My first post here, so hi everyone :) I've read all N4 posts about impetuous and I'd like to recap the conclusions and see if I patched everything right. Let's go by bullet point. 1. Impetuous restrictions are on two different levels: the combination of orders you can declare and the execution of the movement order. They two conditions are completely unrelated. 2. The exact wording of impetuous has to be taken from the most recent faq: "Go towards the enemy Deployment Zone. The Trooper must end his movement as far as possible from the movement's starting point, and as close as possible to the enemy Deployment Zone." We still do not know how to behave when "as far as possible" and "as close as possible" give two different results (being 3-4" in front of a dead corner). Someone suggested to add up the differences but it's very clumsy. A priority order on the two would help. 3. There is still some doubts about "closer", but the common interpretations seems to be "closer in a straight line not considering terrains or obstacles." Everything that is "closer in the number of orders" or looking at what's coming next is out of the table. 4. Once in the dz, there is a faq on the official wiki page stating: "It can move normally inside the enemy Deployment Zone." My guess here is that the first rule about trying to engage should still be considered in effect and this only apply to the second clause about going towards dz, but, again, a specification would help. 5. As per point 1, the conditions of the movements are checked only during the movement itself, so an enemy 5" away on the left won't be reached by a 4"+4" movement, that will instead move to the dz. 6. As per 1, nothing is forcing the player to declare the most efficient move to satisfy movement conditions (closer to sz), since those are only checked while resolving the movement itself. So, if I am next to a wall and climb would take me closer to the dz, I can still declare another movement anyway (like normal move and start circling the wall on the shortest path). 6. About going prone. In N3 there was a specific like excluding the option that has been removed in N4. "must always move the full corresponding MOV value" and "both their MOV values and movement bonuses halved" seem to suggest it's still forbidden, but leaving the line would have not hurted since it could be debatable (I am not, but someone could).
1. Arguably they are related, but we have no mechanic that allows us to compare different skill declaration combinations. 2. If you map out all possible end locations that'll take you as far as possible away from the starting location you'll have only one of them being the closest to the enemy DZ. I do not think "as the bird flies" is the correct method of measurement, but rather respecting the general movement rules. Whether you need to consider all possible skills or just the skill you declare is, again, what I think is still unclear. 3. As above. I do think closer needs to respect terrain as obstacles. 4. Agreed, the context of the answer being about point 2 should limit the answer to only if point 2 is not possible. 5. Arguably, this distance is only check per skill declaration, not even per order. 6. It would seem so 7. Since you can cancel Prone with just about any movement and since going Prone would constitute not being able to move the furthest possible, I don't think Prone is an issue. During N3 you could only cancel Prone with the Move Short Skill, meaning forbidding Prone during Impetuous was important. Should I perhaps add this to the list of ongoing issues? "Am I free to choose which ever skill combination I want during Impetuous Movement?" and "How do I measure 'closest' during Impetuous Movement - by distance through terrain, by number of skill declarations required, etc?"
Thanks for the detailed answer. Some considerations following. 1. About the two restrictions being related and the best order having to be chosen there is one big issue: move+idle is permitted. Since move+move, most likely, would take you closer to the dz and move+idle is an option, it should be implied that the best order choice is not one of the restrictions. Or it had to become "the best combination has to be chosen, with the exception of move+idle that is allowed anyway", which is a very, very ugly rule :P 2 and 3. I like that interpretion more as well, it's just much harder to put it down in a good ruling wording and, potentially, more time consuming. 5. Yes, I meant per skill as well.
N4 doesn't have anything that forces you to choose a skill combination, if you choose to Move you must Move in a certain way, but it's your choice if you want to Move+Move, Move+Dodge, Move+Idle, Jump, etc.
Likewise, you're restricted to specific combinations of skills, but I'm not seeing anything that forces you to declare both at the start of the Order, so you can Declare Move as the first skill, wait for AROs, and then choose to Move, Shoot, Idle, Dodge, etc. with the second skill.
Agreed on this as well. As I said, most of my points were not "questions" per se, but more a full recap of the current situation to be sure I got everything right from the various pieces I had put together. To me, the most intricate part is still the direction of the moment and that closest/furthest weird interaction, as there are MANY more situations where it happens than one might think. Forgetting the weird shaped buildings, the one below is a very typical case were closest to the dz and furthest from the starting position give very different results.
yeah, I dont know what's the problem. I used in-built command for adding image but it's not working :-\ Added the plain link while I figure it out
This would be my answer as it gets you both closer to the enemy DZ and furthest from the starting location, without a formal and restrictive terrain system Impetuous is always going to require some discussion and judgement between players though.
It's working now. Yeah, as colbrook says I don't see the issue with that one - seems like going diagonally right gets the trooper her full movement distance and also closer to the enemy DZ, whereas going left gets her her full movement distance but no closer to the DZ. There are definitely layouts where it's not clear - images have been posted in other threads - but tbh I've never seen one actually arise at a table, so I've stopped worrying about it. They mostly involve cul-de-sacs, and Infinity terrain just doesn't really lend itself to making cul-de-sacs.
Yeah, right, I figured it out as soon I posted :P and didn't want to edit the mistake That one was TOO easy. A bigger trooper (or anything with a similar hindering effect) should be added. like this: Probably not as common as before, but still very likely to happen, if not in every game at least enough to have the question arise. Or something similar. Or, just by having a slight inclination in the building, you have a variant of the "cul de sac" forcing you to stop. Even this one is not SO uncommon, unless you place every building in a strict orthogonal way.
The one that goes forwards then right, though it should be more of a curve around the trooper than a line with a corner, you are still using your entire movement without doubling back and ending up closer. Left, as it gets you closer to the DZ for subsequent orders in terms of movement distance. These are very much edge cases that are hard to write a rule for that doesn't introduce different problems or ends up taking half a dozen pages with examples and restrictions. In this sort of situation the easiest way to resolve it is for the players to confer, and if there's disagreement it can be rolled off.
That raises the other question of whether it's distance to DZ by "number of orders" or "crow flight." I favour crow flight, but we don't know. If it's crow flight, then I agree the diagonal diagram is an unanswered question. At the table, I would propose moving diagonally to the right towards the right-hand corner, so going my full movement distance while also getting further towards the enemy DZ than I would get by going left. But if my opponent felt I should go into the cul-de-sac, I wouldn't object.
Yes, agreed on the first example needing a curve. Still, closer and further do give different results there. Your second answer, instead, hit the full point by saying you should consider subsequent orders. I would like to know if this is the current interpretaion everyone (or let's just say the majority) is following, since, by also reading previous comment on other posts, it looked like several people were arguing that "looking ahead into following gameplay" was nowhere mentioned in N4 and so should not be taken into account.
Impetuous is very easy to conceptualize but extremely difficult to put down on paper. Personally, I would word it as "You must follow the shortest path to the enemy deployment zone, as if you had infinite Movement, but only as far as the first MOV value on your profile." This gets rid of (most) ambiguity and edge-cases. Would need to be slightly cleaned up.
Infinite movement or infinite orders combining different movement types? I'm guessing you mean the second here.
Second is more correct but personally, I'd go with the first. Going with the second opens the discussion up to too many "Well if he went THIS way, then climbed up" arguments that will take up far too much time during a game as people argue and pull out tape measures etc. etc. etc. If you declared Move as the short skill, pretend that you can't do any of that stuff. Ladders would still work fine, stairs still work. If you go with the second intepretation, and the model is standing next to a wall that would take 2 orders to climb over but 3 to run around, a model declaring Move as its first short skill would stay stationary as the shortest path would go up and over the wall, but models without Climbing Plus cannot climb walls with a Move order. If you let the player choose between declaring "Move" to start running around the wall or "Climb" to start climbing it, you don't break balance or flavor too much me thinks, especially since Impetuous is now optional.
Had a bit of think and I think this is how it's got to work: 1. Declare the movement skill that you're allowed and want 2. Measure all the places you can get to using all your movement value in as straight lines as possible. 3. Pick one of those spots that's closest to the enemy's DZ, by distance ignoring terrain. 3.1. If and only if there are more than one spot that's equally closest, pick the one you want. 3.2. If there are spots inside the enemy's DZ, you can pick any of those spots. I can't really see any other way that doesn't require a bunch of extra rules. Yes, it does make one or two assumptions, but I tried to keep them as few as possible.
Seems good. I would propose this change: 3.1 If and only if there are more than one spot that's equally closest, pick the one that takes you further from your starting position. In case of a tie, pick the one you want. As I believe, in the intentions, getting closer to the enemy dz has a higher priority than getting you further from your starting position, but the latter is still a clause, by the last faq.
Also a very important note that is missing from all these Impetuous rewrites, including mine, is that if you can enter CC with an enemy during a movement short skill you can do that instead of moving towards the enemy DZ.
