Contact with Hazards, fire pit

Been asked in Reddit, and Facebook, and probably Discord… asking here.

When a model is moved/placed so that its base contacts a template/obstacle/obstruction/other terrain type, is the model within the area of the template/obstacle/obstruction/other terrain type? And, if that template/obstacle/obstruction/other terrain type is a hazard, would it suffer the effects of that hazard if all of the other rules allow it to suffer the effects?

The example being used is if a model is slammed, and contacts the fire pit, does it suffer the effects of the fire pit?

Contacting something is not the same as being within it. You would not suffer the effects of a fire pit unless you enter the area of the fire pit itself.

1 Like

In the old forum, I’m certain there was a post from an infernal that said if we were touching something, we were within it, and therefore the effects applied… something to the effect of if a model is within zero inches of a thing, then it is within he thing.

I can’t find a rule that says that contacting isn’t the same as being within.

That ruling was contingent on you being physically capable of being within the terrain.

When slammed into an obstacle you, by definition, cannot and do not enter it.

That’s an easy one to refute:

A model within 0" of another model is B2B with it; it is not within the other model.

Warmachine is written in a permissive manner: it tells you what you can do, not (generally) what you can’t do.

The rules would outright say “If you are B2B with terrain, you are within the terrain” if that was the intent. :slight_smile:

Lacking a sentence like that, within must mean exactly the normal definition of “within.”

Fair, but this isn’t intuitive. Touching something and being affected by it is intuitive. Take this example, where if two models are three inches apart, then a 3" template placed between them should touch both, because they are also both 1.5" from the center of the template. Given your interpretation, the two models can be within 3 inches of each other, but NOT within the template, even though they are within the diameter of the template.

I disagree with this, because you shouldn’t be able to be both not within a distance and within the same distance at the same time. That logic should apply to obstacles and obstructions as well, so that if you are touching the thing, you are within the area of the thing. Like… if you touch a stove, and it’s hot, you get burned! You shouldn’t have to place your hand inside the stove! Touching the stove means you should be within the distance of the stove, at zero inches!

For the example no it did not enter it.

As to the old forum ruling question it was in regards to touching a scenario zone which then went into how touching it did not mean you were in it. Which then got ruled to apply to terrain at that time

1 Like

In your example, touching the outside of the stove means you are within 0” of the stove. It does not mean you are inside the stove. :slightly_smiling_face:

Not trying to belabor the point (because Chuck already provided his input), but just trying to make sure the rationale is understood.

If I am standing outside a building and touch the door to the building, I am definitely not inside (a.k.a. “within”) the building. :slightly_smiling_face:

So in the case of two models being three inches apart, and touching a 3 inch template, neither model are within the template, and neither would suffer the effects of said template, correct?

And another case - If Kolgrima is 14 inches away from amodel, then that model is within her control range, and she places a freezing cloud effect template completely within her control range, is the model within her control range within the cloud effect?

If there is a difference between touching to be within range, and touching but not being within, can that clarification be made clear in a rulesbook example?

I understand your point. And while being technically correct is the best kind of correct, this split between being within the distance of, within the space occupied by, and within the effects of is not intuitive. If you touch something, you feel it, and you feel the effects of it in the real world. I know that the game is an abstraction, but feel like rules should also be intuitive. That’s why I would believe that contacting a hazard should convey the effects of the hazard to the thing contacting it.

In your 3" apart example and each touching the template but not in it then they are not in it and thus not suffer the effects.

As for rulebook example request it is that we are using a ruling from before as stated.

So, I think I see the problem. While the game rules are usually fairly intuitive, it’s important to remember that (much like D&D) Warmachine is not a physics simulator. The game rules are abstractions designed to make for a smooth play experience. There’s a different type of “intuitive” understanding required, and that is: rules only do what they say they do, and nothing more.

Game rules work the way they work so that there is no ambiguity on the tabletop. A model’s base has to be inside a piece of terrain to suffer/benefit from the terrain. A ranged attack with RNG 14 goes exactly 14" and no further – even if in the real world a bullet would follow a parabolic trajectory and possibly go further – because the game rules say it goes 14" and only 14". :slight_smile: And so on, and so forth.

The game rules say that a model within a fire pit (i.e. crossing it while advancing) suffers the effects, so players can read that and intuitively understand “this only does exactly what it says it does, and nothing more.” The player can easily, intuitively reason: am I affected by being within 3" of the fire pit? No. Am I affected by being B2B with the fire pit? No. I am only affected if at any point I cross into the area of the fire pit.

Warmachine’s rules work amazingly smoothly if you just accept the initial premise that they do exactly what they say they do, and nothing more. :slight_smile: And if you need to know why they work that way, because: it’s a game, and it needs to have clean rules. :slight_smile:

(And if anybody needs further justification, I recommend you follow the Mystery Science Theater 3000 mantra:

:grin: )

And to be clear, it’s impossible for Kolgrima to place a cloud effect such that an object 14 inches away from her, but in her control range, would be affected by the cloud effect?

“A model is within a given distance when the nearest edge of its base is within that distance. If two models are exactly a certain distance apart, they are considered to be within that distance of each other.”

If the edge of your base is touching the extent of her control range then you are not 0” away, you are 0” within. The zero point is biased toward the within state. The same is true for reach and other effects.

Now this becomes somewhat pedantic for a hazard as it doesn’t have a base, but one would assume that the above implies that if you are exactly 3” from the center of a hazard you are 0” within, not 0” out.

I apologize for the late reply

As for the question it would be toucing the template but not in it

1 Like