Tox. It's not the definition of "closer" that's the issue, it's the matter of what distance it is you measure closer by. Closer is by definition relative to what it is you measure and most often you'll measure distances by what's most practical to actually cross. Writing it in larger letters don't actually make your argument stronger. You've got a friend in Houston and you've got a friend in Havana, they both want to meet you in Jacksonville - who's closest? One's got about 180KM distance to cross and the other one has a fucking ocean and ICE to cross, most people won't answer Havana because we're talking about a person making the distance and not a medium distance missile.
I give up, we cannot found a common ground even in common sense. Feel free to keep to argue and throw rocks because the rule of a game didn't tell you to breath. Enjoy.
Common sense would also dictate that an impetuous unit would actually try to follow a plausible route and not just run into a wall.
Impetuous dictates that a unit lacks common sense, so it balances out. They may act like WWZ zombies, but it makes it easier to play that way.
Yeah, it's definitely an abstraction for simplicity's sake. I can see Taigas trying to scramble up a wall in bloodlust or confusion, but trained troops like Varangians should have been briefed about the layout and be able to actually reach combat. Then we have Kuang Shi who definitely do lack common sense, but are still somewhat directed and controlled by their handler.
Again. Beeline is not the standard definition in scenario of Movement from A to B. Try that in your car. Not to mention the requirement listet first (in an 'and' sentence seperated by Commas) is "The Trooper must end his movement as far as possible from the movement's starting point". Using your interpretation you can't satisfy both. Tucking yourself in that corner is not the position "as far as possible from the movement's starting point". Ignoring the dircet vs close thing, if we accepted the order as listed as the order of importance you'd have to make sure you move maximum distance, before using the most drect path. Alternatively might have a choice here given there is no explicit priority attached. Con: Several parts of N4 don't work without N3 and its FAQs atm, unfortunate but nothing we can do about it at the moment (hi Stealth). Walking into that corner wouldn't have worked that way in N3. Walking into that corner violates the first requirement of the N4 FAQ, path B doesn't. It doesn't make sense on a common sense level that an Impetuous trooper would hide in a corner over getting to the enemy as fast as possible (which again, was how N3 handled Impetuous. You go fast and stupid, not on technicalities and cunning.) "Closer" isn't defined. Could be closer on beeline, could be closer on the fastest possible path. Pro: You might have a choice which of the two FAQ requirements to disregard given you can't satisfy both, only scenario where you end up in that corner.
That was a couple hours of discussion on Discord in November, gonna take me a while to dig it up. Also need to dig up the Order Sequence rules from N3 to find out the specific terms that got changed and cause the problem. It's so stupid I'd actually prefer not to get into it much. Other than that, remember the N3 Stealth FAQ that let you play gotcha Games? Main issue was the N3 Stealth FAQ making Stealth prevent targeting, which the Stealth rules just didn't do. Now the N3 Stealth FAQ is gone (since it officially doesn't reappear in the N4 one). Which means we have to look at the actual rules again to figure out how Stealth works with multiple Active Troopers. We also have a Hacking FAQ that makes clear you can declare non LOF AROs without validating before step 5. The thing that's left is this original part of Stealth, completely unchanged from N3: If the user declares a Short Movement Skill or Cautious Movement within the Zone of Control of one or more enemies and stays outside their LoF, he does not grant AROs to those enemies. vs the new and revised ARO: Automatic Reaction Order AROs must choose one of the Troopers activated by the Order as their target. Now the new thing here in N4 it's that it is "Troopers"-plural. Meaning Activating Stealth and non Stealth Models in the same Order effectively disables Stealth for that Order. If even a single one of the active Troopers grants an ARO, you can target any Active Trooper l of your choice now. Example: Link Leader Stealth Hacker and his unhackable buddy without Stealth walk in ZOC of a KHD, no LOF. N3 - all you get is a Reset vs the unhackable trooper. Repeatable as many times as you want. N4 - you can blast the Stealth Hacker in the face with Trinity, doesn't matter what he does with his 2nd Short Skill, Stealth never does anything for him in this situation. N4 Stealth without N3 FAQ doesn't prevent targeting. ARO rules explicitly allow to target any active trooper with AROs, no restriction on targeting who generated it or protection for Stealth anymore.
Ah right. I've been reading one of the FAQ entries wrong. I'll have to ask for clarification in the relevant thread on this...
Not sure if this has been answered already - would an impetuous trooper with the option to go towards the enemy deployment zone or towards an unconscious enemy trooper go for the unconscious trooper if it's closer (e.g. if it could get into silhouette contact)? Seems like the answer is yes from a RAW perspective - wondering if flavor-wise it is intended for an impetuous trooper to want to run towards an enemy that they already shot down - maybe they want to finish them off with a coup de grace?
They'll move into CC with the unconscious trooper - it doesn't matter if the enemy you can reach with a move is conscious or not.
There's never an option - the impetuous trooper has to enter silhouette contact if able to do so. If not able to do so, it has to move towards the DZ. I don't see anything that excludes unconscious troopers from the rule, so yeah I guess those bloodthirsty bastards really enjoy delivering coup-de-grace.
