Spending an impetuous order is not a cancellation clause of prone and impetuous orders do not say at the start of the order remove prone (that I can find). The only spot that says you stand up is in this section: "During an Impetuous Order a trooper can never move in a Prone state so he will automatically stand up at the beginning of the mandatory Move, or at the start of a Jump or Climb." But it cannot be the start of a jump or climb action as jump or climb cannot be declared if you are prone.
Why do you think they put the "At the start of X, automatically stand up" if X is completely impossible? It's because, just like it was confirmed in the previous rules forum, that you're allowed to cancel Prone in order to make the Jump/Climb legal. You're just now allowed to get into a situation where you're climbing or jumping while prone.
Mahtamori's side of this discussion is predicated on the fact that jumping is, in fact, going to be faster than climbing down anything other than a trivial one or two inch tall building. Imagine the situation where the building in question is 10" tall, and the enemy model is at the base of the building. If you jump, you get into base contact in one order. Anything else the impetuous model tries to do has to match that to be considered. There could possibly be situations where you can say "It'll take two orders to get to base contact with that target, even by suicidal routes, and this non-suicidal route gets me there in the same two orders." But jumping and falling is almost always faster than climbing or jumping and not falling--the free movement provided by the fall is usually overwhelming compared to the distance the model could move by itself. "It seems like tracing a route along solid objects is a pretty reasonable interpretation of the rule" seems to be trying to ignore the facts: 1. You'll notice the example in the book where the impetuous model is forced to go through the mine, instead of the more sensible but slightly longer route. 2. The shorter route using Jump exists.
Edit: yeah, never mind. I guess I'm just being silly about it. I'm not a RAW guy, I shouldn't try to make RAW stuff work. If you're playing me, your shaolin monks and magister knights don't need to lemming leap off high buildings. With other players, ymmv.
Practically you don't need to unless you decide to let it happen. It only triggers if you're already in B2B with the terrain that forces you to Jump or Climb to continue your movement. So you have an opportunity to fix this before your next Extremely Impetuous order. If you're not already in B2B then you stop when you hit the terrain that forces you to Jump or Climb to continue your movement. "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."
And what about this case? A mini is near enough of a cliff (but not b2b with it) to jump horinzontally and fall. RAW it must do this as it is the choice that would let it close the gap with the nearest model with less orders spent (it's less than move to b2b with the cliff and then jump). But as you can't meassure before declaring actions this could lead to some problems.
You declare Move, this is legal because you are permitted to move less than your maximum movement if you hit terrain that forces you to Climb/Jump. You must still follow the shortest path, so generally that's still running towards the edge of the cliff. You *can* jump if you want to though. You *should* Jump if you have Super-jump. Threads where it got hashed out, it's.... colourful. http://www.infinitytheforums.com/fo...nk-impetuous-works-differently-than-you-think. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/jump-super-jump-impetuous.3532/page-2#post-53295
It is legal to stop there but then you are not making the choices that would reach your foe with the less actions... In a flat terrain you can move and attack/dodge because it is equal to Jump horinzontally and less effective that move + move. If the enemy is on a roof then you would move to the base of the building and then stop because you cannot reach the top quicker, ok. But if the enemy is on the floor and you are in a roof is quicker to jump from the top to the base (even if you are not in b2b) than move to the edge and then jump. Just saying that RAW you should do this, the impetuous rules even say " Jump or Climb skills must be used if that would shorten the route."
You're quoting part of the rule in isolation. That's a bad way to interpret Infinity's rules (cue laughter at my expense from the peanut gallery :P). Read the thread. It's all hashed out there: the terrain clause permits you to stop without moving your full Move, it's meaningless if you're forced to jump before hitting the terrain. I don't want to argue this a 5th time. Tl;dr You can declare Move so long as your not B2B with the edge; you stop when you hit the edge. It's settled to the third standard of rule clarifications
I've been reading a bit these threads (ty for the links btw) but I ran out of time today... I'll come back to them later but by now I'm not buying that. The rules about impetuous orders are very stricts with some points, the principal idea is that you must move and you also must go for the straighest route and there are also no safety concerns, if jumping from a building (even if not in the edge) would shorten the route RAW you must jump. The terrain clause is contradictory with that idea, that's true, but it could be covering other cases. For example ,if the nearest enemy model is in the roof of a near building that you couldn't reach jumping from the middle of the roof where you are standing, but you could reach that roof jumping from the edge of the roof in where you are, then that clause make sense. In that case you would move to the edge and stop moving and then in the next order you would jump to that other roof.
Sure, but you can't know that prior to declaration. The only way to interpret the terrain clause so that it actually is meaningful is as a permitted exception to the general rule that you must move the full distance.
Inane.imp is laying out the technicality. Don't expect that technicality to survive an FAQ. (Edit: IFF such an FAQ ever is made, of course)
It's not a technicality. It's an important clarification that has a meaningful effect on the game. Moreover, it's the way it's played in several metas. Honestly, there's nothing I'm certain will survive an FAQ anymore.
How is it not a technicality when the rules explain extensively and in several places that the trooper will attempt at all costs to close the distance to the nearest enemy, using the shortest path possible, and then there's a somewhat obscure reference in the rules that allow you to choose a skill that makes the trooper move barely a fraction of its movement distance and not even close to the maximum distance it could have? This is clearly a rules exploit that flies without being called out only because it's not reasonable for a trooper to willingly jump to its death.
Because adding an explicit exception to prevent Troopers Jumping to their deaths willy nilly (instead limiting it to very explicit circumstances) is reasonable and has a material effect on the game? I don't think it's a meaningless or trivial exception. I don't think it's an exploit when it prevents something a lot of people find unreasonable. I certainly don't think it's an exploit when opting not to open doors from sealed buildings or deploying on the side of buildings are valid non-exploitative choices. I explained how this works to someone today and his reaction was a vehement regection of troopers suiciding willy nilly.
I think it is above all else incomplete rules than anything else. The exception itself has meaning even if you must jump, simply because it allows you to stop in the corner cases where the direct path is cut short or when you genuinely declared Move because you thought a Jump would not make it over the edge. In general I think that making use of the rules in this way would also open up to further exploitation of that clause where you wouldn't have to round a corner since the building is an obstacle you'd have to climb to get past, so just deploy the Kuang Shit near a wall and claim "I don't have to move around the corner into path of your TR HMG because I declare a Move and touch the wall and the wall I can't Move up so I can now stop". I get why this is allowed to fly, because regardless of which forcing a trooper to jump off a roof straight out makes little sense, but that's nearly exclusively because the rules is missing a clause similar to "avoiding as much fall damage as possible". Also, the rules for doors are fairly poorly constructed as well and the amount of house rules to keep track of is getting silly - the only thing in common it seems is that no one wants to play with the official rules there.
I disagree with you KS example. Simply asking this questions resolves it. "Is the Climbing/Jumping path the shortest route (noting that it will be Order1: Move(stop), Order2:Climb)?" If the answer is yes, then and only then is the exception triggered. This is true of a Trooper on a roof, it's generally not true for a model on the ground. Even for Uberfalls, it's often quicker to run around a building than to Move over it (once you account for 6-8" climbing up and down). The same applies to Difficult Terrain. Quite often Impetuous moves will path around Difficult Terrain because it's less orders than Move (Stop)+Move, Move(Stop)+Move. Since touching the terrain results in Movement stopping then the Impetuous trooper must pass as close as possible to the edge of the Difficult Terrain without touching it, as this is the shortest path.
That's only specific to the case you are arguing for, but that's not what the exception says if you apply it to different circumstances. 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. Reaching a wall would require you to declare a Climb to keep moving over it, it doesn't matter that you can declare a path around this obstacle nor how trivial it is, since we're reading this extremely literally in order to ignore the following rules passage regarding choosing route: Jump or Climb skills must be used if that would shorten the route. This passage is, unfortunately, in direct conflict with the earlier passage preceding the one you use where it specifies that the Short Skill Move must be declared in all Impetuous Orders. So... I know this has been hashed out in earlier threads, but I am pointing out that reading it in such a way as you are doing is opening up for further exploitation of the passage because it is being used for purposes it was not intended to be used for and as such isn't handling all cases it is being applied to.
In your Kuang Shi example you are not "forced to declare a Climb/Jump to continue moving", so the exception does not apply. Indeed, the shortest path is by not declaring a Climb/Jump. I get what you're trying to suggest, but the language doesn't support it.
And your example hinges on the rules not forcing you to measure distances before declaration so that you can pretend not to be able to tell that a Jump will put the figurine over the edge so that you can declare a Move instead. So... I'm just going to pretend I can't tell the difference between the path on the wall versus next to the wall and problem solved, my Kuang Shi can just stand there fuming that the wall is blocking their path.
