Impetuous bikers shenanigans

I am not sure we moved from Impetuous been too hot headed but not suicidal to them been completely suicidal, fact is though, Impetuous rules are really difficult to write, in a condensed manner.

Another similar but easier case would be when one decides if the biker would dismount for its impetuous move.

 

This is an interesting (if rather mind-numbing) discussion that brought something to mind for me.. How do you handle impetuous movement where you have S1-3 models blocking your bike from moving it's full move in the (otherwise) shortest route toward the nearest enemy?en

Say that it would easily be 2-3 orders by moving 6" first move, stopping because of friendly models, then moving past them with the next move/order.
Or would you be forced to go all the way around them to complete your 8" movement, resulting in maybe 4-5 orders to get to the closest enemy?

 

Friendly troopers with a lower Silhouette Attribute value don’t block movement, but if the route was blocked by something with a bigger Silhouette then that would work like any other obstruction and therefore wouldn’t be a possible route.

 

Least amount of orders, always.

In almost all circumstances it will be faster for the bike to move partially through (edit: with this I mean stopping next to the model, not inside it) the friendly model simply because the game uses circular bases. The literal corner case is when a model is 6" away and standing at the corner of a building, and even then the model in question basically has to be an S3+ and doing more than just peeking around the corner.

 

I know, but you can't stop on other models so if a model is 6" away from you, you can't move 8" over them because your bases would overlap.

That's what I assumed, but I had to consider it a bit when I read some quotations of the impetious rules in this thread that said (something like) "a model must Always move it's full first move" which would contradict the above solution.. So in short, you can Control how far your model will move with it's impetious move if you deploy/move to account for it on the previous turn (or use other Impetious models for it).

 

To me it makes sense that a G:Synced unit goes after the same target as it's controller,
as it is only impetuous because its controller is.

But running for one's bike does not make sense to me.
Impetuous troopers should jump into their deaths to get to the enemy,
but then they should mind for their bike?
That's not impetuous, because it requires planing.
So to me a dismounted impetuous bike will just forget about his bike in the impetuous order.
(And, by the way, that is an eay rule.)

 

This simple but "absurd situation" seams like a perfectly reasonable trade off for the more complicated and absurd situations you might get otherwise.

 

It's funny how "weaponized geometry" or the knowledge of the geometry of commercially available scenery ceases to exist as soon as it would be inconvenient.

According to the jump rules, the beginning and ending position have to be in range. It's possible to know that various jumps will be too far, and in those cases you're wrong.

Do note that the impetuous rules specify "the movement declared with Climb or Jump must be the entirety of the first value of the trooper's MOV, and must be directed towards the nearest enemy figure". It does not mandate falling.

 

I once boxed in my Kuang Shi with other Kuang Shi to keep them from running up the table tell I was ready for it.

 

Perhaps. The current impetuous rules are written extremely poorly, however.

 

Yes. You declare a Jump of (for example) 4". Falling, by definition in Infinity, is always going to be in addition because it's from the end of the declared move.

How?