If it was a non suicidal jump id be fine with it but even an imp troop wont jump off a 3 stpry building. I could agree to angled jumps though that would be hard to write.
Agreed. Something like "troopers must declare Jump, of that would shorten the distance, but only of the is no Falling Damage involved". Otherwise it might create another loophole for avoiding things like undiscovered mines.
I'm with both @daboarder and @Mahtamori on this. What @daboarder suggests is unquivocalby RAW in precisely the same way some tax avoidance regimes are legal. It's a really easy middle ground: if you're in B2B with an edge you jump to your death, if you're not you move into B2B and then stop (and next turn jump to your death). It's something that you can actually enforce on an opponent during a game (see the OPs point about his opponent getting him to this middle ground during the game he played - BTW hey @RobertShepherd from the opponent in question) whereas telling an opponent that he needs to suicide his Daturazi when he wasn't aware of that before hand isn't going to get up (particular since the TO wasn't aware of this beforehand either). Tl;dr it's RAW and it's playable. Who gives a fuck that it requires creative book-keeping?
Allowing a move first means jump is almost never required, as once you're at the edge, a climb will always be preferable. Bonus because an impetus model on a roof moves a massive 5" over 3 turns when starting on a roof. So fucking impetuous.... I'm a yu Jing player and I still find people's rationalisation for how to make kuang Shi even better incredulous. It's a great find, but claiming the people making you jump to your death when you shouldn't put impetuous on a roof As unsportsmanlike is whacky. Edit: bonus points if you also play doors RAW and kuang Shi never even make it out the door until you don't care about them dying
Unless the building is very tall, or has an overhang that covers enough of the enemy Silhouette, the Daturazi can still move to the edge of the building and, as long as it did not start the movement in Prone state, it is very likely that LoF between both models can be drawn... and anyway, the Daturazi can still throw a Smoke Grenade, then use Regular orders to either Climb or Jump (if the height is no higher than his first movement value) down, then Melee the enemy. I did something similar a year ago with a Krakot against a Camo marker (Move + Discover, I failed the Discover roll, then I did Intuitive attack... and killed the enemy camo XD). Unless you have a way to shorten Jump to a short order (for example, a Morlock getting Super Jump) you would be fine going for the ladder; the way I understand it you are not forced to declare long movement orders as Impetuous orders (but you can, of the maximum length, which means if you wanna "jump" you have to use your full lenght and consume as little height as possible...).
@Alphz no a Climb will NEVER be preferable. Even a S2+1mm high wall will result in a Jump: you'd jump out towards your target the full move and fall S2+1mm: this is the fastest way of getting off a building (even if you have C+). I believe it was you who first convinced me of this. :P Which means the only way C+ makes sense is if you allow the declaration of a Move vice a Jump when you're not B2B with the edge: in this case your fastest move will be to C+ down the wall (unless it is EXTREMELY high), as this doesn't force you to declare Climb or Jump so your move doesn't stop when you hit the wall. Honestly, with KS you can deploy them on a wall and get your first turn free, bonus points if you do this >4 from LOF to your opponents troops so you get your second turn as well. Keeping Kuang Shi alive isn't actually that hard with all the other tools you already have. This isn't about making Kuang Shi even more ridiculous, it's about making troops like Chimera's actually playable. Edit: and here's IJW agreeing with the argument @daboarder espoused. Edit2: huh, I forgot that deploying non-C+ troops on a wall thread was where we saw why Bostria isn't allowed to make rules posts :)
@xagroth... I hope you didn't declare that Discover as part of the Impetuous order? It not being a valid declaration and all :P
It was Move + Discover, since Discover is a Short Movement Skill, it follows the allowed Move + Move combo in the Impetuous table of avaiable combinations... And if not, I think of it as fair play, since it was a non-ITS game (we were playing a narrative campaign) and that same player had used Medikit as an ARO with his Speculo killer in a previous tournament against me (not intentionally, like my Move + Discover in this case IF it is truly illegal :p).
My recollection is that it's not allowed because the Impetuous orders refers to Move not the Short Movement Skill. Compare :
That's Move+Move. Capital Move that is. Not Short Movement Skill + Short Movement Skill. Also the reason why Super-Jump Impetuous is a bit difficult.
Yeah, I just checked the spanish rulebook (it's written like in english would be "To Move + To Move", which is clearer than a caps lock xD). Anyway, not like it had any impact at all since I failed the WP roll XD
I'm not actually taking a position one way or another in this debate, but I'm not sure this is a very compelling argument. I mean, how/why, exactly, is your Imp troop on a 3 story building at all? Clearly, if the ruling came down the other way (that you would have to jump off), you would not put yourself in that position in the first place?
It's not hard to find some heights in the middle of some tables. For example, there are some versions of the central room with a height about 6 or more inches (15cm or more. Or the "H" shaped one from Zen Terrain), and it's not hard to find a Daturazi or Morlock on top of such a place (essentially, "terrain you cross"). Now, it takes 1 full order to jump and another to move to get that pesky enemy unit near the console at the bottom... or 3-4 orders if you go through the stairs. We are not assuming the player placed an extremely impetuous troop on top of height on purpose here. I prefer to use Morlocks, or even Yuan Yuan (who can fall wherever if they fail the AD roll!) for this kind of examples, since they are Extremely Impetuous AND Irregular troops.
It's not actually a debate: mostly the discussion about when you jump to (potential) death is RAW and people disagreeing with it. But if you were referring to the specific 'debate' about whether you must jump to certain death; then sure, that is actually still open. ----- Basically: Impetuous pathing ignores probability and is deterministic (with the one RAW exception). So the question of why your troop is on a 3 story is irrelevant about whether you jump to certain death. The argument against it is pure logic: if death is certain, then the path is impossible therefore it is not the shortest path (because under no circumstances can it achieve the objective). Imagine instead a table where 'the ground is lava', and touching the ground results in immediate death. Would you path Impetuous troops through the lava? Personally, I would not. Let's change the lava to instead 'only' be a Savage Hostile Environment that causes a DAM 19 Fire attack. It's possible (put quite unlikely) to run through the Lava without taking damage. Would you path Impetuous troops through the lava? I would. The point isn't about whether you should deploy Imp models on 3 story high buildings (note that nothing stops you deploying them on the rear wall and having them spend 2 turns Climbing down) but rather where it is at all possible to Jump off them and continue moving.
That doesn't seem accurate. There's also a statement that you *must* use Jump or Climb if that would shorten the route. You seem to be ignoring that in your assessment; if one is 3" back from the edge of a building, it would be shorter to just Jump straight forward and take a header off the edge. You can't declare Move as your first skill in that case; as you *must* declare Jump (which is basically always going to be more efficient than Climb, unless you're on a bike) to shorten the number of orders it would take to get there.
They're two parts of the same rule that say you 'must do X' but you 'can do Y in specific circumstances'. The only sane way to read that is that the second is an exception/clarification to the first. That's what the rules say. If we interpret your way then we need to ignore the other sentence; whereas if you interpret it the way @daboarder espoused you can reconcile both rules. IE. you MUST use Jump if it would shorten the route unless you are in a position where you can use Move to continue advancing. Move to the edge, then Jump off the edge. It's not only RAW but it's a) reasonable b) doesn't completely break Chimeras etc and c) doesn't materially increase the opportunities for abuse (given you can just deploy your Kuang Shi on the wall instead of the roof to avoid Moving as your Impetuous move).
To summarise: Once you've worked out the route that takes the least Orders, that's the route that any Impetuous movement must take. As per previous discussions, if you're on the edge of the roof, you must Jump (or Climb if that would get you as far as the Jump). There is no rule that lets you choose a lower-risk option. As per previous discussions, you can argue for a Move if you're not touching the edge, but this must still be along that 'shortest route', it can't be back to the far edge of the roof to take a ladder instead. If you don't want the Extreme Impetuous trooper to auto-Jump to their death from a great height, you can choose not to put the trooper there, or spend a Regular Order to cancel their Impetuous Order. Extreme Impetuous troopers got an increased discount in N3 compared to N2, because all references to avoiding dangerous routes were removed from the Impetuous rules, making them harder to control.
@ijw how is certain death resolved? Because a path that can never reach it's objective under any circumstances can't be the shortest route to reaching it's objective.
So Jumping from more than 12" up/off a 4-storey building for most troopers? That's still going to reach the objective, just not as a live trooper. As I said, there are no longer any clauses about avoiding danger in the Impetuous rules.
