When spending a troopers Impetuous order am I free to move+attack either enemy in the situation below? There are no obstacles and I have an enemy trooper 1" to my left and another 3" to my right.
You must move toward the closest enemy, so you will contact the trooper 1" away and end up engaged with him. You can then either CC attack him or shoot either of them (or both if you have enough burst and LOF on both at one point of your movement).
You must move towards the closest. This is measured first by least orders and second by distance. You can Attack either (assuming that all other requirements are met).
Where does it state I must attack the closest enemy distance wise? The only thing i see is: When executing a Move as part of an Impetuous Order, the trooper must move towards the nearest enemy figure by the most direct route possible. The nearest enemy figure is the one that can be reached in the least number of Orders, even if that figure is not in LoF. Jump or Climb skills must be used if that would shorten the route. The "nearest enemy figure" is defined as "the one that can be reached in the least number of Orders" They can both be reached in one order. I assume I get to decide which to attack at this stage.
I think the @inane.imp and @Arkhos94 have answered this @Ginrei. You don't have to attack the nearest, but you do have to move towards the nearest, so if one is within your movement range as in your example, you'll end up Engaged with it. You could still attack either or both with a BS attack in that same Order, so yes you're correct.
How have they answered my question? I want to have the option to move into base to base with either trooper. I can't CC Attack the other trooper if I'm not in base to base with it. The game rules seem to allow me to decide unless anyone has something else to add.
You have to move into b2b with the closest trooper, but you can BS Attack the other one on your way in. You can't choose which to move into CC with though, it must be the closest one.
Extract of the Fury page of the wiki : The Common Skill Move is mandatory in all Impetuous Orders, where it works in a specific and limited way. When a trooper declares Move as part of an Impetuous Order, he always moves the entirety of his corresponding MOV value. For example, if an Impetuous (or Extremely Impetuous) trooper declares Move once during an Impetuous Order, he moves the total amount of inches indicated by the first value of his MOV. If Move is declared a second time during the Impetuous Order, he also moves the full number of inches indicated by the second value of his MOV. A trooper using an Impetuous Order can move a distance shorter than the maximum only if he reaches base contact with an enemy, or if he enters an area of Special Terrain that impairs his Movement or forces him to declare Jump or Climb in order to keep moving. Impetuous Order: Direction of Movement When executing a Move as part of an Impetuous Order, the trooper must move towards the nearest enemy figure by the most direct route possible. The nearest enemy figure is the one that can be reached in the least number of Orders, even if that figure is not in LoF. Jump or Climb skills must be used if that would shorten the route. As said in the red part, you must move your full move in the direction of the closest ennemy. Once you reached him, your movement end (it's the only case when you can do less than your full movement, see yellow part)
@Arkhos94 Nothing in your post rebuts my point. You've chosen a false synonym, "direction of the closest enemy" that is contrary to what CB has defined. The "nearest enemy figure" is defined as "the one that can be reached in the least number of Orders" not the closest enemy in terms of distance.
Let's suppose a MOV value of 4 The ennemy 1" away is 0.25 move action away The ennemy 3" away is 0.75 move action away Distance can easily translate in number of order
LOL, that's a valiant attempt. If i could only spend 3/4 of an order you'd have a point. EDIT: Just because it's fun... It's like how we no longer have pennies in Canada. A store can charge 2 cents for one item and 3 cents for another. While one item is being sold for less money so technically speaking cheaper... they both cost me the same as the lowest denomination I can use is a nickel.
Yup, the editing isn't great on this one, but what you've quoted is a clarification on the previous sentence. It was added in N3 to cover the situation where you have an enemy model that is the closest by true distance but inaccessible or up a tall building that would take many more orders to climb. You're already well aware that the Infinity rules sometimes need a little leap in logic though, in this case that Nearest still means Nearest.
You're probably correct. But as I don't know the previous incarnation of the rule it doesn't sound intuitive to me.
As someone that works all day with lawyers, the history of a rule is as important as the exact wording. It's also important to remember that sometimes Nearest does actually mean Nearest.
The history seems more relevant to understand intent. You'd need to convince a judge the intent was clearly explained and possibly understood. I doubt this case would meet that criteria. Nearest only means nearest up until it's defined as something else.
I'll have to disagree with you there. You can't tell me an apple pie means it's made from pears and expect me to understand it's only made of pears when there are no apples left in the fridge.
Nearest does indeed mean nearest if the number of Orders needed is the same. http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...vement-least-number-of-orders/#comment-667542
Thanks for the link, I appreciate it. Out of curiosity, what month/year did the rules change from N2 to N3? Just so if i ever come across old rulings/threads I know which are more relevant.
