Can a Monk 'Stealth Leap' Braxas?

[Mud Turkey 13]

I think people need to get away from the idea of the monk slipping by while a figure bends over or steps to the side slightly. Obviously, in real life living things do not hold a static pose forever like these figures do, but for this game's mechanics to work out I feel like you must consider the pose to be the position the character is in at all times.

The reason for this is pretty simple really. If I'm in a battle and I'm hiding behind a wall so I don't get shot and my foot is barely visible from behind the wall and someone shoots at me I'm immediately going to pull my foot in closer to my body so they cannot shoot at it any longer. If these figures are ducking out of the way of leaping monks who's to say they too wouldn't be pulling their foot in so they cannot be shot at? If a figure's height is listed at 13 I think it should be played like it's a 13 level high wall. I don't think a height variance should be played.

The height difference could even go both ways. Say Braxas is only listed at height 11. The whole monk leaping thing wouldn't be a problem because he can leap 12 levels high, right? No. If you're playing it so a figure's height is variable due to movements what's stopping Braxas from stretching her neck out(which the pose clearly depicts her with her head slightly down so this isn't out of the question) and biting the poor little monk's head off as he tries to pass over her?

For the game to be played consistently I just think that you must consider the pose of the figure and it's listed height to be the final say in all discussions such as these.

[Xaqery]

Originally Posted by Mud Turkey 13

I think people need to get away from the idea of the monk slipping by while a figure bends over or steps to the side slightly. Obviously, in real life living things do not hold a static pose forever like these figures do, but for this game's mechanics to work out I feel like you must consider the pose to be the position the character is in at all times.

The reason for this is pretty simple really. If I'm in a battle and I'm hiding behind a wall so I don't get shot and my foot is barely visible from behind the wall and someone shoots at me I'm immediately going to pull my foot in closer to my body so they cannot shoot at it any longer. If these figures are ducking out of the way of leaping monks who's to say they too wouldn't be pulling their foot in so they cannot be shot at? If a figure's height is listed at 13 I think it should be played like it's a 13 level high wall. I don't think a height variance should be played.

The height difference could even go both ways. Say Braxas is only listed at height 11. The whole monk leaping thing wouldn't be a problem because he can leap 12 levels high, right? No. If you're playing it so a figure's height is variable due to movements what's stopping Braxas from stretching her neck out(which the pose clearly depicts her with her head slightly down so this isn't out of the question) and biting the poor little monk's head off as he tries to pass over her?

For the game to be played consistently I just think that you must consider the pose of the figure and it's listed height to be the final say in all discussions such as these.

No one is suggesting that the game be played inconsistently. No one is suggesting that you first consider what the figures might be doing then decide how to interrupt the rules for any given circumstance. Ever!

All I was trying to do is explain that the designers of the game created a thing called “Stealth Leaping” and the Monks have this ability. As we explore how to solve our dilemmas illustrated by Homba I only suggest that we consider the theme of the ability. That maybe the word “Stealth” can help us discern the intent of the ability.

Braxas cannot stop the Monks as they leap because she is not aware that they are jumping. The Monks are doing it stealthy.

- Dwight

[GaryLASQ]

Originally Posted by Mud Turkey 13

I think people need to get away from the idea of the monk slipping by while a figure bends over or steps to the side slightly. Obviously, in real life living things do not hold a static pose forever like these figures do, but for this game's mechanics to work out I feel like you must consider the pose to be the position the character is in at all times.

You are correct. This is the way the game should be played without question. Back on HS.net the designers shot down other attempts at bending the rules over this notion that figures are fluid, not static. They are static at all times.

We have gone in circles on this issue many times before for different reasons (like figures blocking their own LOS, which I don't care to get into on this thread). Why we keep going in circles I can't tell you. The rules about it are pretty simple and clear.

"Stealth" is flavor text and should not carry any weight when working out the game mechanics. "Stealth" is only there because the Monks can Disengage without penalty only when doing this special movement.

There is one thing to remember, even though they are static, they have a generalized height. This height is not the physical height of a sculpt of course but rather a statistical height for keeping certain rules of the game simple, so that questions like "Can a Monk Stealth Leap over [an opposing or engaged] Braxas?" never come up.

[Homba]

Originally Posted by Aranas

Very, very good Homba!!! Nice job!


Do you feel there is also a need for a clarification on this situation:
A monk at level 20 is in front of a one-hex wide 12 levels wall (the top being at level 32). Behind that wall is a chasm 12 levels deep (the bottom being at level 8'). The monk uses its Stealth Leap to go over the wall and then down the chasm. Based on the rule, everything is ok since the final destination is only 12 levels down from the starting position. BUT, in fact, the monk went 12 levels up and then 24 levels down (32 - 8')!


by the FAQ:

Aranas

Aranas, thanks.

Regarding your example (well stated), I think the LEAP you describe is legal and within the existing explanations, based on two basic rules of STEALTH LEAPing. First, you cannot LEAP higher than 12 levels during the LEAP (this rule is not violated in your example). Second, per the exact FAQ entry you quote, you cannot END the LEAP more than 12 levels higher/lower than the hex from which you BEGAN the LEAP (this rule is not violated in your example).

Your Monk does descend 24 levels, but this is allowed by the FAQ you quoted - what happens "in the midst of" the LEAP is irrelevant (as long as you do not ascend more than 12 levels), and thus leaping over the previously discussed 30-deep canyon, and your example of the 24-hex descent are both allowed within the language of the existing FAQ clarifications.

Is that satisfactory, or would you like me to include your example in the email?

H

PS- I knida hope Gary, Mud Turkey and others are right, because then the fireworks will be pretty dealing with the Blocked Window example. The Blocked Window becomes irrelevant if Monks have a de facto GHOST WALK which would allow them to LEAP height 13 Braxas. Regardless of how this is ruled on, however, I am not so sure that Scape is totally devoid of the concept of figure "fluidity" - it seems to crop up from time to time, for example it is established that Nilf's wing does not sever engagement or prevent movement between the hexes the wing separates, as long as you can place the figure legally in each hex - you are not required to "slide" through the wing (which would illegally disturb the Nilf figure) - so you must dash past when the wing is "flapping around" elsewhere. The important distinction here is probably "parts of the figure over the figure's base," vs. "parts of the figure extending over hexes not covered by its base," and it may be unique to Nilfheim at this point (hard to think of a fig with a similar issue).

[Homba]

I'm gona let this sit for one more day for comments. Will mail friday night.

Here's how I would rule if I were Craig:

LISTED HEIGHT PRINCIPLE: SIMPLE VERSION

• 1. The Monk cannot LEAP Braxas because of Braxas's listed height of 13 - too high for the Monk.
  
  2. Consequently, the Monk cannot LEAP the 10-height wall with Minions on top. This is a 16 total height, and again too tall.
  
  3. I would handle the "Blocked Window" consistent with the "listed height principle," as follows:
  [list:d2893af38a]i. Determine the height of the "window" opening. For example: 10.
  
  ii. Use the LISTED height of the blocking figure to determine how much of the opening is blocked. Example: Ne-Gok-Sa = height 5, so the lower 5 hexes of the 10-high window are blocked (and the upper 5 hexes are not blocked).
  
  iii. Check the LISTED height of the FLYING or LEAPING figure. If the figure's listed height is less than or equal to the unblocked portion of the "window," the figure may pass through. Otherwise, the figure may not pass through the window - there is not enough clearance. In our example, the Monk (height 5) has just enough clearance (5) to LEAP over the blocking NGS without cracking his head against the overhang. There is NEVER a passing swipe, because all FLYING and LEAPING powers use the language "pass over opponents without becoming engaged."
  
  iv. The 'Listed Height Principle' is applicable not only to creatures or obstacles positioned directly under an overhang, but also to creatures or obstacles positioned in hexes adjacent to the hex(s) directly under the overhang. For example, a height 10 tree or figure not within a "window," but in the adjacent hex directly in front of or behind such a window. The blocking calculation would be exactly the same for a Flyer or Leaper trying to enter or exit the window.

[/list:u:d2893af38a]
-----------
The LHP:SV deals with all issues while keeping with the general simplicity of Scape, and does not require the unprecedented and absurdly tedious manual "threading" of an in-flight figure through a gap in terrain while trying not to disturb the terrain or nearby figures - consistent with the FAQ's treatment of walking figures which need not be "slid" from hex to hex - you are similarly not required to "slide" your Flyer or Leaper "through the air."

It is tempting to suggest an ADVANCED VERSION where a passing swipe is possible against normally FLYING figures (but not against STEALTH FLYING/LEAPING figures) in appropriate ("vertically adjacent") situations, and perhaps to assume a crouch- or dive-style jump or flight which would require less clearance above the blocking figure, but... Scape is traditionally not that "rulesy."

How would you rule?

H

[Aranas]

Originally Posted by Homba

Is that satisfactory, or would you like me to include your example in the email?

No. Thank you Homba. The FAQ is enough for me.
I simply wanted to point out this "irregularity" (falling 24 levels down without taking damage). Maybe others want this question to be asked anyway?


Aranas

[NecroBlade]

Originally Posted by GaryLASQ

"Stealth" is flavor text and should not carry any weight when working out the game mechanics.

Same as the Great Carry Debate. It kills me how people seem so much more in favour of this one than the other.

[Mud Turkey 13]

Originally Posted by Aranas

No. Thank you Homba. The FAQ is enough for me.
I simply wanted to point out this "irregularity" (falling 24 levels down without taking damage). Maybe others want this question to be asked anyway?


Aranas

I would actually like to see that answered, so if you could include it that would be super. Thanks.

[Homba]

I will include it.

[Nwojedi]

this is a great question. I can't believe none of us, have thought about it before.

[Homba]

The mail is away, with Aranas's scenario added per Mud Turkey's request.

Will report when answered.

H

[Aranas]

Cool!

Just have to wait now !


Aranas