protective Fit.

[poeticruse]

Protective fit only requires that he advance toward you, such that the distance is always decreasing.

You cannot "declare" yourself to be in perfect alignment, so either moving left or moving right around the single halberdier will work.

If you have two Halberdiers, you can pin Mulg so that he cannot move such that his distance is always decreasing. With a single one, it would require an alignment not possible on the tabletop using the tools available.

Generally, if you think you have to invoke the definition of a tangent to disallow a movement, I would expect to get overruled by a TO.

[currentlyunknown]

While I don't disagree that the tools are imprecise, I've definitely seen scenarios where 2 players come to the consensus that a small model is blocking LoS to another small base model when the shooter is also a small base model. By necessity, that would be the same alignment, no? If the 2 players did agree that the alignment was there, that would make a movement where the distance is always decreasing impossible, barring circular measurement.

On a tangential point...why would that be overruled by a TO? Is there something wrong with math/physics that it shouldn't be applied to moving miniatures around? Considering that there are standardized definitions that are mandatory to playing the game (an inch, for example), it seems arbitrary to pick and choose.

[solkan]

While I don't disagree that the tools are imprecise, I've definitely seen scenarios where 2 players come to the consensus that a small model is blocking LoS to another small base model when the shooter is also a small base model. By necessity, that would be the same alignment, no? If the 2 players did agree that the alignment was there, that would make a movement where the distance is always decreasing impossible, barring circular measurement.

To borrow a response from a different thread:

This is the rules forum, not the maths forum.

If one player wanted to move around the model, all they would have to do is not agree that the positioning was the perfect alignment required for the situation to become relevant. After all, the model is most certainly not perfectly positioned on the table down to the micrometer.

[quindraco]

Valander just ruled on this. Not only is circular movement legal, but you don't have to pay for all of it, since the rule on measuring from your front continues to hold - you pay for the distance your middle moves, not your sides.

[Valander]

To be even more pedantic, the game rules do not allow you to move in arcs, but only in straight lines measured from the front of your base. You can move any distance, and change facing for free between moving along those straight lines, so you can effectively approximate a curve by very small linear movements followed by a change in facing. This is what my "ruling" in the other thread was in the spirit of (that, and the other suggested answers were just so blatantly incorrect).

That said, if you have to break out the geometry books and calculators at a tournament to "prove" you can make a movement, it will likely aggravate both your opponent and the TO.

Edited to add:

Valander just ruled on this. Not only is circular movement legal, but you don't have to pay for all of it, since the rule on measuring from your front continues to hold - you pay for the distance your middle moves, not your sides.

I did not rule that circular movement was legal. I said, of the suggested options listed, the second was "most correct." I also did not say "you don't have to pay for all of it." I said you measure distance travelled from the center of your base, which is what the rulebook says. Your original post there also stated you wouldn't accept the "you can't move in a circle" as a correct answer, even though, most technically speaking, that is the correct answer.

[quindraco]

Your original post there also stated you wouldn't accept the "you can't move in a circle" as a correct answer, even though, most technically speaking, that is the correct answer.

I hope I haven't come off the wrong way. I always accept an Infernal answer, no matter what it is; I am not in the habit of arguing with people who are correct by definition. I wouldn't dream of telling you how to interpret the rules, and in fact look to you to tell me how to interpret them.

In the other thread, I think some people's eyes were glazing over due to the math involved. I will do my best to simplify it.

1) The rules only allow straight lines, as you pointed out. The answer to the OP's question is actually that Mulg cannot make his fit move under a perfect alignment; if the models are properly situated, he can only move in a straight line infinitesimally long to his right or left, paralysing him since he cannot do such a thing. Poeticruse correctly pointed out that real games lack electron microscopes, so it is practically impossible to set up or verify such an alignment - but it's worth noting for a friendly game in which you're allowing each other to declare positioning intent.
2) Since the rules only allow straight lines, theoretically a circular walk is being determined by infinitesimal straight lines - which means your answer, of measuring distance based on the middle of the base after the circle, doesn't match up, since straight lines always move the entire base in a uniform fashion, meaning if any part moves, the rest does too. I was expecting an Infernal - if one showed up - to choose the largest of the three values, since if any part of the base moved that much, all of it must have, since that's how straight lines work. Your choice of the middle value is a sensible compromise, though, since it's rooted in a printed rule, and for exotic movements - like an S shape - it keeps the measuring as simple as possible.

This is a significant issue; choosing one answer over the other determines if Admonition and Dodge can get a model out of being charged by squeaking around the attacker's base. I'm not just asking to make trouble. If you don't mind, I would like an actually correct answer, instead of a mostly correct one, since this is a use case I've bumped into before and so have others, so it would be nice to know if the movement is legal or not.

[Gamingdevil]

You cannot "declare" yourself to be in perfect alignment, so either moving left or moving right around the single halberdier will work.

So this also means that I could use Perdition to move completely around a model as long as I don't then walk off afterwards? What does this do for B2B, if you can not "declare" it, how can you ever be sure?

[currentlyunknown]

So this also means that I could use Perdition to move completely around a model as long as I don't then walk off afterwards? What does this do for B2B, if you can not "declare" it, how can you ever be sure?

I believe the case that poeticruse was referring to is rather specific. The problem is that it is very difficult to achieve that perfect alignment of 3 models on the table top. Simply saying "this is so" would have a significant impact, and completely circumvents the difficulty of the physical placement. In the case of base to base, two models may simply have to touch. A better example would be 3 small base models getting base to base. You can't just move models close together and say they are all touching, it requires a rather specific physical alignment (though one that is easier to achieve than a perfect line with 3 points).

On the more general point, I personally think the RAW completely invalidates the possibility of circular movement, as has been mentioned. As you can't actually measure infinitesimally small amounts, I personally don't feel comfortable allowing my opponents to just approximate with circular movements. Measure in straight lines, using the smallest increment you can.

[Sinsation]

2) Since the rules only allow straight lines, theoretically a circular walk is being determined by infinitesimal straight lines - which means your answer, of measuring distance based on the middle of the base after the circle, doesn't match up, since straight lines always move the entire base in a uniform fashion, meaning if any part moves, the rest does too.

You are forgetting the effect caused by free change of facing. Choosing to ignore the impact that has on measurements is going to prevent you from getting an acceptable answer.

[solkan]

Disclaimer: I'm disregarding the whole "This is the rules forum, not the maths forum" quotes and charging into math.

2) Since the rules only allow straight lines, theoretically a circular walk is being determined by infinitesimal straight lines - which means your answer, of measuring distance based on the middle of the base after the circle, doesn't match up, since straight lines always move the entire base in a uniform fashion, meaning if any part moves, the rest does too.

You're getting the math wrong.

Any extra distance that the outer section of the model is moving is irrelevant because that distance is being moved during the rotation of the model, not the infinitesimal straight line section of the movement. The distance moved by the center of the base in the direction the model is facing is the only distance that matters.

There is no compromise involved.

Edit: That's also one of the reasons why the bendy tape instead of measuring straight line movements has gotten people thrown out of tournaments--it's almost impossible to get the bendy tape to correctly follow the center of the model's base in a situation where it matters do to obstructions and other models.

Or I might be remembering the story wrong, and it was just the bendy tape measure that got thrown out of the tournament by the Privateer Press person, and not the player.

[Valander]

Disclaimer: I'm disregarding the whole "This is the rules forum, not the maths forum" quotes and charging into math.


You're getting the math wrong.

Any extra distance that the outer section of the model is moving is irrelevant because that distance is being moved during the rotation of the model, not the infinitesimal straight line section of the movement. The distance moved by the center of the base in the direction the model is facing is the only distance that matters.

There is no compromise involved.

Right, there is no "compromise" here, just Rules As Written, which state:

Make all measurements from the front of an advancing model?s base. Determine the distance a model advances by measuring how far the front of its base travels.

It doesn't say "determine the amount of movement used by a complex mathematical equation, accounting for distances travelled by other parts of the base and taking the mean" or something like that.

At that, I'm locking this thread. Poeticruse's answer in post 5 should address the original question. If there are remaining unanswered questions (that are not 'can I move in a curve' or more math lessons), please ask in a new thread.