According to the RRG, a Climbing Vehicle is treated as a Trooper for the purposes of vertical movement, does that mean it can end its climb with a different facing than it had when it started?

There’s nothing in the current rules that covers this. But Alex has ruled that they should maintain the same facing.

The climbing rule doesn't negate the not so restrictions of vehicles, so they still apply. Why would a vehicle be more agile and able to turn while climbing?

'treated as a trooper for the purposes of vertical movement' directly negates the vehicle restrictions. There are no rules around how vehicles should climb. There are rules around how trooper units should climb. The AT-RT should be treated as a trooper unit when climbing. Therefore all and only the trooper rules apply

Nope, climbs like a trooper,not turn like one,still, common sense still applies.

See, to me, common sence would have the vehicle facing the direction of the climb. As in back against the edge.

16 hours ago, Major Mishap said:

Nope, climbs like a trooper,not turn like one,still, common sense still applies

If that's how you approach reading rules, you're going to make mistakes. There are no rules regarding how troopers turn, because their facing doesn't matter. Thus, the correct way to follow the rules as written is to place the vehicle in whatever orientation you like. Now, it was clarified above that that's not how Fantasy Flight intends the rules to work, so hopefully that'll get into the official thread and a revised RRG soon. But you can't try to infer rules that aren't written because you feel they're common sense - it's not how games work.

31 minutes ago, Turan said:

There  ar  e no rules regarding how troopers turn, because their facing doesn't matter. Thus, the correct way to follow the rules as written is to place the vehicle in whatever orientation you like   . 

While I agree with your comments on “common sense”, I’m not so sure about the quoted comment.

”The rules don’t say I can’t, therefore I can” is going to steer you wrong more often than “the rules don’t say I can, therefore I can’t”. It’s moot anyway given the ruling, but I think that’s the better way to approach in general. There’s nothing in the Climbing Vehicle rule that says you can rotate freely, therefore you can’t. It just removes the restriction on vertical movement.

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I also wonder about placement, is the direction of the climb in the direction of the edge of the base touching the cliff edge? Seems like a lot of wiggle room there if a broad section of the base touches the edge.

36 minutes ago, NoShieldsAllGuts said:

Thanks for the thoughtful replies. I also wonder about placement, is the direction of the climb in the direction of the edge of the base touching the cliff edge? Seems like a lot of wiggle room there if a broad section of the base touches the edge.

Officially, the final position must be as close as possible to the starting position. In other words, you must go exactly straight up when possible. I suppose you could move laterally a bit if the position directly above is not large enough for you to fit (remember you can't overhang an edge), or there is rocky terrain that you can't actually sit on, etc.

From page 18:

Quote

After climbing or clambering, the unit leader will by
default be on the edge of the terrain closest to the point
with which it was in base contact before climbing or
clambering. Minis not placed on the same edge of the
terrain as the leader must be placed in base contact with
the terrain and as close as possible to this point.

Is C the only legal climb?

3 hours ago, NoShieldsAllGuts said:

Is C the only legal climb?

Personally, I would think A and C are both legal.

I rule that the wall/cliff/whatever you're climbing needs to be in the front arc of the RT, and you retain the same facing direction.

10 hours ago, nashjaee said:

”The rules don’t say I can’t, therefore I can” is going to steer you wrong more often than “the rules don’t say I can, therefore I can’t”

You are right, but that's not what I said.

There's a difference between the basic tenet of "game rules tell you what to do, not what you can't," and augmenting the written rules with what you perceive to be common sense. Joe thinks it's common sense that "treat as a trooper" includes the ability to freely rotate that we all surely do while moving troopers. Sally thinks it's common sense that vehicles have to stay facing the same direction even when following non-standard movement rules. Common sense isn't always common - one shouldn't try to fit rules into its framework, but request clarification.

Here's a good example: many board/card games have special text on cards that says basically "Get this good thing by incurring this negative effect." I've played with many people who consider it common sense that if you can't fully pay the cost, you can't get the good thing; or vice versa, they presume that you get the good thing then take as much of the bad as possible, even if it's not the full cost. The fact is, there are games that work both ways, so the resolution of that kind of text depends specifically upon the individual game, and if it's not specified in the rules you need to ask for clarification because your common sense has a 50% chance of being wrong.

A possible fix might be to change the climbing rules, but I think the front arc solution that kac proposes is clean and sensible.

1 hour ago, NoShieldsAllGuts said:

A possible fix might be to change the climbing rules, but I think the front arc solution that kac proposes is clean and sensible.

I would say rather than 'within' front arc - which allows ^|^ as well as 7|7, and >|> climbs - you could say 'touching' front arc. Then only 7|7 and >|> are legal.

(forgive my ascii art)

WRT to the above diagram I'd say A and C should be legal, but not B.

Also I was just reminded, that the rule of thumb for vertical terrain impassability for vehicles, is the same as the cover rule (50%). So the AT-RT doesn't even need to climb for anything less than 2". It's a perfectly normal non-difficult move!

A) is probably the most useful example because it allows you to strafe into firing position over a cliff (which is very fun with a flamethrower!). It's something I haven't done in tournament yet due to its questionable legality, but I may give it a go next time.

And yeah, we had the same realization for the AT-ST. Mind was blown when the thing walked over a high stone wall like it was just a barricade.

4 hours ago, Turan said:

C  ommon  sense isn't always commo  n 

Yeah, I completely agree with your comments on common sense. In fact, I had this exact line in mind as I was writing ? .

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you. It sounded like you were saying that the written rules currently allow the vehicle to rotate. I was suggesting that they do not because that ability is not specifically granted to it in the climbing vehicle rules. The vehicle is treated as a trooper specifically for purpose of vertical movement, not for any other purpose. No application of “common sense” necessary.

52 minutes ago, NoShieldsAllGuts said:

And yeah, we had the same realization for the AT-ST. Mind was blown when the thing walked over a high stone wall like it was just a barricade.

Shock and awe baby!

I think with the right terrain on the table and smart deployment there's some nifty opportunties for the AT-ST to be very selective about its targets and its exposure - not just the static artillery piece / impact magnet we see a lot of.

The T-47 suffers more from this, but when it can duck and weave behind terrain it can also be extremely fun.

On 6/20/2018 at 7:09 PM, nashjaee said:

Yeah, I completely agree with your comments on common sense. In fact, I had this exact line in mind as I was writing ? .

Sorry, perhaps I misunderstood you. It sounded like you were saying that the written rules currently allow the vehicle to rotate. I was suggesting that they do not because that ability is not specifically granted to it in the climbing vehicle rules. The vehicle is treated as a trooper specifically for purpose of vertical movement, not for any other purpose. No application of “common sense” necessary.

We are performing a move, of type climb. The restrictions on vehicle movement that affects its facing are detailed in the sections of the RRG that cover a standard move, a reverse move or a pivot. There is no inherent restriction to vehicles on how they face. The rules on climbing and clambering state that the unit leader should be placed. The only restriction on that placing is that it should not overhang and it should be as close to the edge as possible. There is no definition in the RRG as to exactly what ‘place’ means. Therefore it is up to the players to interpret that. To me, when games ask a player to place a figure, and there is nothing anywhere in the rules that restrict the facing of that figure while placing, I can place it in any facing I wish.