If a trooper on a bike (like a Maverick or Desperado) is performing an Impetuous move, can they dismount, even if it would increase the number of orders it would take them to get to the nearest enemy?
They would only be able to dismount if it let them get to the enemy quicker. Yes, yes, I know it's not spelled out exactly in the rules complete with references and peer review but it's clear that someone dismounting to keep their Impetuous biker safe is completely against the spirit and intent of the Impetuous rules.
If dismounting would allow you to access a path that is too narrow for the bike, and doing so would let you reach an enemy in a smaller number of orders than remaining on the bike, then you must dismount. Otherwise, you cannot dismount.
There isn't any talk of dismount in the same way Jump and Climb are talked about in the Impetuous rules. Might be good for a FAQ (really errata) topic.
one could argue that dismounting isn't using the trooper's full mov value or using the least amount of orders to reach BtB
Lets not have another thread where we argue if Nearest means Nearest. How about this, the rules say you must move your full MOVE value, a mounted biker's full move at the start of the turn is either 8-4 or 8-6, 5 dismounting they reduce their First Move to 4, 4 is less than 8 so not legal.
Dismounting is a function of the move skill. It would be roughly equivalent to only moving 4" instead of 8. Which is clearly not allowed by the impetuous rules.
We have a whole thread about the complexity and messiness of the rules and you want/need the rules to spell out to you that you can't dismount to reduce your movement? I mean...
However, using Mount or Dismount means the entire Order uses that specific profile, with the other profile not even being considered activated. If I declare Dismount from my Motorcycle as part of the Move skill, then I use the Dismounted profile the entire Order.
Solved in the old forums, January 2015 http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/30859-solved-extremely-impetuous-and-dismount/
Relevant part of the Impetuous Rules: "When executing a Move as part of an Impetuous Order, the trooper must move towards the nearest enemy figure by the most direct route possible. The nearest enemy figure is the one that can be reached in the least number of Orders, even if that figure is not in LoF. Jump or Climb skills must be used if that would shorten the route." 1.) The problematic part of the wording are various ties in required Orders between mounted and dismounted. There should be nothing to keep you from dismounting when the closest target is 2" away and can be reached either way for instance. You're still spending the same amount of Orders and reach BtB. 2.) Here is the tough one: RAW the requirement is "can be reached in the least amount of Orders" which would address a full Move Move. However the Impetuous Order doesn't require to use both Short Skills on moving. So RAW it would technically be possible to dismount if you're able to reach your opponent with the same number of Move+Move Orders and then doesn't require to follow through. Ofc movement during Impetuous Orders is always straight to the closest enemy at maximum Move value, but there is a loophole here that would i.e. against a target 7" away, let a Biker dismount so he gets 4" free Movement but doesn't move an extra 3" around the next corner eating multiple AROs. Because he could technically have reached the same target on foot in the same amount of Orders (one). We house ruled that so 1.) is possible but not 2.), still the rules aren't clear what happens in those cases.
Neat. Both Impetuous and Dismount could use more rules attention in this context. Still, it's good to have Palanka's words here.
frankly I never thought this was an issue until I read Teslarod's example of two models <8" apart (I tend to agree that within the spirit of the rules, his groups assessment is correct). The discussion we had in our group was whether an impetuous model deployed on a roof would jump to their death, or take the more sensible (yet more order intensive) climb where the building is taller than their first move value; or in the same situation, were an impetuous model deployed not in contact with the building ledge (thus rendering climb unusable, they have to be in contact with a vertical surface) - does the impetuous model jump to their certain death, or do they use the impetuous order to walk into contact with the building edge, thus allowing subsequent orders to be spent climbing? (incidentally, our group has decided that impetuous does not necessarily equate to suicidal, and thus even extremely impetuous troopers have enough sense to not leap to their deaths...)
http://www.infinitytheforums.com/fo...nk-impetuous-works-differently-than-you-think. Tl;dr Yes. But only if it's the only way to advance along the shortest path to the nearest enemy. Which is generally (but not universally) interpreted to mean only if you're in B2B with the terrain that forces you to Jump/Climb. It's reasonably settled but unsatisfactorialy so. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/index.php?posts/52717
... yeah, not reading through 115 comments on the matter at this point. My community has our answer regardless of whether its what this community thinks is correct.
The point of those arguments is Extremely Impetuous is only suicidal if you leave them in B2B with the edge. Otherwise you move into B2B on one Turn and jump on the subsequent Turn. It's a decent balance between Kuang Shi can sit on a roof relatively immune and Uberfalls jump off buildings rather than C+ down them.
@inane.imp if they aren't forced to jump to their deaths I see no reason why they're forced to leave the roof at all, by the text.
