Results 1 to 23 of 23
  1. #1

    Default Slam and multiple models base to base



    I had this situation today, haley slams middle model through thorne. All models are base to base, that means mine model moves 0", does all models that are base to base with him get collateral dmg? or only those behind him, or just one randomized?

    Thanks a lot

  2. #2
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,097

    Default

    Contact requires one of two things:
    One model contacts another when it changes from not
    being base-to-base with it to being base-to-base with it.
    Additionally, when a model is already base-to-base with
    another model and would move toward it, it is considered to
    contact that model again.
    To put those two sentences in other words:
    1. The model moved from a position where it was not in base contact to a position where it is now in base contact.
    2. If the model starts in base contact, and it would have moved toward the other model if the movement had not been stopped.

    There's a specific definition of toward which the rules use, specified in the movement restrictions:
    • Model A Must Move Toward Model B: Model A can move
    along any path such that the distance between Model A
    and Model B is always decreasing or remaining the same
    during the movement.
    As far as I can tell from the diagram in the original post, only the top three of the five surrounding models would be contacted due to the definitions of contact. The bottom left one is definitely not contacted, and the bottom right probably isn't contacted but the angle's a bit unclear to me. It's possible that the upper left isn't being contacted (the slam may be moving away from it) but that I'm not sure of the angle.

  3. #3
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by solkan View Post
    As far as I can tell from the diagram in the original post, only the top three of the five surrounding models would be contacted due to the definitions of contact. The bottom left one is definitely not contacted, and the bottom right probably isn't contacted but the angle's a bit unclear to me. It's possible that the upper left isn't being contacted (the slam may be moving away from it) but that I'm not sure of the angle.
    I think from the text, despite a bit of messy placement in the picture, all models are intended to be base to base with the middle model.

  4. #4
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    I think from the text, despite a bit of messy placement in the picture, all models are intended to be base to base with the middle model.
    For my post, I wasn't questioning whether all of the models were in base contact. I was actually assuming that they all they all were.

    The part I wasn't quite sure about was which of the surrounding models would be "nudged" by the push based on the direction vector. The quick and dirty version of contact testing is "If I nudged my model in the direction it's supposed to go, which other models would it nudge out of position?" And that red aura around the middle base is making it hard for me to tell. And I'm reluctant to make fine geometric predictions looking a diagram that may be getting stretched or squashed. That's part of why I'm reluctant to say specifically which models get contacted.

    In other words, the models that are in base contact with the center model isn't the answer as far as "Which models with slammed model contact?" The slammed model is going to contact the ones that are in base contact with it in the direction that the slam would have moved it, not the ones 'behind' it going in that direction.
    Last edited by solkan; 01-07-2017 at 07:11 PM.

  5. #5
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    If all the models are touching the middle model though, direction becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?

    It won't physically move since its already base to base with something and since the underlined portion of below resolves as true in this case (The slam caused it to "move" in such a way as the distance between the middle model and all other models stayed the same), it should satisfy as a contact against all models.

    "Model A Must Move Toward Model B: Model A can move along any path such that the distance between Model A and Model B is always decreasing or remaining the same during the movement"

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    If all the models are touching the middle model though, direction becomes irrelevant, doesn't it?
    No. It is very relevant. Given the definition solkan provided, option 1 isn't happening because all models are in b2b.

    The second option is occurring but those models in front of the slammed model aren't being contacted by any rule. The fact that the slammed model isn't moving doesn't mean they are suddenly contacted.

  7. #7
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mod_Neldar View Post
    No. It is very relevant. Given the definition solkan provided, option 1 isn't happening because all models are in b2b.

    The second option is occurring but those models in front of the slammed model aren't being contacted by any rule. The fact that the slammed model isn't moving doesn't mean they are suddenly contacted.
    Ok, so the difference is obviously whether middle model satisfies towards or not.

    Model A Must Move Toward Model B: Model A can move along any path such that the distance between Model A and Model B is always decreasing or remaining the same during the movement.
    I would argue that the Middle Model has moved along a path such that its distance remained the same. Yes, if it could actually move the path would not satisfy the requirement, but because it moves 0" in my opinion it means that path does satisfy this requirement.

    Would you guys consider a model changing facing to satisfy the definition of toward? Logically, I'd want to say no, but by the definition of the rules as I understand them, I can't find a reason it wouldn't.
    Last edited by Nerzule; 01-08-2017 at 04:36 AM.

  8. #8

    Default

    The slammed model would not have been moving towards the front model(s) if it could have moved.

  9. #9
    Destroyer of Worlds solkan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    6,097

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    I would argue that the Middle Model has moved along a path such that its distance remained the same. Yes, if it could actually move the path would not satisfy the requirement, but because it moves 0" in my opinion it means that path does satisfy this requirement.

    Would you guys consider a model changing facing to satisfy the definition of toward? Logically, I'd want to say no, but by the definition of the rules as I understand them, I can't find a reason it wouldn't.
    I feel like we're having a basic grammar problem here. Please note the condition for contacting:
    Additionally, when a model is already base-to-base with
    another model and would move toward it, it is considered to
    contact that model again.
    Note the words "would move toward it". Subjunctive mood, indicating that the model didn't move, but if it had that movement would have satisfied the definition of toward.
    If the model had moved as a result of the slam, then it would have moved away from some of the models in base contact (not contacting), and it would have moved over some of the other models (contacting). In other words, the move that the model actually performed is irrelevant, what matters is where it would have gone had the rules not prevented it.

    And changing facing is irrelevant because the slammed model doesn't change facing.

  10. #10
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    I understand the grammar in use, I disagree with the way you are applying things however.

    Your opinion on whether a change of facing satisfies the definition of "towards" is important to the discussion because it is a related but separate scenario to what we are discussing. It helps further the discussion by applying the sames rules to separate but related situations and seeing if we apply them consistently.

    Your argument seems to be based on the definition of contact wanting us to ignore the current board state, which I don't believe it does. We have examples of rules that care about theoretical board states in which they tell us to ignore specific things(charge). I don't see any similar wording in the definition of contact.

    To me, the definition of contact says "right now, would model A move towards model B if it moved in x direction"? I believe current board state reads that if model A moves, it would be moving towards all those models surrounding it.
    Last edited by Nerzule; 01-08-2017 at 06:31 PM.

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    Ok, so the difference is obviously whether middle model satisfies towards or not.



    I would argue that the Middle Model has moved along a path such that its distance remained the same. Yes, if it could actually move the path would not satisfy the requirement, but because it moves 0" in my opinion it means that path does satisfy this requirement.
    Isnt your quoted part here defining what you can do when under an effect that restrictes your movement,?specifically the case when a model must move towards another model. I dont read this as defining what toward means.

    The second portion is as i understand it basically saying that if you must move toward a givin model then you must do so or stay the same. Dispite the fact that if you are remaining the same you are not following the english definition of towards. I believe this is a case where they use simple wording ie towards, but then have complex counterintuitive rules behind that wording, such as the case with anytime abilities.

    edit// removed to not cause confusion

    edit, for anyone else the reference im responding to i found from pg 33 of the prime pdf under movement restrictions.
    Last edited by FatalSwordsmen; 01-08-2017 at 07:51 PM.

  12. #12
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatalSwordsmen View Post
    Defined rulebook terms are bolded and towards is not defined within the rulebook,
    It's not super clear compared to non italic text, but I believe "toward" is bolded in the text.



    I'm not entirely sure I follow your third paragraph, would you mind clarifying?
    Last edited by Nerzule; 01-08-2017 at 06:32 PM.

  13. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    It's not super clear compared to non italic text, but I believe "toward" is bolded in the text.



    I'm not entirely sure I follow your third paragraph, would you mind clarifying?
    using the same logic I present the argument the model would be moving Away From all the contacted models because it also contains the sentance ... or remaining the same during the movement. "

    I personally believe the situation Neldar has said.
    The new Faction is limited and self-contained like the Convergence.

  14. #14
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowking View Post
    using the same logic I present the argument the model would be moving Away From all the contacted models because it also contains the sentance ... or remaining the same during the movement. "

    I personally believe the situation Neldar has said.
    That's fine, I don't see anything in the rules preventing the model from being in a state of both moving towards and moving away from Model B at the same time. No situation we are discussing has placed a movement restriction on it.

    I'd still appreciate someone from the other side providing an example of how they feel the rules would interact with the middle model simply changing facing. What is happening with it then?

  15. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    I'm not entirely sure I follow your third paragraph, would you mind clarifying?
    The third paragraph was poorly written on my part, i was attempting to point out that the rules telling you that you contact a model if you would move towards it but can't, would be pointless if not moving counted as moving towards the model. but you are correct the word does appear to be bolded which would mean definition. based on this my argument is pretty much void.

    I think lowking has a better argument for why with the fact that the the same text present is found in the model A must move Away from model B given on the same page. this creates a state of you both moving away from and toward a model which seems like a physical impossibility.

  16. #16
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FatalSwordsmen View Post
    I think lowking has a better argument for why with the fact that the the same text present is found in the model A must move Away from model B given on the same page. this creates a state of you both moving away from and toward a model which seems like a physical impossibility.
    I agree it doesn't make any sense as we understand the world.

    I don't see anything preventing that situation as far as the rulebook defines the way the "world" works though.

  17. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    No situation we are discussing has placed a movement restriction on it.
    Except we do add the restriction of Directly Away From p.34 to the slammed model, which does not contain the clause of "... or remaining the same during the movement." so it should move along the direct path as dictated by example on p.32 this path due to the angle of "point of origin" makes the slammed model contact the three back models in the Directly Away From path.
    Contact has been made with "...an obstacle, an obstruction, or a model with an equal or larger base..." p.34 so those three models set to receive collateral damage according to p.35 and the slammed model to take an additional die according to p.34. The slammed model is then knocked down and damage is rolled simultaneously for the slammed model and the three collateral damaged models.

    Hows that for making sense?
    Last edited by Lowking; 01-08-2017 at 08:56 PM.
    The new Faction is limited and self-contained like the Convergence.

  18. #18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    I'd still appreciate someone from the other side providing an example of how they feel the rules would interact with the middle model simply changing facing. What is happening with it then?
    "Changing facing by rotating in place is still advancing even though the model's position does not change." p.30

    Its position did not change and therefore does fall in line that it does meet the movement restrictions of "... or remaining the same during the movement. " however it was not having to move under those restrictions in my previous example but i believe that is your answer.

    I do agree as written a model can meet the requirements of moving Towards and Away From at the same time if they rotate in place.

    So this would mean hypothetically if there was a movement restriction applied to our slammed target that it can only move, even involuntarily, Toward the front 2 models and Away From the back three models the slam event would not change.

    I think that those words are detrimental to the rules as intended right now.
    Last edited by Lowking; 01-08-2017 at 09:01 PM.
    The new Faction is limited and self-contained like the Convergence.

  19. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    I'd still appreciate someone from the other side providing an example of how they feel the rules would interact with the middle model simply changing facing. What is happening with it then?
    The question in this thread is about slamming a model that is surrounded by other models it can't move through.

    Rotating is irrelevant to this question and deserves its own thread.

    The model in front of the slammed model in the image above is not contacted because the slammed model is not attempting to move towards it (which is a requirement for two models that are b2b to contact each other).

  20. #20

    Default

    I apologise for my second post then addressing that point.
    Would you agree that my logic by rules as written in my post is sound for why the three rear models and not the two forward models take collateral?

    I know my number of models that get hit could be off because the angle but the method and rules leading to the answer I believe aren't faulty.
    The new Faction is limited and self-contained like the Convergence.

  21. #21
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowking View Post
    Except we do add the restriction of Directly Away From p.34 to the slammed model, ...
    Fair enough. I forgot all about the directly away cause of the base slam since we hadn't discussed it in the thread yet and I got focused on a particular scenario that didn't exist.


    Quote Originally Posted by Mod_Neldar View Post
    Rotating is irrelevant to this question and deserves its own thread
    I already explained above why it wasn't irrelevant, using separate but related questions to discuss a topic and try to come to a common understanding is one of the best avenues we have in our rules discussions. It wasn't a "question" in the sense of the rules forum limitations on posting, it was a "supporting" point.

    You need to provide a reason for it to be irrelevant to dismiss something from a debate.

    Lowking has provided a reason for it to be irrelevant thankfully, the slams base movement limitation which a facing change wouldn't have.

    Quote Originally Posted by Lowking View Post
    I apologise for my second post then addressing that point.
    Would you agree that my logic by rules as written in my post is sound for why the three rear models and not the two forward models take collateral?

    I know my number of models that get hit could be off because the angle but the method and rules leading to the answer I believe aren't faulty.
    You don't have to apologize to anyone for discussing points in the thread. Heck, you wouldn't even need to apologize to an infernal for discussing points in a thread if your doing it for a legitimate reason(They could just shut you down is all, since they are the authority).
    Last edited by Nerzule; 01-09-2017 at 03:39 AM.

  22. #22
    Destroyer of Worlds
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Posts
    1,231

    Default

    I concede the point of the discussion though, the directly away being applied to the middle model tosses my scenario in the garbage.

    Thanks for reminding me of that relevant point, its pretty lax of me to have forgotten it.
    Last edited by Nerzule; 01-09-2017 at 03:38 AM.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nerzule View Post
    I concede the point of the discussion though, the directly away being applied to the middle model tosses my scenario in the garbage.

    Thanks for reminding me of that relevant point, its pretty lax of me to have forgotten it.
    Not a problem, I was completely following your line of logic in respects to what other people had posted and thought it would do well to line out the events as I did in case I was in fact missing something you were trying to say.

    I to have brought up scenarios erroneously and even my first post on these forums was from a lack of reading the rule book on Automatic Hits.
    The new Faction is limited and self-contained like the Convergence.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •