It's a bit off topic, but I think a number of interactions could be improved if they separated the obscurement (-3 BS) and protection (+3 ARM) aspects of cover into two rules. Just spitballing, but you could then take that in any of several directions, such as: protection requires base contact, but obscurement does not obscurement doesn't stack with camo impetuous or motorcycle models can't get protection but can benefit from obscurement marksmanship would simply name the bonus it negates rather than explaining how it only affects half of the cover bonus These things would be substantial changes and would affect balance, etc. It's just a random thought I've had from time to time.
It doesn't need to be explained, it needs to be designed better. Right now, the path the model has to take is determined by something that it is against the rules to know for sure, that is how many orders it would take to get into base. This is bad design.
Maybe it should just be as directly towards/shortest route as possible to the nearest point of the opponents deployment zone. Its not spectacular, but its similar enough in spirit while being able to eyeball the direction.
Cover is fairly unique in the rules as it almost exclusively talks about "the target" and not "trooper" as well as referencing target's height insread of silhouette.
If they scatter to a spot where they exactly land in base contact with a scenery element, they can, or if we finally get an answer to whether Landing Assistance applies to AI Beacons or not... The issue here is one of practicality rather than mechanically disallowed.
You'd need to find an opponent willing to allow that. If they're even one atom width inside the scenery peace their dispersion fails and is placed in your deployment zone. If it's one atom width apart from the scenery, it can't claim cover. Basically because you can't intentionally move any less or more than the required 16" in a given direction, you can't intentionally land in cover. Also it could be argued that dispersion is a part of AD which does prevent deploying in cover.
Actually, basic Airborne Deployment rules; can't deploy in contact with Scenery (and this has nothing to do with choosing drop zone), so even if the atoms align, they're not allowed to. However, this doesn't mean that they can't benefit from Cover should a special rule afford them Cover, such as gaining Nanoscreen due to a special Scenario condition, which is more than you can say about a Morlock or a Motorcycle.
Yeah, jumping to death makes absolutely no sense to me. Even in a frenzy you'd know you're on top of a building. Mines though, you might not be cautious enough or know they are there to curcumvent them. But logic and rules...
For some context, N2 had rules that allowed Impetuous movement to avoid known dangers, including (revealed) Mines, Suppression Fire corridors and movement that could result in falling damage (as Climb and Jump required PH Rolls). N3 removed all of those restrictions.
I always pictured impetuous troopers as being so fixated on reaching the enemy that they lose track on what's going on around them. (I sometimes get that way, personally, when I'm knee-deep in something at work, so may be I qualify as Frenzied!) This way, the N2 restrictions around them avoiding Climb/Jump made sense, (as there's a chance they fail to climb/jump, thus slowing them down), whilst the other 'known dangers', er, didn't.
In N3 climbing and jumping are safe skills; there’s no longer the chance that you could fail a PH roll and fall. The only issue is if your shortest path calculations can include a fall at the end of a jump off of a ledge.
