PDA

View Full Version : Incorporeal models and charging vs sanctifier aura



paradox
02-22-2013, 09:09 PM
Suppose incorporeal model A begins a charge. This charge is legal. However, while it is passing through another model's base, the incorporeal model loses its incorporeal status (sanctifier aura).

1. Does the Rule of Least Disturbance apply to this situation in regards to placing the now-corporeal model?

2. Once placed, may the now-corporeal model attempt to continue its charge?

I found this thread with the reverse situation. However, it seemed to assume that the charging model was more than 50% past the incorporeal models base when the free strike occurred, thus is seems at least partially inapplicable, depending on the answer to question 1 here.
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?5985-Charging-through-incorporeal/page3&highlight=incorporeal+rule+displacement

The above link never gave a reason, just an answer. But that answer would seem to conflict with a situation where an incorporeal charger is forced to become corporeal when it has only overlapped a base by millimeters, allowing it to pass through the rest of a model completely even though it is now corporeal. This could even mean that an incorporeal model could "toe in" on a Huge-based model, become corporeal, and then pass through the whole Huge base with the entire size of its own base. This seems like an absurd result.

solkan
02-22-2013, 09:50 PM
You would likely get a better result if you found the ruling that applied to the situation:
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?61520-Essence-of-Dust-vs-Spirit-Chaser&p=842251&viewfull=1#post842251

The ruling concerning "What happens if the model you're passing through chooses to lose the rule allowing you to pass through it" is different.

If the moving model loses the rule that allows it to pass through, then it didn't have enough movement to pass through and gets stuck, thus invoking Least Disturbance to find it a valid place to go. Of course, that's if the model in question would have had enough movement to get through if it hadn't lost the rule. If the model wouldn't have been able to get through normally, then it stops without going through at all.

Edit: Note that the Least Disturbance rule applies because the model has ended its movement in an invalid spot. That means that, no, it does not continue advancing.

paradox
02-23-2013, 05:40 AM
Thanks, Solkan, but what you've said actually does not answer my question because the model in the hypo is still moving. It has not yet ended its movement.

A. You said that if the moving model loses the rule that allows it to pass over the base, then it didn't have enough movement to get through. This is a non-sequiter. Just because a model loses an ability that allows it to pass over bases does not mean it has stopped moving or that it did not have enough movement to pass the base. It just means that it lost the effect of a rule while in a temporarily illegal position.

B. You noted that Least Disturbance applies to models that end their movement. The model in this hypo has not ended its movement. This makes me think that the answer in my other linked thread is correct. However, as noted, I think it can lead to absurd results.

C. I think my linked answer does have some application, and in fact the two different links are conflicted as to this question. My link involves a model in mid-charge with enough movement to clear the base, but the sudden loss of a rule that allows it to do so while still moving. Maudlin's answer in your linked thread is directed at models ending their movement in top of other models, not attempting to move completely through them. However, it looks like the OP did not ask his question correctly, or that we are assuming he was asking something other than what he asked. Either way, the answer given was what happens when a model ends movement. That is not happening here.

My link involves an incorporeal model and a charging model that overlap when incorporeal is lost. That seems the more applicable ruling, but the answer in that thread seems to be accounting for only free strikes that occur as a model is passing through the base. It does not appear to address issues that can remove the rule earlier in the overlap.

solkan
02-23-2013, 05:48 AM
Did you read the thread I linked? It's the exact same situation: Models with incorporeal charging through another model, and the charging models lose incorporeal part way through. Asked and answered.

The formerly incorporeal model loses incorporeal, is now unable to advance. This causes it to involuntarily end its movement, and that invokes the Least Disturbance rule to produce valid position. The advance is over, the charge fails.

paradox
02-23-2013, 06:00 AM
Did you read the thread I linked? It's the exact same situation: Models with incorporeal charging through another model, and the charging models lose incorporeal part way through. Asked and answered.

The formerly incorporeal model loses incorporeal, is now unable to advance. This causes it to involuntarily end its movement, and that invokes the Least Disturbance rule to produce valid position. The advance is over, the charge fails.

Yes, I did, and no, it is not.


You cannot voluntarily end your movement overlapping other bases, but in this case it is not voluntary so the rule of least disturbance applies.

In answer to the OP in that thread:

The question is whether the cavalry has to stop Btb with trolls, or it stops overlapping trolls' bases and players have to use "Least Disturbance" rule to make room for Vengers.

The question is posed and answered as to models ending movement.

Valander
02-23-2013, 08:41 AM
When you charge, your movement will stop (thus, end involuntarily) if you contact another model's base or an obstruction. If you have an ability to move through another model's base, then lose that ability while still superimposed on another model's base, then you cannot continue moving through that base, and must stop. Since you have now contacted that model, it stops your charge movement, thus you have ended movement, thus Maudlin's statement above applies.

paradox
02-23-2013, 10:19 AM
So Macallan is incorrect here?
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?5985-Charging-through-incorporeal&p=280916&viewfull=1#post280916

Valander
02-23-2013, 12:41 PM
So Macallan is incorrect here?
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?5985-Charging-through-incorporeal&p=280916&viewfull=1#post280916

No, because he's answering a different question. In that thread, a non-incorporeal model is attempting to charge through an incorporeal model, which elects to take a free strike and become corporeal. Different situation than an incorporeal model charging through another model, and the charging model losing its ability to move through other models.

paradox
02-23-2013, 02:45 PM
No, because he's answering a different question. In that thread, a non-incorporeal model is attempting to charge through an incorporeal model, which elects to take a free strike and become corporeal. Different situation than an incorporeal model charging through another model, and the charging model losing its ability to move through other models.
I disagree. There is no functional difference between the two situations if contact with a now-corporeal model causes a charge to immediately fail.
In Macallan's situation, Model A has the ability to pass through the incorporeal model because it is incorporeal. It loses that ability while it is overlapping that models base. It has contacted another model and must, by your reasoning, fail its charge.

The cause of loss of incorporeal is irrelevant to the question of whether a model has contacted the base of another model during its charge move. Your answer does not resolve the discrepancy in application of the rule it announces.

solkan
02-24-2013, 11:16 AM
I think I'm starting to understand the Infernal policy concerning "Please stop trying to infer things beyond the specific questions involved" in problematic situations. Not all of the information concerning why a ruling is made the way it is shared with the public.

You have specific scenario #1: Model A advances through Incorporeal Model B, Model B makes a free strike and loses Incorporeal. What happens to Model A's advance? Answer: A continues its advance. (Answer given after "Checking...".)

Specific scenario #2: Incorporeal Model A charges through Model B, and A loses Incorporeal while overlapping B. What happens to Model A's charge? Answer: A's charge ends, and you apply Least Disturbance to sort out the bases. (Answer given with explanation.)

"Why does it make a difference which model lost the rule allowing Model A to move through Model B, and how that rule was lost?" is a rhetorical question. Rhetorical questions are not rules questions.

Considering Macallan's post was #116 of that thread (where post #67 was then-Infernal Lunatic Calm's "Checking..."), given the discussion on the matter, you might want to use that to infer some of the reason for the difference in outcomes of the two situations. One conclusion you might infer from the evidence: Occasionally rulings are made to ensure that the game mechanics function as intended in specific situations where they might not otherwise do so.

Disclaimer: No, I don't know why Macallan ruled that way. And, yes, the above inference does contradict the warning about speculating on why things were ruled the way they are.

paradox
02-24-2013, 12:05 PM
I guess the simple question at this point is: if contact with another model's base means that a charging model must immediately stop and the charge auto-fails, what is the difference in these two situations? Both models have suddenly contacted another base while charging. Why is one exempt while the other is not?

If this is the general rule, then there are no inferences being made and the application is inconsistent.
If it is not the general rule, then the decisions are completely arbitrary in the face of no reasoning.

The question is not rhetorical either. To be rhetorical, it would require me not to expect an answer. You have read a rhetorical tone into my inquiry.

solkan
02-24-2013, 10:38 PM
As far as I can tell, you understand that the two different situations produce different results. The rest is just being unsatisfied with the explanation and complaining about it. If you have a complaint or grievance with the rulings, there are feedback e-mail addresses, and the the main forum for discussion. And calling the ruling arbitrary or capricious because it doesn't have an explanation is just complaining about the ruling.


I guess the simple question at this point is: if contact with another model's base means that a charging model must immediately stop and the charge auto-fails, what is the difference in these two situations? Both models have suddenly contacted another base while charging. Why is one exempt while the other is not?


If you wanted to run a poll on the statement in the rules that least well represents how the game actually works, this should be one of your candidates:

The charging model stops if it contacts a model, an obstacle, or an obstruction or if it is pushed, slammed, or thrown.

Both models contacted each other when they were in base contact and one of them still had Incorporeal. That is where the exceptions begin. Not when the two models are on top of each other.

As demonstration of that fact, Impact hits:

If a charging cavalry model contacts another model during its movement and has moved at least 3 ̋, it can stop and make impact attacks with its Mount (see “Mount,” previous) against all models in the Mount’s melee range.

An Incorporeal cavalry model can perform impact hits. Because Incorporeal does not change the fact that moving into base contact with another model is contacting it.

And then there's the fact that a cavalry model impacts its charge target, and if it destroys the charge target, it continues the charge advance. Even though it contact a model to perform the impact hits, and the charge rules say it stops.

In the main rulebook, Incorporeal and Impact Hits both directly invalidate the simplistic interpretation of what that statement means. Outside of the main rulebook, you have Bulldoze, and essentially every rule that allows one model to advance through another under various conditions. If you're bored, try to figure out how many models an you could contact if you put Bulldoze and Incorporeal on a cavalry model and charged X".

And that's not even getting into the fact that Pathfinder and all of the "may charge through terrain" rules make you ignore the rest of that statement in order to work.

In its original version, the pre-errata version of that sentence

The charging model stops if it contacts another model, an obstacle, or an obstruction.
may as well not exist because it is just a reminder that normally, any of those conditions will cause the model to be unable to continue advancing. I assume that the statement was include partly just to avoid having players perform the error prone task of determining the various causes that will prevent a model from advancing since the charging model cannot voluntarily stop.

In summary, "suddenly contacted another base" has nothing to do with whether a charge stops.

spankedsurfer
02-25-2013, 04:20 AM
When you charge, your movement will stop (thus, end involuntarily) if you contact another model's base or an obstruction. If you have an ability to move through another model's base, then lose that ability while still superimposed on another model's base, then you cannot continue moving through that base, and must stop. Since you have now contacted that model, it stops your charge movement, thus you have ended movement, thus Maudlin's statement above applies.

So when the movement ends "inside the model" and is pushed to the back of the model it stands on top of, is it then a failed charge if it happens to be pushed onto melee range with the intended chargetarget? Or is it considered a failed charge because the movement "ended" when he was inside the model and thus out of melee range?

paradox
02-25-2013, 07:36 AM
Solkan, Your answer does not address the discrepancy. It is not mere dissatisfaction with the ruling. In both cases, the models are charging. A chaging model contacts a base. Macallan says it keeps going. Valander says it does not.

One of them has to be wrong.

Which model is incorporeal is irrelevant if contacting another base mid-charge is the determinant criteria. If it is not, then there is no logic to the answers and they cannot be applied to future situations, thus making them arbitrary.

Forget impact exceptions. Impact attacks are not being discussed in my question. I have not discussed cav or impact attacks. I did not include them in my question, you did. Therefore, they are irrelevant to the analysis.

Wishing
02-25-2013, 01:00 PM
Which model is incorporeal is irrelevant if contacting another base mid-charge is the determinant criteria. If it is not, then there is no logic to the answers and they cannot be applied to future situations, thus making them arbitrary. I think that's generally the idea. The infernals don't want you to apply the answers to similar future situations that come up - that's why it's a rules forum principle that each answer only applies to that one specific situation being asked about. If something related comes up in the future, you ask again, and maybe you'll get a completely third answer. Sometimes it's possible to give logical consistent rules answers and sometimes it isn't. The rules are intended to be logical and consistent as much as possible, but intent only gets you so far. Sometimes the only satisfying result (to the powers that be) comes from ruling on a case by case basis with no underlying principle.

Cannotcope
02-25-2013, 01:22 PM
Solkan, Your answer does not address the discrepancy. It is not mere dissatisfaction with the ruling. In both cases, the models are charging. A chaging model contacts a base. Macallan says it keeps going. Valander says it does not.

One of them has to be wrong.

Which model is incorporeal is irrelevant if contacting another base mid-charge is the determinant criteria. If it is not, then there is no logic to the answers and they cannot be applied to future situations, thus making them arbitrary.

There are at least two differences in the two situations that created different answers from the infernals. The existence of these differences allow the different answers to be logical and not arbitrary, despite the underlying similarity in losing incorporeal during a charge.

The differences, fwiw are:

1) In the case of an incorporeal model making freestrike, the choice to make a freestrike and lose incorporeal is voluntary. The loss of incorporeal by a charging model due to the Sanctifier aura is not voluntary. The difference is whether incorporeal is being lost voluntarily or not.

2) In the case of the free strike version, the model being passed through is the one losing the pass through ability and creating the potential issue with being unable to move through each other, whereas in the Sanctifier situation the ability to model through the other model is lost by the moving model. The difference is whether the acting model or the not-acting model is losing incorporeal.

Either of these differences could be the deciding factor in the difference between rulings, which makes the decision to have different rulings non-arbitrary.

jandrese
02-25-2013, 01:35 PM
I fail to see how voluntary the action is or who the acting model is being relevant. I'm with Paradox that taken together the rulings seem contradictory.

paradox
02-25-2013, 01:45 PM
I think that's generally the idea. The infernals don't want you to apply the answers to similar future situations that come up - that's why it's a rules forum principle that each answer only applies to that one specific situation being asked about. If something related comes up in the future, you ask again, and maybe you'll get a completely third answer. Sometimes it's possible to give logical consistent rules answers and sometimes it isn't. The rules are intended to be logical and consistent as much as possible, but intent only gets you so far. Sometimes the only satisfying result (to the powers that be) comes from ruling on a case by case basis with no underlying principle.
I doubt that.
Further, if true, it's an extremely sadistic way to run a rules forum. The whole point of asking is to have clarity for future application because an answer will never be provided in time to be of use during actual play.

paradox
02-25-2013, 01:52 PM
1) In the case of an incorporeal model making freestrike, the choice to make a freestrike and lose incorporeal is voluntary. The loss of incorporeal by a charging model due to the Sanctifier aura is not voluntary. The difference is whether incorporeal is being lost voluntarily or not.

2) In the case of the free strike version, the model being passed through is the one losing the pass through ability and creating the potential issue with being unable to move through each other, whereas in the Sanctifier situation the ability to model through the other model is lost by the moving model. The difference is whether the acting model or the not-acting model is losing incorporeal.


If true, then voluntarily losing incorporeal or not is the deciding factor, and a base contacting another base is not a rule of general application?
That seems like a very odd proposition. Especially base-contact not being a general rule for charges. The incorporeal model may be losing that status voluntarily, but then, in that case, the charging model is certainly not making base contact voluntarily.

Do we default to the voluntary action of the active player? That also seems like a strange general rule, considering the base contact issue at hand.

solkan
02-25-2013, 01:56 PM
Edit: Retracting comment.

I'm not going to get into an argument over intent. :(

Valander
02-25-2013, 02:14 PM
Both previous answers (Maudlin's and Macallan's) were discussed beforehand, but there may be some inconsistencies that were not fully explored, so "checking."

Locking in the meantime, since I think all reasonable (and some unreasonable) arguments have been heard.