Impetuously vague

Which in the scheme of things doesn't really net you that much. But I understand the concept.

My only concern right now is that unless something is said to discourage it, someone is going to say "I vibrate in such a way to move in a way that is obviously not intended by the IMP but is also not expressly disallowed."

But my concept of people doing these kinds of shenanigans is very colored by Warmachine Mk.3 being miserable to play because of stuff similar to this.

 

I fully get where you're coming from. Impetuous shouldn't necessarily be a "suicide move" I think. "Gotta move the whole MOV value and can't go towards own zone" is limitation enough I think.

 

I already make ambulance noises when moving my Paramedic / Doctor to assist a fallen trooper. Don't provoke me ;)

 

All weekend I was making bear noises playing kosmo. I was seriously considering making a button to do it in TTS but now i think i need a sound board.

 

Do share it when you make it! :D

 

I make jaws noises when running a strong rambo forward into a powerful firelane, so ambulance noises, bear noises all seem to fit for me.

 

Well, that's why we have a rules forum, and @ijw to answer our questions.

If he says how to do the impetuous move in a way that doesn't permit the vibration move, then we're good. If someone tries it at the table, all you have to do is point them to the ruling. Without freaking out or refusing to play against them or whatever, 'cause that's just weird.

Conversely, if @ijw says you can do it that way, then when your opponent does it, you'll know it's kosher and, again, will have no reason to freak out.

Currently, @ijw if I'm reading it right says earlier in this thread that it's permitted, but he's not happy about it, so likely it will be FAQed. Until then, effectively it looks like an impetuous troop can move less than its full distance.

 

I'm just here hoping they change it to "Go towards the Enemy Deployment Zone without doubling back and altering direction as few times as possible from the movement’s starting position". Or something to that effect. You want the movement distance to be described by a string that's the MOV value long and for that string to be pulled taut around the terrain.

(Or convert the Impetuous Order into what is essentially a TacAware order and then reduce the Impetuous/Fury discount to a fraction of what it is - but that might just be me.)

 

If staying in total cover and throwing a smoke grenade for free is not that much then yes, it doesn't really net that much. I imagine that for most people though not being forced to go out into the open and eat a bullet, but still have the possibility to throw smoke without spending a regular order is actually pretty big deal.

Anyway - my solution would be forcing Impetuous troops to completely leave their starting position (if possible) by ending their move closer to enemy deployment zone. This would at least force them to be placed that 1" forward (ziggzagging, or not).

 

This is what I believe the intent of the rule is. I don't think the current wording captures it, however. Perhaps we can brainstorm a bit more?

Maybe something like, "At the end of the movement during this phase, the trooper must be as far away from their starting position as possible (following all rules in the Movement Side-bar)."

 

Besides the vagueness that allows you to zig zag.

If my impetuous , 4-x is standing on an open board with no terrain and moves on an angle to end 3.9 inches to the left and .1 inch foward (obviously you could even claim even smaller amounts, but just for ease of discussion) does that count as "Towards"? Between that an zig zagging the rule might effectively just say: a move skill that at no point can take the model away from the opponent table edge.

I don't really consider this bad play by the player or bad rules by the designer, especially in the first week of release of a new rules set. if it's that's not the intention of the designers, all that's need is a rules update.

 

That's also an interesting point to bring up. Going 2" and then 2" would mean you only end up 2.8" away from your starting position even though you "used" your full movement value.

Here is the text currently:

Assuming the intent is for the trooper to make a B-line to the nearest enemy (if they can) or DZ (if they can't), here is my edit:

If the intent is not to make a B-line, then I agree with @mahtmori and the skills should just be a restricted TacAware with a much lower discount.

EDIT: The language from the general description is also somewhat contradicting. It says to "attempt" the first that you "can complete". If you can complete it, there is no attempt. If you can't complete it, it invalidates the beginning of the statement, and there is no attempt (again). Do, or do not, as it were.

Are we to read that as "Head to the nearest enemy. If there are no enemies, head to the enemy DZ" like in N3? Because the way I'm reading it now, if you can't get into silly contact with an enemy in one move, you just head towards the DZ in whatever way you like as long as you don't end up further away.

 

Yes, as written it’s per-move.

And that’s the bit waiting on an answer from @HellLois.

 

To be clear, are you confirming that this is the intent as well? Because, if it is, that opens up a new problem. If I can't get into silly contact I am forced to head to the DZ even if I want my Dat to head towards your TAG off to the side. Allowing freer movement to the DZ will get around this, but keeps the gaming of the system already outlined. Restricting movement means getting rid of the ridiculousness of vibrating motorcycles, but forces decidedly un-impetuous movements.

 

I can’t answer any intent questions on this, that’s why I said ‘as written’.

 

Good to know. You've had more insight on the intent of rules than the general public in the past, so I wanted to be sure.