1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Impetuous Moves, part 532

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Vanderbane, Aug 27, 2019.

  1. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    @ijw I respect that you’re trying to solve the problem simply without addressing the underlying issue created by this unintended interaction. That said, I’m not sure this is the right way to do it because it creates a bunch of new unintended interactions. A few notes on those:

    As per your quote from the rules, the full movement is dependent on _when_ a trooper independently declares a Move. So the movement requirement to go the full move distance you refer to isn’t invoked until after that declaration is made. Critically, if I declare any other legal skill first in the sequence, my Move is still subject to this movement distance requirement at the time of declaration (during the second skill) modified by the fact I cannot dismount in the second skill. As I’ve noted, this isn’t an effect of the Fury rule anymore, it’s an effect of the dismount FAQ. Therefore, this doesn’t fail the movement requirement part of the rule as you suggest. It only fails if you game out what my Move could have been _if_ I’d done some other different sequence of declarations. I see no basis to require a player to make that suboptimal choice in the rules, and in fact, I see _explicit_ text granting permission to select a skill order as the player sees fit in the rule itself. Additionally, there is a place to call out exceptions (for Jump and Climb) and dismount is not listed there either. In short, your way of resolving this problem makes a dependent clause necessary to select the independent skill. It’s circular, and as far as I know, would be unique in the ruleset.

    Second, there are lots of situations where you declare an action first to get a more favorable Move action second. This happens all the time (for instance, for closing into close combat around corners). This is of course also true for impetuous orders (I might throw a smoke grenade with my yuan yuan and draw a turn/face before moving into base-to-base contact to wrap up a valuable enemy trooper). Therefore, this isn’t something we can chalk up to being a general defect of impetuous orders because it only crops up in these dismount cases.

    Further, it breaks things in other places. Quick example: Joe might want to attack with his MK12s from his starting location to take out an ARO piece. By your reading, I _can’t_ do that b/c he has to get out and leave his guns with the TAG. Again, this wouldn’t be an issue outside of the dismount effect and only becomes one because of the presence of a door.

    Finally, I’m not comfortable with the argument that the order of skill declarations are only supposed to be relevant _when it makes no difference_. I mean, does that make sense logically? Is that consistent with the above examples where order declaration _clearly_ does matter and is an accepted application of the rules? If we only order skill declarations when it doesn’t matter, why have an order declaration structure at all? Why not just force both skills to be announced from the start? Again, I don’t think the goal of allowing an impetuous order to have an order declaration system could possibly be to only have it matter when it doesn’t matter.
     
  2. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,331
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    I categorically disagree with this statement. As per the Impetuous Order Rules, you MUST move as far as possible. If you declare your Order in a way which voluntarily reduces that, you are breaking the primary requirement of an Impetuous Order.

    Yes, that’s correct. You as a player might want to use the TAG profile during this Order, but it’s not your choice. In exactly the same way that you might want a Kum Biker to use their Smoke Launcher, but if they must Dismount to fulfil the movement requirements that’s not allowed.
     
    Urobros likes this.
  3. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    @ijw Thanks for the response.

    So, then, wouldn't impetuous _always_ require you stay _in_ the TAG in the 11 to 4 inch range from the building (or _on_ the bike from 13 to 4 inches, 15 to 4 inches for yojimbo) if you are declaring anything other than a move + move? I ask because you're suggesting there is an outcome-based predetermination at the level of skill selection (we must consider and optimize a distance traveled outcome) _and_ you are maintaining that the whole order has to be counted for this consideration. And it's pretty relevant, given this covers between ~40 and 60 percent of the available space on the board for TAG and bike, respectively. Because otherwise _dismounting_ reduces my movement voluntarily, does it not?

    I'm happy to grant the consequence as you say in the second part - losing some control of the unit seems fine, but then I don't see why impetuous doesn't just demand you move first (which, by the by, would fix pretty much everything we're discussing). Why is there a clause specifically allowing you to do things in any preferred order if it is only relevant when order doesn't matter?

    edit: fixed my math, twice. that's what I get for being up late.
     
    #23 Vanderbane, Aug 28, 2019
    Last edited: Aug 28, 2019
  4. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    So now that I’ve had a nap, I wanted to follow up the earlier point about “MUST move as far as possible” as the primary requirement of the Impetuous Order. It’s clear we agree this is the intent of the rule, but I think that’s at odds with the text of the rule once dismounting gets involved. This strikes me (and you and presumably anyone else who's following along) as a wacky outcome, one which I think must be clarified in the rules or FAQ. I think that’s important given the number of mounted impetuous troops in the game, their typical movement range and thus the likelihood this comes up, and the number of game interactions that might force a dismount.

    Here’s the text from Fury:

    Screen Shot 2019-08-28 at 11.38.06 AM.png

    So there are 3 general requirements:

    1) Must happen during Impetuous Phase

    2) Must involve a fixed set of skills per the chart

    3) You can perform the short skills in either order.


    Then there’s 3 additional bullets addressing two secondary requirements related to the mandatory Move.

    1) When declaring a Move, you have to move the whole MOV value (and an additional bullet with an example of a Move + Move.)

    2) You can only move shorter than the MOV value if you BtB the enemy you are moving towards or you cannot move further because of movement impairment.


    Okay then, how does this interact with dismount? No confusion on general requirements #1 and #2.

    Things go wacky from here on out, though, once dismount is involved. Please correct me if I misunderstand your description of the rule, but I think it’s something like this: if your Impetuous Order could require a dismount, general requirement #3 (perform skills in any order) gets cancelled/overridden by movement requirement #2 to maximize moving into BtB with the target enemy. Further, movement requirement #1 changes its timing (MOV value is no longer determined at declaration of the Move as stated in the bullet). Instead, movement requirement #1 is determined _before_ declaration assuming you must declare Move first to be consistent with a potential dismount. This must result in a maximized first MOV value determined from the available profiles based on what would get you closest to BtB contact.

    If I have that right, is it fair to say this conclusion isn’t intuitive from the rules as written? This interpretation should always maximize the distance traveled toward the target (which is the goal of the rule as you indicate). But it does so at the expense of overriding two out of five requirement bullets when dismounts are involved.

    This is distinct from the next bit of the rule, which is about “Direction of Movement”: that is, target selection and pathing. Here’s that bit, just to make sure we’re looking at the same thing:

    Screen Shot 2019-08-28 at 11.38.17 AM.png

    This part dictates the logic of choosing _between_ valid targets, Target selection is based on distance in terms of # of orders, and you must declare a Jump or Climb instead of Move if it shortens a route in terms of Orders. Importantly, there’s no call out to deal with dismount here, but I could see there being one right along side the stipulation for Jump/Climb. It’s not there, but maybe it should be, or maybe we address it in the first part above.

    Any way we want to solve this, I think it’s fair to say that the dismount FAQ as written creates a weird interaction with the impetuous Order rule as written.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation