Hi all, Clarification required when moving prone through difficult terrain Prone state says: "While in this state, Troopers have both their MOV values and movement bonuses halved when declaring any Skill with Movement label (Move, Dodge…), or when moving as the result of a failed Guts Roll." So a 4-4 model moves 2-2 whilst prone and a 6-2 move model moves 3-1 whilst prone. Simples Diffcult terrain applies -1 movement to both MOV values. Clearly this isn't a bonus so at what point is it applied? Using the same example as above: A 4-4 model moves 2-2 whilst prone will now move 1-1 whilst moving prone through difficult terrain and a 6-2 model moves 3-1 whilst prone will now move 2-0 whilst moving prone through difficult terrain OR A 4-4 model moves 1.5-1.5 whilst moving prone through difficult terrain (4-4 becomes 3-3 for difficult terrain, then halved for moving whilst prone) and a 6-2 move model moves 2.5-0.5 whilst moving prone through difficult terrain) 6-2 becomes 5-1 for difficult terrain, then halved for moving whilst prone) I have a suspicion its the latter but I only assume that because of how special terrain skills apply a bonus which is then halved by being prone but it also looks messier. Thanks!
Per the yellow box on p. 28, always round up. Since the -1” penalty would turn into a -1/2” penalty if halved while prone, it would then be negated entirely by rounding. So the actual question boils down to whether you ignore the penalty while prone. I assume the intended answer is “no,” meaning the penalty is applied in full to the adjusted prone MOV values—the case described in the first version given above. TBH, my preference would be for the halved MOV from prone to override the -1” terrain penalty, but it would devalue the terrain skills slightly.
https://infinitythewiki.com/index.php?title=Rolls I wonder what the Spanish wiki says about rounding movement considering it is very frequent that you need to play with 2.5cm increments there. In either case, I don't think we're supposed to round movements and measurements.
The box on rounding lists attributes as subject to rounding, and MOV is an attribute. I can’t figure why rounding wouldn’t be a consideration, what am I missing?
I don’t disagree, but that’s not actually in the rules, whereas rounding modified attributes (of which MOV is one) is in the rules, and it says to round up to whole numbers. Given that N4 is intended to be a living ruleset, they might want to consider the wording of the rounding rule if it doesn’t apply to MOV.
The rules say that "any time a number [...] is rounded [...]" it never says that all numbers or attributes must be rounded up. Also, as per how the rules exist in centimetres as well, I do know that when a 6-2 (that is 15-5) model is prone it will move half those numbers not rounded up.
The rule appears in the Rolls section, but positionality in the book is not a guarantee of sole relevance—the organization of the rules is basically a list of known bugs held together with duct tape and adjectives. The actual wording of the N4 rule says “In Infinity,” not “when resolving rolls.” That reads like it’s universal to N4, it’s in a box labelled “Remember” (which in general implies you the reader have been told something before and are receiving a reminder), and a verbatim reading of the RAW is to always round up, with no exceptions given. MOV is an attribute (listed in the rule), MOV values are numbers (also in the rule), and terrain divides those numbers (also in the rule). Explain how a new player is expected to intuit the unwritten exception for MOV: Editing to avoid cluttering up the thread after IJW's post below: I finally decided to fire up my desktop and do a proper Find in the Acrobat file for the rulebook, and answered my own question, but the answer is another instance of counter-intuitive rules writing. Rounding references appear in the following places: p. 28, Remember box (quoted above) p. 69, Remember box (includes Rounding text from p. XX) p. 69, AP Ammunition rules (first bullet specifies you halve and round up) p. 70, E/M Ammunition rules (first bullet specifies you halve BTS and round up) p. 130, Coordinated Order rules (first bullet specifies halving B and rounding up) The unwritten but implied rule is: If a rule says you divide a value, and it specifies rounding, it will also specify rounding upwards. If a rule says you divide a value, but does not mention rounding, you do not round that number off at all. However, the fact that every rule which says to divide will also specify rounding upwards in the same rule if you're supposed to round upwards means that the Reminder text implies a universal rule, doesn't list exceptions, and doesn't specify that any omission is to be read as deliberate...in a rulebook that has visibly missing text where paragraphs end mid-sentence. This would be much clearer: "Remember, some rules may specify that a number which is divided will be rounded. When rounding is specified in the rules, you will always round up to the nearest whole integer." This kind of thing is one of the reasons new players can decide to go play something "simpler." (I make educational materials for public health for a living, including both visual design and auditing curriculum for clarity. The Infinity rules are absolutely not good for learning, and the lack of cross-references makes them a really weak reference tool given that properly parsing the rules often involves looking in multiple places in the book. There's a reason we rely on the wiki so much in practice.) @tox note that the reminder appears in the Ammunition section as well, and in neither place does it specify that it only applies to rolls. If the Prone effects specified rounding, you'd round MOV. The only reason that rounding only applies to rolls right now is that currently nothing in the game specifies rounding except rules pertaining to values used to resolve rolls. That isn't the same thing in terms of syntax or teaching the rules at all—future rules could potentially specify rounding MOV, or weapon ranges for that matter.
What's a lot more important is answering the OP's actual question - do you apply the -1 MOD before or after halving the MOV values? I suggest following the standard maths order of operators, so multiplication/division happens before addition/subtraction. So:
Please remember that a model with 4-2 MOV in imperial is 10-5 in metric. Are you arguing that a prone Grunt is 2-1 in America but 5-3 in Spain? Edit: A 6-2 model would have been a better example, because then metric measurements would give a bonus to both MOV values when rounding.
See my edit above. Mostly I'm arguing that the RAW is unclear/potentially misleading, which is the case for a lot of my arguments on the forums about rules minutiae; my professional background means I'm a bit fixated not just on whether the rules work, but on whether the documentation explaining them does a good enough job to support new players and community growth. I also have a bit of a personal stake, in that one of my close friends (socially and geographically) is also a miniatures gamer, and tried N3, but was turned off by the "complexity," meaning "the rules work well but figuring them out is a nightmare." Now I can't get him to even try N4 despite the fact that he wanted to get into Corregidor, loves the models, and his chosen faction is STRONK now. He'll at least play Code One with me occasionally, but still. I firmly believe, and can back it up with professional expertise, that Infinity is not actually that complex—it's just written in a way that makes learning and understanding it unnecessarily burdensome. N4 helps a lot with clarity and weird interactions, and simplifies a bunch of stuff really elegantly, but the rules still suffer from the same structural issues with clarity and organization as before. Case in point, the rules that affect cancellation of direct templates require three different page references, and they make the most sense when read out of page order: Direct Template Attacks, Attack Cancelled Including bullets referencing the rules from the prior pages in the Direct Template Weapons box on page 49 would be super handy for people who are using the book as a reference document, not as something to read straight through and memorize in detail. It's written so that it's comprehensible in the latter sense, but actually using the rulebook in practice depends on it being a good reference document, which it really isn't. The contextual links on the Wiki help a lot, and it's a much better reference document, but needing two different versions of the same rules set for playability is absurd.
I have been lead to believe that the movement penalty for Terrain features isn't cancelled by e.g. Multi Terrain, which instead gives a +1" movement bonus that makes the penalty effectively go away. However, does this mean then that a Ninja (4-4 with Multi Terrain) that is prone in an Aquatic terrain feature has a MOV of 1.5-1.5? (4 / 2 - 1 + 0.5 = 1.5, Prone states that MOV bonuses are halved)
Can you remember who said that, or where? Because it doesn't match the rules text at all: The user may move normally through Terrain areas of their Terrain Type without applying any of the Movement restrictions provided by that Terrain area. My emphasis. As written, it will be 2.5--2.5. Which is not ideal, as it would be good if it worked the same in both 'directions'.
Not so much as someone who said it, as that the rules typically don't seem to want to cancel negatives, but grant benefits that cancel out the negatives instead (e.g. Infiltration (+6) resulting in an Infiltration roll of PH+3) and I wasn't sure if that passage was referring to movement restrictions in terms of movement distance or other restrictions such as "unpassable terrain" or other miscellaneous stuff like that. (Though I do think I saw someone suggest it in an unrelated topic and it didn't go challenged) Seems really weird that a Ranger gets a lot faster in a forest than on tarmac...
For better or for worse, Infinity’s rules have been a case of interesting ideas written by people who could use a better editor. :-/ Back in 2nd edition, there was a fan-written edit of the rulebook which I think was mostly combining the two rules PDFs without the backgrounds etc., but did some editing and reorganization. And the wiki allowed people to do things like edit pages to include rules commentary (from FAQs, the rules forum, etc.) Then N3 came out, and the policy for the rules wiki changed to “official rules text only”. To be frank, I don’t think Corvus Belli has outgrown the need for a fan-edit of the rulebook, whether it ends up as an unofficial rules wiki or shared text document or something else. If a person collects enough “This document section should be layed out like -this-“ examples together, eventually you have a better rulebook than the original. In my experience, when a person can’t change the reference document, but wants to explain it to the people who need to use it, they absolutely have to write the missing commentaries. And the really good commentaries end up being used more often than the original documents. No exception for wargaming rules appears to be necessary.
Structural issues and the overall formatting are not something that the editor (aka me) has any control over... :-/
I don’t think that was meant as a slight to you personally - but I do think the process has shown some issues over the years. A technical editor should be able to make structural changes as part of their process to make the text as clear and approachable as possible. If you were not empowered to make that kind of edit, that’s hardly your fault.
Edit: Hit post accidentally before writing. :( It feels like replying to this point may be a bit off topic at this point, but I want to point out what the reminder box says, after comparing with the N3 version: “In Infinity N4, any time a number (...) is divided and rounded to an integer, it is alway rounded up. ...” The N3 version was: “In Infinity, any time a number (...) is divided and rounded to an integer, it is alway rounded up. ...” That means that the various rules that say things like “reduces the BTS value of its target to half of its original value, rounding up” should stop at “to half of its original value” if there was a statement that whenever you’re dealing with dice rolls, the value needs to be rounded to an integer. A lot of other rules systems say things like “for everything except distances, round the final value to an integer” because dice don’t have fractions, but linear distances do. That’s probably more what the “Remember-Rounding” text should be pointing out.
