Impetuous works fine when people aren’t trying to exploit it to not be a straight disadvantage. I feel like the rules should just say, think of the worst thing this model can do with a full first movement value and do that Or more seriously if the impetuous move was just removed and impetuous models just couldn’t have cover and must always move towards the enemy. Like the inverse of retreat. Maybe the discount wouldn’t feel so bad.
I'm fine with the interpretation of the rules but I disagree with this. Impetuous is a point discount that includes disadvantageous, obligatory movements. If the pathing is not clear, your opponent should choose.
Later I changed my mind: It's still a disadvantage, but the ability of the player to maxmice his advantages and minimice his dissadvantages is a core part of this game. We only lack the rules in this issue to know how to handle it consistently so it's looking more complicated than it really is.
I think its a tough rule to write where you remove just enough control that it’s a disadvantage, but one you can manage versus something with huge loopholes people abuse to suffer almost no inconvenience at all.
Well, that is extremely impetuous, simply impetuous is a free order with certain restrictions and downside of never being able to have partial cover. My take on things: Impetuous order is just an order with certain restrictions, which are: 1. Must be one of Airborne Deployment Move + Activate (Activate + Move) Move + Attack (Attack + Move) Move + Dodge (Dodge + Move) Move + Idle (Idle + Move) Move + Move Jump Climb 2. If trooper declares Move during impetuous order they must move entirety of their movement value (and as such if they declare Move - Move they must move full distance both times). Now, RAW it only restricts move skilll, so RAW if climbing/jumping would shorten the route you can legally declare climb/jump 0.1", (since climbing/jumping WOULD shorten the route, but nothing forces the player to use it in the way it does) but I am pretty sure everyone reads this rule as "If declaring skill with Movement tag, you must move full distance". 3. Trooper must move in the direction of the closest model by most direct route. The "closest model" is defined as one that can be reached in least amount of orders, therefore for motorbike moving 8-6 models 1" and 13" are Equidistant. So RAW motorbike can move 8" toward the 13" far model and shoot at it, because they would fullfill all the requirements as the model is one of the "closest models" and they move the entirety of their movement value (and those are only requirements). This restriction, too, applies to any Move declared during Impetuous Order, so they can't move 8" forward then 6" back if declared Move - Move. 4. Trooper must declare Climb or Jump if this would shorten the route AKA allows for a path that takes fewer orders to reach the target. 5. Trooper can not be prone and will automatically stand up if prone at the start of the Impetuous Order. Those are all the restrictions one must abide. Nothing allows your opponent to decide the path or way of movement any more than he can for your regular or irregular order. Nowhere does it mention that trooper with several profiles must choose the one with greater movement option or forbids/forces use of Mount option of Move skill for TAG pilot or trooper with several profiles (so theoretically RAW nothing prevents one from dismounting motorcycle at the start of the first move of any order, including impetuous, but I would not try it because not only does it feel cheap but also may urge your opponent to choke you with their bare hands). Nothing forces impetuous trooper to use or even consider any piece of equipment (Motorcycle is a piece of automatic equipment without obligatory trait), least they would be forced to move toward Panoply and use it in something like Looting and Sabotage on the off chance they get Motorcyle (and forced to roll on Booty L2?) beause that would take less orders, and that is just ridiculous.
I didn't thought this was an option in the opening post, but ijw confirmed it is. So bikers take in count the bike, that's a fact. However rules are incomplete (doesn't take in count bikes at all) and some readings may give a big advantage to bikers; but if that's intended then fine. Finding the RAI is tough in this case and it will need a CB ruling at least. About this, it is confirmed you can only dismount if you can't reach the closest model mounted.
This is all far to complicated for what should be a very kiss friendly fix. It should really just be you have to move to the closest model. No climbing or jumping, no running back to get your bike. Just measure to the closest enemy unit and move.
Is it in FAQ? If not, then its not really confirmed (I dont mean to sound like an asshole, but I have seen FAQ rule the other way than what people said, so I don't consider anything confirmed no matter who posted it on forums.
Or, even simpler, just remove dismounted profiles altogether (barring the special AI bike) since a ruling in which you more often than not have to return to your bike means bikers effectively never dismount for more than a turn anyways. Not like we have models for most of the dismounted models anyways. I've also always viewed bikes having impetuous not necessarily as the bloodthirstiness of the pilot, but rather the nature of a bike that is going very fast and can be difficult to speed up and slow down quickly but I also understand how much of a headache impetuous mounted bikers v non impetuous dismounted bikers would be so this is better. That interpretation also does not explain Mavericks and Dynamos, so might be I'm totally off base. But yeah, gimmicky 1" dismounts to counteract the impetuous move feels wrong. And for clarity purposes I think making G:Synch troops act as one cohesive whole, measuring closest from the "controller" model makes the most sense and leads to less potential nonsense of being out of sync.
Pls no, remember that impetuous troops can act normally after their impetuous phase and not obliged to move in any particular way. Just few days ago, I had Yojimbo run into building (doorway too narrow to ride through with a bike) and massacre things then getting killed, his bike's tachometer still a 0.
That's a dangerous path to take, until a few FAQs the "you can't put models in the wall when engaging" wasn't in the FAQ; Were that ok before that FAQ? Also, the number of orders a model take to reach an enemy model is how the distance is meassured, and for that the movement of the mounted profile is very relevant. We only need to know how to resolve this case within the rules without giving advantage to the biker. Also the "this is too complicated better ignore these rules" isn't the best way, sooner of later you will play outside your meta, so the clearer the rules, the better. If this is not clear, I'd rather it clarified officialy. I've posted some solutions to this before, but It's not clear which exact rules the biker must follow. The "safer" one (aka, the most dissadvantageous for the biker) is this one: If the shorter path is the bike, take the bike If the bike and on foot paths take the same turns, go on foot and never backtrack. So, if the biker and the bike are in the same spot: For a 8-4 bike with a 4-4 rider: 41+ inches: Bike For a 8-6 bike with a 4-4 rider: 33+ inches: Bike However if the biker had moved back (away from the enemy, leaving the bike between them) a 4 inches: For a 8-4 bike with a 4-4 rider: 29+ inches: Bike For a 8-6 bike with a 4-4 rider: 21+ inches: Bike Using these restrictive rules (that we don't know if are the right ones or not) a biker standing next to his bike will almost always have to rush forward unless the other player is hugging is deployment zone. If the biker runs directly away from the bike then he will only have to run towards the enemy if they are approximately less than half o a table away. However if you can choose the path if both take the same number of turns, then (assuming you will always choose going towards the bike) the inches needed goes down to approximately 17 inches in both cases (standing right to the bike it would be around 1/3 of a table); so this needs a clarification.
Oh I am not suggesting a house rule. I am suggesting they rethink and rewrite the rule to keep it simple and straightforward.
Give it a try yourself. You’ll find out the hard way that ‘simple and straightforward’ isn’t actually possible, while still having a rule that makes enough sense. As a case in point, one of the things that people complain about with the current Impetuous movement rules is the need to work out the shortest route to work out who is closest (and the direct impact on this thread). If you remove that requirement and just use ‘closest enemy’ you get absurd situations where the Impetuous trooper runs past a different enemy trooper because they started closer to an enemy trooper behind a wall.
The impetuous rules are in general fine (It should define some cases better to avoid impetuous troopers in roofs being forced to suicide jump for example), but the nearest enemy (considering routes) makes sense. The problem here is the bike isn't well integrated with the rest of the impetuous rules: Getting into b2b with the motorbike isn't one of the clauses it lets you move less than your full MOV. Are you allowed to stop before your full movement if the bike is clearly the fastest path? Or in that case you should ignore the bike? Can you backtrack (even a little) to get the bike if that's the fastest path? In the case the on foot way and by motorbike way takes the same turns, are you allowed to choose the "safest" motorbike path (assuming you parked it in a safe area)? Even if you should move less than your full MOV value? With so many questions it's hard to know how that is intended to work for unmounted bikers, my safe guess is this: But I can't be sure if that's the right one or not.
I may have misread Andre82's post, but they appeared to be talking about the Impetuous rule in general. I was responding to that specifically. And suicide jumps are not something the rules are trying to avoid - it's up to the player to deploy Extreme Impetuous troopers in locations that aren't going to result in a Jump.
I can't speak for him but I think he was refering to this particular issue... about that; Do you know or can make a educated guess about how we should handle these issues with the impetuous bikers? I'd swear I read somewhere that the impetuous rules didn't wanted to promote that kind of suicide behaviour... If that's intended and part of the balance of these models then it's fine. For me, that make the impetuous mechanic less immersive tho; bloodthirst is one thing, other is jumping out of a 10 floor building because that's the shortest path to reach to a model...
I never really understood the fierce opposition to the "suicide jump problem" for impetuous troops. It's pretty easy to visualize, actually. Think of every Extremely Impetuous trooper as Drax. The only reason he is still alive is because the rest of the group bailed him out of the 20 or so situations where he would have killed himself trying to get to his target. It even happens in nature. Bees will gladly kill themselves for the protection of the hive... and that's not even including the very real contemporary human examples.
Maybe is just me, but even the most impetuous troopers would have some autopreservation sense. I can see one biker driving towards the entire enemy army while shooting like crazy; but one guy jumping towards his death because an enemy is in the base of the building... there is no point in doing that. That's from a fluff pow. But for a game pow, it also make these models akward to play with tall scenography. I can understand these rules from a balance point of view, or to not make them to complex; but being forced to make a suicide move is kind of odd to me.
I've already said how I think it should be played, for the one in a hundred games where it's likely to come up. I don't know where you might have read that, but it's misleading at best. For context, Impetuous movement in N2 included a series of restrictions for self-preservation, including not moving into Suppression Fire corridors (when it was a 2" wide 'beaten zone') and not moving into the area of a known Mine or equivalent. N3 intentionally removed all the self-preservation clauses. Which the player is perfectly capable of doing.
Then It'd be great if you could send this thread to the team that handle FAQs. This thread clearly shows we can't agree in how this should be played. Probably this isn't more discussed because players aren't aware they can try to manipulate the movement of the biker using the unmounted profile. I don't agree that niche interactions shouldn't be ruled well tho, these are the ones that may stop a game or that may put a TO in the tough position of having to make up a quick call in an unclear issue. I like some of these changes from N2, a model can try to dodge a mine or outshoot a suppression fire enemy; but there are jumps that will kill them and that's the part I don't like of that rule... but that's more my personal opinion. If that's intendend, I'd deal with it avoding roofs with these models; no big deal. I've done a quick search because I knew I read about that in a thread about impetuous orders, this is were I got the idea that wasn't an intended mechanic; I do agree with his pow about these models.
