it would just be cleaner to fix the intended problem with allowing super jump to fall their first movement at no damage (any distance more than their first movement would declare idle). This way the previous game plan of jump up 4 inches and fall 4 inches (on a standard 4-4 person) would exist but not for normal models, they get no extra benefits. this way super jump worked closer to how it did in n3 with how people played without any real negative exploits. And I am in the opinion that fall damage caused a ton of exploits in n3 so am heavily against going completely back to how n3 played falling. I can understand if people wish to have everyone fall up to first movement safely and idle after that, but adding it to super jump would allow them to play as they did in the past without changing to much.
Biggest exploit with falling in N3 was that you could relatively easily get doctoring and engineering classifieds done by jumping up with your own remotes/troops. There was a slight risk, but smaller than letting your opponent shoot them. Often faster too, as the doctor/engineer was probably right next to the target. Good news is that this is easy to fix, just set maximum fall distance to be equal to first MOV value. This shouldn't even break the game since moves premeasured before deciding where to move.
Do you mean with SJ, or in general? I'm ok with regular jump simply being a way to get from one rooftop to another over a narrow alley, but SJ needs some love.
Just adding another vote for falling your first mov value or idle. Hoping that if enough of us ask nicely this can be changed.
Same, this would be a huge QoL change and bring back the utility to Super Jump. @HellLois, what do you think? :)
Super Jump is not Super anymore. 1 jump Wound with Dogface to become Dogwarrior was a play for me; don't need that but, Jump on high building to CC Bash with Dogwarrior was tactic that I will miss. It worked not everytime but I liked it. ^^
► It also allows Troopers to jump vertically, diagonally or horizontally, up to his first MOV Attribute value in inches if declaring Jump as a Short Movement Skill, and up to his second MOV Attribute value if declaring a second Jump as a Short Movement Skill. "a second Jump"... so if you Shoot+Jump, that is a first Jump, same for Move+Jump. There is no wording specific about "declaring a Jump as a second Short Movement Skill". It will probably be patched in real quick though. Reading the rule, it seem it is limited to the shown example, Jump+Shoot. Although in many similar cases you could as well Vault+Shoot; but locally I do have terrain or walls that are just a bit higher then the max vault height of 1.57". Only time where Jump+Shoot matter would be 1- if you can't u-turn mid-vault (not sure if true or not) and you want to stay behind the wall 2- if you want to jump to gain LoF over an obstacle but there is nothing around that you can vault (the typical super-jump play but now limited to half the height you could gain in N3) 3- in the vault example (p.37) where the obstacle is barely too high on the other side (can happen if playing with platform and sandbag wall ?) 4- to a stretch, if as in the Jump example, using the flexible tape method you can land 2" from where you were if you jump no more than 1.75" high. Useful for walls between 1.57" (which you can vault) and 1.9" (the best a fusilier can vault if landing 1.25" from where he was) Of course, that is for a Fusilier. Hollow men are 6-2. They can parabolic jump a 0.12" mdf wall that is up to 2.95" high; while still only being able to vault no more than 1.57" high. Or jump-peak over a 2.64" TAG-height wall. I remember having some terrain locally that is about that high. Other time, is if you do combine both MOV, then you can whole order jump to clear greater gaps where no enemy is watching.
regular fusilier jumps clears a 75mm gap, but even to your original question, how often is there a gap that can fit a S3 but not a S5 ? I'd say about 1 or 2 per table, out of every 5 table. That said, tables here are packed tight. A similar question exist in table setup : when a gap between building is overwatched, how often can you cautious move that gap ? (shy under 50mm)
True, 75mm (taking any clutter such as railings/balustrades into account), but I find that gaps that tight very difficult to negotiate with my hands when I try to move stuff between them. Makes for occasionally very satisfying vertical play when a (non-SJ) miniature gains a better position by jumping a gap to the next building. Around here cautious moves are not terribly common. The most usual situation where our tables allow for cautious movement is when a long range overwatch corridor aligns two buildings (or smoke) that aren't necessarily close, but just angle of attack closing it off. I'm actually fairly often surprised at how well the game plays on less claustrophobic tables. Could try and coax my phone to life to show a picture of my table that got unusually open due to me bringing one too few boxes to the event (and the picture of where the TO put his Noctifer on top of an Antenocitis Deus Roller tower - not intended by the table arranger to say the least :p)
I kind of hate current super-jump rules, but also appreciate it's simplicity (of execution). I think the rule should be kept as is, just get a discount, cause it is nowhere near of what it used to be (from power level point of view). Super Jump is still useful. It allows to save some movement compared to jump, climb, most cases also compared to climbing plus. Anyway - glad to see stuff jumping 6" up at the opposite side of the board to get an angle to shoot someone out of the equation. Now it's half of first MOV which doesn't seem that powerful, but still has it's uses. (Especially when you're a Guijia's height).
If the cost of SJ and C+ are similar, they should have similar levels of utility. SJ is still definitely an advantage over a regular model, even if it is not as big of one as in N3. C+ is a bit more flexible for moving up and over terrain, but SJ is still more likely to unlock unexpected shot angles than C+ is.
Disclaimer: I am new to Infinity, so what I'm about to propose might just be straight up stupid. I think the problem with Super Jump is that Climbing Plus is just better, instead of different. As others have pointed out, there is often no use case for Super Jump. If i wanted to fix this, I would go to what those skills first inspired me to think about: Climbing Plus makes me Spiderman, while Super Jump makes me Hulk (as far as jumping goes). I feel like Climbing Plus already does a good job at providing this experience, so let's just leave that as is. Super Jump does not make me feel like Hulk. It occasionally helps me feel like some weird acrobat doing a backflip while shooting. It's really just a slightly better Vault rule. So I feel the issue is that Super Jump needs to do three things to fulfil my Hulk fantasy: be fast, get me very high and be risky (Hulk don't care about no shots!). Proposed crazy idea: Super Jump is now an Entire Order skill that allows you to move 2" ignoring any verticality. So if you're next to a building, you can always get on top, even if it's a high sniper nest. And if you do it in the wrong spot, you're going to get ARO'd like crazy. So it's now better than Climbing Plus in "Safe Zones" for repositioning, but much worse when in the middle of the action, giving clear benefits and downsides to roughly get the same power level situationally. It's also kind of funny to have both and super jump into the top of the wall for some cool peek-and-shoot next order. I'm pretty sure this idea breaks down completely in some cases, but the point is that Super Jump needs to do a better job at fulfilling this "Rawr! I jumped on top of your building for some murdering!" fantasy I believe fits it so well.
@Kenan it pretty much already does that if you Super Jump twice in the same order, just with 8" instead of 12" (Guijia gets 10"). I think most people's gripes about SJ have to do with its lack of Short Skill movement utility compared to C+, since it's almost useless when used in that way on most existing tables due to the railings everyone puts on rooftops and the way Vault works, among other things. Personally, all I think it needs is permission to Vault during the SJ movement to be adequately useful. The issue with SJ being incompatible with non-SJ links is more of a link issue than a SJ issue IMO, and it's hard to fix that until we get the Fireteam rework. If none of these problems are addressed at all though, it should probably just get cheaper. No need to bring back falling, or otherwise complicate the whole ruleset, just to buff a fairly small subset of troops.
One of the core issues in all of this is that the examples and the intentions and descriptions of what Jump and Super-Jump is in the game is completely wrong when you apply the rules. -- I think that if you want to make a distinction between Climb+ and Super-Jump in terms of one being a better traversal skill and the other being a better combat skill, then it's far easier to just apply a MOD to Super-Jump skills similar to how they've handled Berserk. I.e. Khawarij with Super-Jump (-3) - which I'll remind you would still make the Khawarij get better protection from skulking around a corner than when jumping, but would let a Super-Jumping unit retain part of "cover's" bonus. Climb+ is actually quite awesome at allowing a unit to get to unexpected places and shoot from unexpected angles, it's just that both Climb+ and Super-Jump suffer from the fact that those angles can be quite bad in terms of gaining an advantage due to robbing them of cover. This would, of course, still leave the issue that regular Jump is almost (emphasis on almost) useless. Okay, but you realise that an S2 MOV4-4 unit climbs 5" tall buildings in one Entire Order Skill and that S4/7 MOV6-4 climbs 10.5" (roughly) buildings in one Entire Order Skill? (Climb+ S2 climbs a bit more while Climb+ S4/7 actually climbs a bit less in two consecutive Short Movement Skills) so the amount of verticality you need in order to actually make that version of Super-Jump worth bothering with is relatively staggering. (The reason is that declaring Climb allows you to "snap on" to buildings and "snap off" when reaching the top)
I don't think that's the case in N4 any longer. The diagram in the Climb rule appears to be measuring the full movement path without deducting the snap-on or snap-off distances, unless I'm missing something. Edit: No, wait... the caption says that the building is 4" tall, so the movement path is actually 4" + one base width at the top. So I guess we still have snap-off, but no longer snap-on?
So a 4" movement lets you Climb onto the roof of a 4" building in one order. That's a change from N4 where you could do it on a 5" building (gaining 1" from snap-on teleportation assuming you're S2), but still requires a snap-off (otherwise, 4" of movement would only get you just the top of the wall with the front of your silhouette, so you would still be stuck to the side of the building).
Despite the captions, I'm not sure how much stock I'd put in any of those examples, though, since the book also erroneously calculates the distance/height that a jump will carry a figure as well but it looks like the little "L" shape on the top implies that the climb of 4" includes the width of the base as part of the final move at the top, implying that the actual vertical distance traversed is only 3". HOWEVER, if you actually try and physically measure the distance in the image, you get this: By duping the figure and using its base to estimate the height, you can see that the wall is measured to be only about 3.5" high. Not sure if this tells us anything one way or another, but here's the second example... Here you can see that by using the figure's base to measure the height of the building, it's actually 5" high. In fact we don't even really need to measure it to know this, because the same climb that takes a single 4" move on one side all-of-a-sudden takes 7" of move to get down on the other side... that's an extra 3" somehow even though the height moved at the top to hop up on the low wall clearly low-enough to allow a vaulting move and visually can't be higher than an inch. If the point that the figure starts to climb down from is full 6" off the ground, it makes sense that a 7" move would be necessary to climb down and move one base-width forward (assuming no form of snapping on either end is allowed and it's just purely the math of the measurement)... but which is correct? The left side of the image or the right?
