I saw an impetuous thread below, but that seems to be focused on "zigzagging". I'm looking at "doubling back". I was told by a warcor that this means "no movement towards your own DZ, period". Ends up with interactions like this. In the first case, the model cannot move back 1mm to bypass the corner, so rams himself into the intersection of these obstacles instead of closing the distance a greater amount and what makes sense by charging forward. In the second case, the model cannot move backwards at all. I guess it might climb instead of go around? These both happened in my recent games, and we ended up combining the "zero movement" with dodge to get movement in any direction. Felt very unintuitive. So my question is, is this legitimate? Is this what "no doubling back" means?
Got the first N4 event about this time tomorrow, so fingers X'd we have an answer before then otherwise we might house-rule it.
As I understand it should work 1st, the impetuous move is no longer mandatory, is optional. I dont see much of a point to put your impetuous inside total cover corners at the begining of your turn... but ok, let's follow this 2nd, does the trooper move the entire movement atribute? no? Does it move more forward with a jump/climb skill? yes? valid movement As I read it, you need to move the full movement atribute. If somenthing is blocking your way and your move can't be maxed out with a move, you're only option becomes making a jump/climb. or rather your adversary can say that you should make a jump to fulfill the impetuous conditions. In both cases the troop will follow with jump/climb skills in further impetuous movements. What is kind of weird is the fact that measurement is after declaring the order. You're not explicitly allowed or forced to check distances before declaring and this can actually be used by players to move less than the actually troop movement. because the only condition is to move forward
If you are somehow so badly wedged that you cannot legally spend your impetuous order, then yes. Edit: you could still dismount, though.
Not to put a point on it. But IMO the model who was put in that situation should have then been forced to climb. Also Impetitous is FULLY optional now.
I was thinking in line with the example pic above, where the model has to move slightly back towards ones own DZ as part of a move to get past a terrain piece.
Without a direct quote from a Dev we kind of have to interpret right now. If you run into this situation you should probably discuss it with your opponent. Personally I'm in the "Must Climb/Move 0" camp
My colloquial english is not very good but I thought doubling back meant to go back (ie. the other way) on something. Like deciding on something and then deciding the contrary. Or moving forward and then moving backward. In that sense, then the first MOV can go toward your DZ when it is the shortest/only route to reach the enemy DZ; and then the no doubling back apply to the second Move to prevent you from undoing your progress. I see it like american football, the goal of impetuous is to move up, say from the 20 yard line to the 25 yard line. Doing so accomplishes the goal of moving forward with your first Move. In both eg, i'd go with Expected, based on these concept of my own mind.
I see your way as well. My only real response is that if they were to get put in that situation as shown they would HAVE to climb if possible, since climbing should get them closer to the opponents DZ than a normal move. (assuming that statement to be true of course). I really sort of think that until we hear an official interpretation (or at least something kind of official) you just need to confirm with your opponent before the game.
It means "to turn around and go back", basically do a U-turn and start going where you came from. At this point, after similar issues from N3 as well as N4, I'm less interested in what the written rule can be interpreted as, than @HellLois simply telling us what their intention with the rule is. What kind of movement they want to see from an Impetuous model and what kind of moves are verboten.
I agree that the rule could do with a bit of a clearer explanation. In our inaugural games of N4, we made the following interpretation, and I would like to see if it holds up to the designers' intent: a) Imagine a coordinate system superimposed on the table, with the x axis running parallell to players' table edges, and the y axis running at 90° to that, from one player's table edge to the other. The impetuous model's initial position is x= 0 and y = 0. b) Move the model its full MOV so that no point along its trajectory is closer to its own table edge than y=0 c) The impetuous model's final position must be closer to the enemy deployment zone than y=0 d) No point along the trajectory moved may be closer to 0 along either the x or y axis than any earlier point along that trajectory e) When the model has reached its final position, the player must not be able to trace a move to the same position that is shorter than the model's full MOV-value, i.e. there cannot be a way to reach that point and have movement "remaining". If there is an obstacle blocking the model from performing a full move, then Jump or Climb must be declared instead I think this settles most cases presented above, but of course I don't know if it is consistent with the designer's intent. Anyway, I am interested to hear the final verdict.
The only thing I don't like about that is that it ignores the perceived change in intent of the rule with regards to enemy troopers (perceived, because while RaW we ignore any enemies we cannot get into base contact with in a single move, I'm not so convinced that's the intent). I think it could be cleaned up a little if you also define the positive direction as towards the enemy DZ. Now you can simply say that all motion must be in the positive-y direction.
I definitely read it to be the intent that you get to ignore all troops that you cannot immediately enter CC with. The problem with very strict forward movement wording is that you then lose the ability to navigate around obstacles.
I’m pretty sure this is why the rules say “no doubling back from the starting position”—so you have a reference point you’re not supposed to double back on. But short of public executions of those who get it wrong, there doesn’t appear to be a concise way for developers to convey their intention to players on this sort of thing.
I agree, it just seems that most people are already interpreting it that way. Since movements can be measured and decided after a movement is declared, I'd like to see the second bullet be something like: Get as close to the enemy DZ as possible with this movement. If declaring the Climb or Jump skills can get a trooper closer to the enemy DZ than declaring Move, they will use whichever of those skills gets them the closest. There are still several open questions like, what if a Move+Move will get closer than a Jump or Climb? What happens when you get to the enemy DZ? What about AD troopers deploying during the impetuous phase (do they have to deploy as close to the enemy DZ as possible)?