Ok! HUGE UPDATE ON THIS MATTER I am going to leave the post below as originally posted, but this issue has been clarified via the most recent F.A.Q. (version 1.1 as of this posting). Link as follows: https://downloads.corvusbelli.com/infinity/faq/n4-faq-en-v1-1-1.pdf The text on page reads as follows: How does movement work during Impetuous activations if you cannot reach Silhouette contact with an enemy? The Trooper must go towards the enemy Deployment Zone, following these priorities. The Trooper must: Use his full MOV value. End his movement as far as possible from the movement's starting point. End his movement as close as possible to the enemy Deployment Zone. This issue has been resolved in striking clarity, but that it is not updated on the wiki page strikes me as exceedingly lazy (especially for a "living rules set"). What follows was the original posting that required this clarification: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hello everyone! I am posting today to hopefully get help in resolving some issues regarding the interpretation of impetuous phase movement executions. For reference, I will include a copy of some of the text from the wiki page: When declaring Move, Jump, or Climb, the Trooper must always move the full corresponding MOV value, attempting to perform the first of these options that the Trooper can complete: Enter Silhouette contact with an Enemy Trooper during this move. Go towards the Enemy Deployment Zone without doubling back from the movement's starting position. (See FAQs & Errata.) Troopers may only move a shorter distance if they reach Silhouette contact with an Enemy or a Special Terrain area hinders their Movement or forces them to declare Jump or Climb. An Impetuous Trooper that has not been deployed on the gaming table due to an Airborne Deployment Special Skill may use their Impetuous activation to Deploy during the Impetuous Phase of their player's Turn. Impetuous Troopers cannot benefit from Partial Cover MODs. Players in Retreat! situation do not carry out the Impetuous Phase during their Turn. Impetuous Troopers cannot enter Marker States (Camouflaged, Impersonation...), or any other States that say so. Ok, so here goes - Within our local meta (SF Bay Area), the general consensus of interpretation harkens back to N3, where the movement was much more clearly defined - ie, running the straightest line possible towards the nearest enemy. Now, the operation of this order is as clear as mud. Although we play with the belief that the spirit is to run to a point that is the closest possible distance towards the enemy DZ, I recently attended a regional tournament wherein players from other metas interpreted the rules as written. So, to try and clarify the functionality - at no point does the rules page clarify that your move must be in the straightest line possible towards the enemy DZ. After reading, and re-reading, and re-reading again; it seems that there is not a hard requirement that you move in a direct route towards the DZ, so long as you do the following: Utilize the entirety of you MOV value Move towards the enemy DZ without doubling back In interpreting this, I see no hard requirement stating that you have to move directly towards the enemy DZ, so long as you are fulfilling the two requirements above. I really do not like that this rule is left so wide open to interpretation, and has been quite important at times in games. This is something that would absolutely be clarified with an extra insert in the (See FAQs & Errata.) portion, but there is no clarity to be found despite the snippet mentioning doubling back has a link directing you there. I look forward to hearing people's thoughts on the matter. This is a section of the rules that desperately needs official clarification and I'm not sure how to go about building enough traction within the community to get this need expressed with priority to Corvus Belli.
The rules are in an unfortunate interim state right now. The guy who answers rules questions, @ijw , hasn't posted in nearly 6 months so there are a lot of unanswered questions. He is also the guy who updates the wiki, which is why none of he changes from the most recent FAQ are on the wiki. He seems to have quit (there's been mention in another thread that he's actively posting in the warhammer community, and that CB has advertised a job that may be to replace him), but complete silence on the subject from CB. Meanwhile, the most recent FAQ made some drastic and seemingly self-contradictory changes to the rules, and nobody is around to explain how the new rules are supposed to work. It's just complete silence. Impetuous is one of the rules that needs clarification, but it's not even the most important. In the meantime, the FAQ is more up-to-date than the wiki, so in interpreting the Impetuous rules, the FAQ is where you should be looking. In terms of your specific question, the FAQ says that the trooper has to "End his movement as close as possible to the enemy Deployment Zone." Generally speaking, that means that they have to move directly towards the enemy DZ in a straight line, because that's the path that will cause them to end as close as possible to the DZ. There are some ambiguous cases where intervening terrain can cause confusion, which TOs will have to resolve. But the general rule of "end as close as possible to the enemy DZ" should be sufficient in most cases. If the players you encountered weren't playing that way, perhaps they weren't aware of the FAQ and were working from the (out-of-date) wiki text.
Holy crap. I wasn't even aware. I thought it could have been something to do with the pandemic and what not, hoped IJW was OK and now I find out they probably let him go and didn't bother to establish any communication with the fanbase about it? I'd much rather believe he has quit himself, frustrated with the role they've put him in and inability to enact meaningful change in how rules are presented, adjusted and edited by CB. In the TAG Raid gameplay video they have a woman whose name I can't recall who was presented there as "CB Community Manager". I can't see any management of community outreach being done, tbh. Half a year, fuck me.
I highly appreciate you weighing in on this matter. I ended up posting this to the meta group I play with, and was linked the FAQ. I didn't actually know it was a thing myself, and I am assuming that is the same for the players still confused on the matter. Luckily, the players in my group had been playing the Impetuous movement rules that way already; as N3 veteran players we assumed that was the spirit of the rule. It is rather disappointing that the wiki is not updated, and though I can on some level understand that when "the guy whose job it was" isn't around to update it, that it remains that way. Still, wikis aren't hard to update, and the entirety of the FAQ could be incorporated into the wiki within a day's work. Honestly, this is the kind of exhausting fractured rules source BS that has turned me off of Warhammer 40k after playing for over 20 years. I rather hope that Corvus Belli does not take a similar route and start to lose touch with their care for the community. Still, this one issue taken with a grain of salt is really not a huge deal, and was harmless enough to seek out an answer. I suppose now that I am aware of the FAQ it will be easier to not only answer questions, but also help others to both answer their questions and direct them there to get their own answers. In the original posting, I have elected to leave the initial post to help illustrate the frustration that can befall players who seek the wiki for answers. As players ourselves, there is a need to discuss and spread the word of resources and clarifications to ambiguity.
Maybe the whole meta who don’t think to check the website for the latest FAQ are exceedingly lazy. NGL, the OP and the edit come off as a pretty shit take on things. And, if @ijw has indeed quit as volunteer wiki maintainer and playtester, that’s an indictment of the cunts who constantly argued that they know the rules better than him and the CB official rulings are incorrect. They’re still here, still carrying on. CB was right to determine that the forum should close.
Nice toxic and completely unproductive response there. I posted with a legitimate question, asked around, got an answer, and left my original posting to reflect the route by which I came to that result. My original posting interprets the rule verbatim, as written in the wiki - which I've come to understand as the "official rules". Those rules are wrong and require searching a separate document to clarify the wording that the "official rules" completely omit. I 100% percent stand by my statement that the wiki page not being updated is exceedingly lazy. One could update the "official rules" section, which players constantly reference in tournament setting, in less than an afternoon's work. There's not a lot to update, judging by the length of the latest FAQ. NGL people with your shit attitude make things really exhausting when trying to get answers and openly discuss things in a Forum space. I went through your posting history and it's extremely toxic. Perhaps if you dropped the asshole act and conducted your self with some measure of grace and patience, you'd get through to some of the people you're describing as "cunts". Furthermore, you could always bring your shitty attitude to our "exceedingly lazy" meta, and we'd welcome you with open arms and play some solid and entertaining games - despite your apparent foulness and superiority issues. And yeah, I had no idea there was a FAQ release in addition to the "FAQ" that is posted on every single page on the wiki. Nobody had ever pointed that out to me, despite playing infinity since 2009. In fact, it was the meta I participate in that pointed it out to me. So where would people go to discuss the rulings that are absolutely as clear as mud? Since you have attitudes such as "convinced that virtually everyone who posts in that fb group is illiterate", where do you propose that people go for clarity? I came here for clarification, found it, left my original mistake for the world to see (something that someone so perfect as yourself would obviously never do), and even learned that the wiki was run by someone who's not even paid by CB? Maybe CB should invest some money in maintaining a ruleset that is clear for their players. To be completely honest, I didn't have much of an issue, and even found the answer to my question, but then I had the good fortune to find s specimen like yourself in the wild. God damn, toxic forum posters like yourself leave such a sour taste in my mouth. Maybe you might consider who's the real "cunt" around here. Furthermore, in defense of these "cunts" like myself, let me restate a point of contention I mention in the start of this post - the "CB official rulings" are not even posted on the page that contains the rules - you have to search a completely different document. Thanks for adding absolutely nothing to this discussion but your foul attitude. But then again, I expect that you thrive on these responses that you fish for with that attitude. To quote yourself "you're welcome"
@Camarones He's not worth a reply and moderation here is non-existent and absolutely horrible. The only mod on the Forum actually bothsides most arguments and only wags his finger at the blatant trolls.
