PDA

View Full Version : Slammed models and B2B with someone else.



FallingAngel
11-30-2015, 12:38 AM
Ok, so the situation is this...

Gorax is tk'd into base to base with a Big based goat and Kaya. They are both in base to base. stormwall comes over and slams the gorax.

Is kaya knocked down or does the b2b with the goat stop the gorax from knocking down Kaya?

onijet01
11-30-2015, 01:34 AM
Okay so a few questions...
Of which Kaya do you speak?
What goat (and I'm assuming satyr heavy warbeast) do you mean.

If your asking I'd slamming a model in base to base with two other models, can knock down both models dispute one being a large base and one being medium/small?

The answer to that question last I checked was both are knocked down due to the slammed model being base to base. Both would take collateral damage.


But my local press ganger has been wrong before, just following rules of slam both get hit at the same time and both get knocked down.

Again that the rule as explains by my pressganger and having very little information about your actual question.

So I'd like to know if this has changed as well

lobachevskii
11-30-2015, 01:54 AM
If a slammed model contacts a model with an equal-sized base or moves through a model with a smaller base, that model is knocked down and suffers collateral damage.

Since you specify that the "Goat" has a large base it cannot be knocked down due to contact with a Gorax (which has a medium base).



Additionally, when a model is already base to base with another and would move toward it, it is considered to contact that model again.


Assuming you slammed the Gorax towards Kaya she will be knocked down unless she has some special rule preventing it at the time.

Aside: technically the Collateral Damage rules, quoted above, require that a model move through a model with a smaller base to knock them down, the contact clause applies only to models with the same size base. I've never seen it played that way though.

littlepinkbeast
11-30-2015, 02:53 AM
If I'm understanding correctly the question is, "Since hitting the large base stops the medium base from moving any further, and being in base to base at the beginning of the slam presumably counts as hitting it, does that prevent the medium base from moving through the small base even though the medium and small are also base-to-base"? My understanding here is that if the medium base is slammed away from the large base it moves normally, and if it's slammed towards the large base it stops instantly and never gets over the small base.

FallingAngel
11-30-2015, 06:14 AM
So the medium base is touching both the small and large base of two other models. The slam is in the direction of the large base but if the large base were not there, it would travel through the small base edge and thus knock down E kaya.

However, the medium base travelled exactly 0.00 inches as my opponent specifically stated that it was in base to base with the large base model.

The medium base is knocked down.. No issue there. The large based model remains standing... No issue there. The issue is that since the large based model prevented the medium based model from moving, the contact that is already there between medium and small base has not changed even a micromillimeter and so the medium base did not actually move and thus did not knock down the small based model that it was in contact with.

What is the thought on that?

Aerospider
11-30-2015, 06:21 AM
Why consider the contact with the large base before considering contact with the small base? From the described scenario I don't see how contact with one can occur before the other, so surely they should both occur simultaneously, no?

Trollock
11-30-2015, 06:35 AM
EDIT: Removed, since i was wrong

Leo_the_Rat
11-30-2015, 07:12 AM
All it takes is being contacted to suffer the effects of a slam. The rules do not say that it needs to be a new contact only that the slammed model contacts the other model. Since the slammed model is already in contact that fulfills the rules requirement.

FallingAngel
11-30-2015, 07:55 AM
I thought there was a word there that was "moved through". There was no movement so...

Leonard_Dukes
11-30-2015, 09:04 AM
Hordes: Primal MkII, Collateral Damage, p 53

If a slammed model contacts a model with an equal-sized base or moves through a model with a smaller base, that model is knocked down and suffers collateral damage.


Hordes: Primal MkII, Base to Base and Contact, p46

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 and would move toward it, it is considered to contact that model again.


The requirements for suffering collateral damage are clear: a slammed model must contact a model with an equal-sized base, or it must move through a model with a smaller base.

In the Satyr's case, it is still considered to be contacted due to second quote above, but since it has a larger base size than the slammed Gorax, it suffers no effects from the contact.

In Kaya's case, she is not moved through, a requirement similar to Trampling. Although Kaya is contacted by the slammed Gorax (probably, depending on exact placement), she does not fulfill the requirement for suffering collateral damage as a smaller-sized model.

Dekken
11-30-2015, 09:40 AM
The requirements for suffering collateral damage are clear: a slammed model must contact a model with an equal-sized base, or it must move through a model with a smaller base.

In the Satyr's case, it is still considered to be contacted due to second quote above, but since it has a larger base size than the slammed Gorax, it suffers no effects from the contact.

In Kaya's case, she is not moved through, a requirement similar to Trampling. Although Kaya is contacted by the slammed Gorax (probably, depending on exact placement), she does not fulfill the requirement for suffering collateral damage as a smaller-sized model.

The Collateral Damage rules in the War Room app state "If a slammed or thrown model contacts a model with an equal-sized or smaller-sized base or if a slammed model moves through a model with a small base, that model is knocked down and suffers collateral damage."

Doesn't this mean that Kaya would be knocked down and take Collateral Damage? I believe the app takes precedence over the book.

Leonard_Dukes
11-30-2015, 09:42 AM
Doesn't this mean that Kaya would be knocked down and take Collateral Damage? I believe the app takes precedence over the book.

The quote I provided is from the free PDF version of the core rule book, which includes all current errata. If there is a discrepancy between the core rules and War Room, it wouldn't be the first time, and I would err on the side of the core rules unless told to otherwise by an Infernal.

Dekken
11-30-2015, 09:44 AM
The quote I provided is from the free PDF version of the core rule book, which includes all current errata. If there is a discrepancy between the core rules and War Room, it wouldn't be the first time, and I would err on the side of the core rules unless told to otherwise by an Infernal.

Fair enough. I would like to see an official ruling however just to have something solid to point to when this comes up in a game.

Juris
11-30-2015, 11:24 AM
The requirements for suffering collateral damage are clear: a slammed model must contact a model with an equal-sized base, or it must move through a model with a smaller base.

In the Satyr's case, it is still considered to be contacted due to second quote above, but since it has a larger base size than the slammed Gorax, it suffers no effects from the contact.

In Kaya's case, she is not moved through, a requirement similar to Trampling. Although Kaya is contacted by the slammed Gorax (probably, depending on exact placement), she does not fulfill the requirement for suffering collateral damage as a smaller-sized model.

The Collateral Damage rule reads:

"If a slammed or thrown model contacts a model with an equal-sized or smaller-sized base or if a slammed model moves through a model with a smaller base, that model is knocked down and suffers collateral damage."

Contacting or moving through cause collateral damage to smaller sized models.

Leonard_Dukes
11-30-2015, 11:56 AM
The Collateral Damage rule reads:

"If a slammed or thrown model contacts a model with an equal-sized or smaller-sized base or if a slammed model moves through a model with a smaller base, that model is knocked down and suffers collateral damage."

Contacting or moving through cause collateral damage to smaller sized models.



If you're quoting War Room, see my reply to Dekken's more-or-less identical comment, just above yours.

Leo_the_Rat
11-30-2015, 01:48 PM
The free pdf does not include any errata or rule changes. It is, in effect, a scan of a normal rulebook. In this instance Warroom is more likely to have the current correct rule.

rabbit81
11-30-2015, 01:55 PM
The free pdf does not include any errata or rule changes. It is, in effect, a scan of a normal rulebook. In this instance Warroom is more likely to have the current correct rule.

On the other hand, the official rules errata document has no language modifying the slam rules.

Leonard_Dukes
11-30-2015, 01:57 PM
The free pdf does not include any errata or rule changes. It is, in effect, a scan of a normal rulebook. In this instance Warroom is more likely to have the current correct rule.

The free PDF does, in fact, contain the current errata (as of this posting, at least). It's the same document that you get when purchasing the digital rule book via the PP Digital app, minus some sections such as the Index and Timing Appendix.

You can verify this yourself by reading the latest errata document and searching for any of the changes in red (the most recent changes/additions) and finding them in the free PDF version.

Trollock
11-30-2015, 11:26 PM
There is no entry that indicates that "slam" has been changed in the errata though.

both in my physical book (old), and in the free pdf, a slammed model does indeed need to move through a smaller based model to knock it down. My bet is that war room has it wrong, since the errata doesnt mention any changes to slam.

EDIT: for THROWS though, it seems to be enough to contact a smaller based model to knock it down. That explains my previous silly statement, since my "similar question" was about throws not slams.

AcidOverride
12-01-2015, 09:35 AM
The Collateral Damage rule in War Room is not quite right. It says slammed or thrown when it really means thrown. They tried to be less verbose, but ended up simply being wrong.


If a slammed or thrown model contacts a model with an equal-sized or smaller-sized base or if a slammed model moves through a model with a smaller base

Juris
12-01-2015, 11:28 AM
So then the question is what "moves through" means. Is moving through by an infinitesimal amount moving through? If so, how is it even remotely different from "contacting"?

Leonard_Dukes
12-01-2015, 11:44 AM
So then the question is what "moves through" means. Is moving through by an infinitesimal amount moving through? If so, how is it even remotely different from "contacting"?

Similar to Trampling, the slammed model's base must overlap the smaller model's base for some period of time. It doesn't need to completely move past it (like movement with Flight) thanks to the rule of least disturbance.

In practice, it should be evident whether the larger base has moved over or "missed" a smaller base. The only time I can think of where the slammed model's base would end exactly in B2B contact with a smaller model would be in a case such as presented in this thread, namely one where all models in question are prevented from moving.

Juris
12-01-2015, 01:14 PM
Similar to Trampling, the slammed model's base must overlap the smaller model's base for some period of time. It doesn't need to completely move past it (like movement with Flight) thanks to the rule of least disturbance.

In practice, it should be evident whether the larger base has moved over or "missed" a smaller base. The only time I can think of where the slammed model's base would end exactly in B2B contact with a smaller model would be in a case such as presented in this thread, namely one where all models in question are prevented from moving.

As indicated in prior threads/rulings, "exactly" is a theoretical construct in this game. In most circumstances, it is a declaration of player intent (with some qualifications). One can place a model base to base with a warjack and kill it; when it becomes a wreck marker, the base to base model is not within it. However, on the next activation, the model can move zero and become within the wreck marker.

Leonard_Dukes
12-01-2015, 01:25 PM
As indicated in prior threads/rulings, "exactly" is a theoretical construct in this game. In most circumstances, it is a declaration of player intent (with some qualifications).

Exactly. The example I used - the premise if this thread - is one such exception.

A model can absolutely be said to be "exactly" base-to-base with another model, since the very nature of base-to-base is not subject to degrees of variation. A model wither is or isn't base-to-base with another model.

Obtaining that degree of exactnes by slamming one model toward a smaller one is near impossible - you are far more likely to either "move through" the smaller model or fall completely short of contacting it. The odds of such a slam resulting in the smaller model being contacted but not moved through by the slammed model are vanishingly small, outside of carefully constructed scenarios such as the one described in the opening question.

In any case, all of the above doesn't change the answer to the question when applying the rules as written: merely contacting a smaller model with a slammed model is not sufficient to knock the smaller model down.


However, on the next activation, the model can move zero and become within the wreck marker.

Pretty sure that part is wrong, but that's an issue for a completely different thread.

seebs
12-02-2015, 08:15 AM
The quote I provided is from the free PDF version of the core rule book, which includes all current errata. If there is a discrepancy between the core rules and War Room, it wouldn't be the first time, and I would err on the side of the core rules unless told to otherwise by an Infernal.

Wait, the PDF includes the errata? I thought it was just the text of the rule books, since the rule books don't get updated with errata.

Leonard_Dukes
12-02-2015, 08:54 AM
Wait, the PDF includes the errata? I thought it was just the text of the rule books, since the rule books don't get updated with errata.


The free PDF does, in fact, contain the current errata (as of this posting, at least). It's the same document that you get when purchasing the digital rule book via the PP Digital app, minus some sections such as the Index and Timing Appendix.

You can verify this yourself by reading the latest errata document and searching for any of the changes in red (the most recent changes/additions) and finding them in the free PDF version.

0123456789

FallingAngel
12-03-2015, 05:29 AM
SO there is still no consensus on whether a medium base model already in contact with a larger base and a smaller base will knock down the smaller base or not?
I would think that the wording of "moved through" is enough for me. There is movement of exactly 0" so there is no moves through. For a throw, Contact is enough so B2B is good enough there.

DarkLegacy
12-03-2015, 06:42 AM
As indicated in prior threads/rulings, "exactly" is a theoretical construct in this game. In most circumstances, it is a declaration of player intent (with some qualifications). One can place a model base to base with a warjack and kill it; when it becomes a wreck marker, the base to base model is not within it. However, on the next activation, the model can move zero and become within the wreck marker.
This is incorrect. You would need to make a non-0" move to enter the wreck marker. You also wouldn't be able to enter a wreck marker at all if a large-based moved exactly over the wreck marker before your model moved.

Grimgo
12-03-2015, 08:45 AM
This is incorrect. You would need to make a non-0" move to enter the wreck marker. You also wouldn't be able to enter a wreck marker at all if a large-based moved exactly over the wreck marker before your model moved.

So does the B2B with terrain rule counting as within not apply to wreck markers? Wreck markers may be different just more for my clarity

Back on topic, so if there is a triangle of 3 small bases and you slam from the angle where IF the small base moved, it would pass over both, however due to being same size it stops and both would be knocked down as they are B2B and would have both been passed over

If this is the case then surely this should pass across to the Medium, small and large base, just the large base doesn't get knockdown down due to larger size?

DarkLegacy
12-03-2015, 08:51 AM
So does the B2B with terrain rule counting as within not apply to wreck markers? Wreck markers may be different just more for my clarity

Back on topic, so if there is a triangle of 3 small bases and you slam from the angle where IF the small base moved, it would pass over both, however due to being same size it stops and both would be knocked down as they are B2B and would have both been passed over

If this is the case then surely this should pass across to the Medium, small and large base, just the large base doesn't get knockdown down due to larger size?
https://privateerpressforums.com/showthread.php?215183-Within-0-quot-of-Terrain-and-Zones-Conflicting-rulings-found&p=2905671&viewfull=1#post2905671

Aerospider
12-03-2015, 09:12 AM
Back on topic, so if there is a triangle of 3 small bases and you slam from the angle where IF the small base moved, it would pass over both, however due to being same size it stops and both would be knocked down as they are B2B and would have both been passed over

If this is the case then surely this should pass across to the Medium, small and large base, just the large base doesn't get knockdown down due to larger size?

From posts above, it seems there is an important distinction concerning base size. A slammed model will knockdown another model of equal base size simply by contacting it (since its movement stops at that point). But to knockdown a model with a smaller base it must move 'into' it.

When the slammed medium base model is already in contact with a medium base model and a small base model it counts as contacting both and does not move. The medium base is knocked down but the small base is not.

In your three small bases scenario both of the other small bases would be knocked down because they have been contacted.

In neither scenario is anything moved through (which is how the small base escapes knockdown in the first scenario).

I think that's right...

FallingAngel
12-03-2015, 05:52 PM
Is it likely that we will get an official ruling on this? How often does that happen?

Trollock
12-04-2015, 01:50 AM
It all comes down to the fact that collateral damage is worded differently between slammed models and thrown models. If the gorax had been thrown, it would have stayed in place (knocked down because it contacted a larger base) but it would have contacted Kaya and knocked her down as per the rules of collateral damage for throwing. Now it was slammed though, and then it requires to be moved through Kaya to knock her down. Since it still stays in place due to being in contact with a larger base, Kaya is NOT knocked down.

One can argue that the rules for collateral damage for being thrown and being slammed SHOULD be the same, but for some reason they are slightly different.

Robobengt
12-04-2015, 02:29 AM
I agree that RAW this could be the proper interpretation. However, it doesn't seem right that slamming something onto a smaller base in these instances would not affect the smaller base, while the same exact thing but with equal size would. Am wondering about the intent.

Trollock
12-04-2015, 02:39 AM
Right and wrong dont enter in to rules discussions :D

Robobengt
12-04-2015, 05:42 AM
Yeah, I know. Just wondered if RAW is the same as RAI here.

ScottMcd
12-04-2015, 05:58 PM
There is no RAI. There is only RAW. ;)

(Of course sometimes things are errata'd so please don't take the above 100% to heart.)

Robobengt
12-06-2015, 11:48 PM
I am also aware of this. :P
I also realize I should've posted this in another forum.

joedj
12-11-2015, 11:30 AM
Hordes: Primal MkII, Collateral Damage, p 53
If a slammed model contacts a model with an equal-sized base or moves through a model with a smaller base, that model is knocked down and suffers collateral damage.

So if the slammed 'Gorax' in base-to-base was a 30mm model instead of 40mm, there would be no question of whether or not Kaya was knocked down/suffers collateral, she would be affected!
So logic would suggest that the slammed 40mm or 50mm would also have the same effects on Kaya. [I know, does not apply with Rules as Written;)]

In summary, as currently written in the rules:
A slam of a 40mm that just barely contacts B2B a 30mm would not KD/collateral the 30mm ever.
But the same slam to a 40mm that just barely contacts B2B a 40mm would KD/collateral a 40mm.
[Same if you replace '50mm' for each '40mm' above]

Interesting and counter-intuitive. If this rule is maintained in present literal form, I must change my tactical 40mm model positioning for Trollbowling.

Definitely requires a clarification to intent/RAW imo.