Any clarification on "double back" yet? I'd take a general consensus if the rules designers aren't going to throw us a bone! Created a little visual, would appreciate input of whatever type on these eight scenarios. Which, if any, are legal Impetuous Movements?
I'd add a case of "shaking" (moving left and right, not getting closer to own DZ, but ultimately tracing over one's steps and ending up in the same spot) as well.
I figured that anything that directly repeats your own steps would be covered by "double back", but makes sense to argue that too.
Yeah, the way they used the phrase reads to me as secondary language user using a phrase for one of its particular meanings, unaware of other meanings / implications it may carry.
In this kind of thread the whole "oscillating with small zig-gag motions to limit how far you go" thing where every motion still brings you a tiny bit forward to not "double back" should be mentioned. Impetuous units with smoke grenades especially like this little silly exploit. Personally I hope I won't get hit by a mathematical equation instead of my opponent actually moving his troop because of this since it's technically possible to only move 0.0001" like this.
I don't think we're going to see a solution short of a FAQ that essentially rewrites the rule. As it stands we just have no idea what CB intended. It's pretty clear that the 0.1" oscillation movement isn't intended, but that's an edge case anyway. In many situations there will be other ways for the impetuous unit to achieve a 0.1" move, which aren't so clearly outside the intention of the rule. For example, in the setup in G, if the unit wants to move 0.1" forward, he could go 1.99" to the right and 0.5" forward, then 1.99" to the left and another 0.5" forward (you get the idea, I didn't bother calculating hypotenuses). The wall in front of him blocks him from AROs, so he's able to move 0.1" without oscillating - only one direction change. Maybe that's not allowed - who knows! - but if it isn't, then is E allowed and if so, what's the difference between the two? Likewise, we can be pretty confident that oscillation isn't allowed, but then is D allowed and if so, how is it different from oscillation? Those are rhetorical questions - there's no way for us as players to figure out the answers because there just isn't enough information in the rule to give us any idea how it's supposed to work.
Just go back to the old impetious movement (shortest route to the nearest enemy) rule for gods sake. I heard nobody complain about that and it was clear (apart from the "when to climb" issue). If we are lucky they come up with a clarification which finally removes the remaining usability of warbands, if not the new rule is as unclear as the current. Either way, I would assume there will be no fix for at least half a year.
Image updated, added Oscillation. Image shows a very lax version of it for display purposes but that should cover the "vibrate" model too. Heaps of people complained and it sometimes wasn't clear, because there was lots of measuring and disputes about which path was "shortest". It would work perhaps if paired with a definition of "any path that ends with the closest possible distance" but then we get straight line distance or 'practical distance' issues which require measurement as well... Seems like an overresponse for a rule that just needs the word "double back" clarified. Honestly, not impressed that such a nebulous term got into the rules in the first place
To re-write what I said in our chat group. This is how I see the rules and intent based on comments (mostly reading into it, I'm not quoting them) from the likes of Hell Lois and IJW. 1. You must move your full first move value. 2. You must end closer to the DZ (or enemy as applicable) 3. No double backing. So 1 and 2 are pretty straight-forward, and my interpretation of double backing is to simplify directions into 4 cardinal directions. Enemy DZ, Your DZ, Left side and Right side. No double backing would mean not going in the opposite cardinal direction. Legal Moves: A, B, C. Not Legal: D, E, F, G, I. In most cases the model travels in opposite cardinal directions. Special note F - is where climbing or jumping would be necessary, and its nice and clear when this applies. You can't move back because then going forward would be a double back - and then you won't end closer to the DZ making a normal move illegal. So you will have to climb or jump the obstacle. See below for exception on dead ends where no legal move exists. Uncertain: H. I think in these cases the clear criteria of 'you must move your full first move' will apply if that is an option. But if it involves double backing, at that point you would move into the terrain. As far as I can tell, this only leaves what happens in the enemy DZ and dead ends as grey areas. I think for enemy DZ you move towards the nearest enemy. Dead ends are rare but do happen, in which case I think an exception to the double back rule must be applied if no other move would be legal. Given movement can now be premeasured, you can easily figure out which way your impetuous move will go once declared. and given impetuous is always optional, you're unlikely to end up in situations which feel really bad or unimaginable.
No, I'm making a generalized question. An L-shaped building would mean you can't go around it if you're at the interior side? I feel there needs to be a stipulation for such cases.
OK. I'm not sure where you're going with it as no-one else has gone so far as to distinguish if either D or I are legal. So it really depends on what people will read double-back to mean, as thats really the only point of grey in the rules as far as I can see. I agree that dead ends pretty much need an exception, as the rules don't cover it at all, regardless of how you read double-back.
The distinction I had in mind was open and closed angles on the turns, that is retaining the general direction of movement or zig zaggin much closer and going back and forth. The difference being "doubling back" in the red circle. That would make D legal because you retain the general direction of movement and do not move backwards.
Ideally the impetuous movement would be, after attempting to reach an enemy; 1. pick a spot in the opponent's DZ that can not be reached in a single order sequence 2. declare and execute the skill that would reduce the number of orders necessary to get to that spot the most. (I.e. if you're standing next to a large Q-Building in the opponent's DZ and pick a spot on top of the building you'll probably have to declare Climb rather than attempt to move around the corner to the stairs, if the Q-Building is small you could probably reach the spot faster by moving around the corner and taking the stairs, even if this might result in leaving the DZ) Sadly, the rules do not support this. Sadly the rules do not even support intentionally touching Area Terrain to stop movement as in F, though I do note that the 1" option in F is probably not supported by the rules. I think a big complicating factor is that strictly speaking E, D and I describe the same movement and that it's almost guaranteed that E is meant to be a rules compliant movement.
If "no doubling back" is meant strictly as "do not retread the same ground", then "I" would not be legal. There are subtle differences in semantics of the phrase and it's pretty obvious it's a language barrier issue at this point.
► Al declarar Mover, Saltar o Trepar se moverá siempre el total del valor de MOV correspondiente y la Tropa realizará la primera de las siguientes opciones que pueda cumplir: ► Alcanzar contacto de Silueta con una Tropa enemiga mediante ese movimiento. ► Dirigirse hacia la Zona de Despliegue del enemigo sin retroceder desde su posición inicial de movimiento. Roughly, 'without retreating from your starting position'. So almost identical.
Oh, no, not at all. This is what that would mean, red being illegal. Grey line is the midline of the base, the "starting position".
