No it doesn't. It hinges on the fact that the movement path is through an area of terrain that forces the trooper to Jump/Climb. Whether you could otherwise Jump over the wall this turn or not is immaterial. If, in your example, the KS had to Climb that wall then they would stop prior to getting into the TR Bots LOF. But unless they need to Climb that wall then they aren't forced to Climb/Jump so the exception doesn't apply and they must move their full move. The "I pretend the long way around is actually the shortest way around" isn't actually an argument: it comes up however you implement Impetuous. You're basically saying "I go left around the building instead of right" because it keeps you out of LOF. Thats, frankly, cheating. Whereas in the interpretation I expose it works even if both people agree that over the wall is the quickest way: "So Angus at the bottom of the wall is the closest Trooper to my Morlock, it'll take me 2 orders to get to B2B. One order to get to the edge of the wall, then one to jump to the ground." Whereas your Kuang Shi player is arguing that "Move to the base of the wall and stop" is quicker than "Move+Move" past the building. His opponent is going to disagree.
The rule regarding stopping prior to the obstacle doesn't matter. You need to prove that you don't need to declare a Jump instead of a Move, not that the Move has to stop. As I can read the rules there's only two outcomes and that's either that (A) you don't ever declare a Jump or Climb (even if you wanted to) because Move is mandatory or that (B) you must declare a Jump or Climb in which case you're not declaring a Move that can be stopped by an obstacle anyway. Now, it seems you're putting weight on this line: Common Skill Move is mandatory in all Impetuous Orders, where it works in a specific and limited wayWhile I am putting weight on this line: 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. (underline emphasis added, bold emphasis as written in the rules) P.s. to be fair yours is also resting on a latter passage where "must" has been replaced with "can" with regards to replacing Move with Jump or Climb
It's an earlier passage providing an upfront permissive exception to Moving the full Movement value. It's in the main part of the Impetuous movement rules. You're also ignoring this passage: "As shown by the Impetuous Order Chart, an Impetuous (or Extremely Impetuous) trooper can substitute the combination of the mandatory Common Skill Move + [allowed Skill] for the Entire Order Skills Climb or Jump if these are necessary to fulfill his obligation to advance towards the nearest enemy." If you can Move 1mm towards your opponent and then hit intervening terrain that forces you to Jump/Climb to continue moving then Jumping/Climbing is hardly necessary. More effective (perhaps) but not necessary. You fulfill the obligation (below) by moving the figurative 1mm. "The Common Skill Move is mandatory in all Impetuous Orders, where it works in a specific and limited way. When a trooper declares Move as part of an Impetuous Order, he always moves the entirety of his corresponding MOV value. For example, if an Impetuous (or Extremely Impetuous) trooper declares Move once during an Impetuous Order, he moves the total amount of inches indicated by the first value of his MOV. If Move is declared a second time during the Impetuous Order, he also moves the full number of inches indicated by the second value of his MOV. A trooper using an Impetuous Order can move a distance shorter than the maximum only if he reaches base contact with an enemy, or if he enters an area of Special Terrain that impairs his Movement or forces him to declare Jump or Climb in order to keep moving." Indeed, it's simpler to read Jump/Climb as an exception to the general "Move is mandatory" permitted only when they're necessary to continue the advance.* The fact that we allow it for Superjump is convention, but not RAW. * Moreover, it appears to me as to be how the rules are intended to function. So I do not consider it a technicality.
Which turns this argument full circle. I consider that a technicality because I think the rules make an adequate job of explaining its purpose even if the rules allow you to circumvent the purpose.
Very entertaining discussion guys :). The problem of this issue is that the RAI cannot be applied in game because the player is not allowed to measure and have all the information prior to decision making and this could lead to honest mistakes (I don’t think I’d reach the cliff so I’ll declare move, oh! I do reach it, well I guess I have to stop here) or clear exploits (as I cannot measure I’ll declare move, Oh, Surprise! That cliff was 1 cm near of me, well I guess I have to stop moving now) But the RAI are clear to me: Impetuous Order: Direction of Movement 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. AND As shown by the Impetuous Order Chart, an Impetuous (or Extremely Impetuous) trooper can substitute the combination of the mandatory Common Skill Move + [allowed Skill] for the Entire Order Skills Climb or Jump if these are necessary to fulfill his obligation to advance towards the nearest enemy. The above clearly overule this: A trooper using an Impetuous Order can move a distance shorter than the maximum only if he reaches base contact with an enemy, or if he enters an area of Special Terrain that impairs his Movement or forces him to declare Jump or Climb in order to keep moving. There is no other possible reading, if jumping and falling would shorten it, it must be done. The jump/climb is not the action you take if you cannot Move, they are something to consider when "planning" the most direct route. The statement that say the movement could end earlier if some circunstances are triggered doesn't invalidate the obligation to do your best to close the gap. But again, for how the game is played makes the RAI unplayable so we are in this weird place. So: @inane.imp Yes, you can play it that way because as you cannot meassure, even if it is cristal clear that you are in range of jumping out of the building, there is no way to proof it in game without breaking the no meassure rule. But your reading of this rule is wrong. Is the same case in the perimetrals: · When moving, the Perimeter Items must keep Coherency with their bearer. Each time the bearer declares an Order an Initial and Final Coherency Check must be performed. Really means: “As you can’t measure it while moving, you can move it freely out of coherency as will" This makes legal activate a model with a crazykoala in the edge of its control zone, move both in opposite direction and use an attack to put the CK in Stand By (far far away from the bearer's Control Zone). The RAI are clear but it cannot be enforced in game without breaking the no meassure rule.
...exept you don't order your Koala to move THEN put him in Stand-By : as everything is simultaneous, you order him to "go this way then turn yourself into stanby mode". Once all this is done, coherency is checked : "Masta's too far away... I do as told n turn me inta Stanby ! Missa good Koala"
Minor correction - a Final Coherency Check will have no effect on the Standby declaration - the Initial check would need to be failed, which would be known before declaring Standby.
Indeed, my statement was made considering that initial coherency check was passed, otherwise nothing would be possible, resulting in a sad Koala ^^
Why do you assume that the specific permissive exception (move can be shorter in specified circumstances) is overruled by the general 'musts'? Infinity is full of rules where you 'must' do X, except in 'situation' where you can do y. And this is the intended function of the rules. It's not necessary to rely on "no measure": when determining the shortest route you apply the rules. It functions even when both of you go "if you jump you could get there in a single order" because the response is "yes, but it's not necessary to do that, so I don't and let's proceed on that assumption". So Move (stop)+Climb is often slower than Move+Move (via a ladder) - particularly when going up. In which case you go "hey you're 2 orders going round via the ladder or 3 orders going to wall, climbing up wall, moving into B2B, so my Morlock goes via the ladder, right?" It doesn't matter that it's 1mm to the wall, Climb 3.5", Move 1" away from the wall to B2B going 15" round the corner and up the ladder is less orders. Whereas doing that coming down the answer is "it's 2 orders either way, Move to wall + Jump vs Move+Move, Move+Move, so over the wall it is because it's less distance". All that's necessary is that you understand that it's intended that Impetuous movement is allowed be less than the full amount when it hits terrain that forces a Jump/Climb to continue moving along the shortest path (defined as less orders, then less distance) to the target. So you plan paths on that understanding. The reason I think that's the only reasonable interpretation is that *everytime* I've explained forcing troops to suicide when Move is available the response is a variation of "Oh fuck off!". After which they all agree to the lesser - and reasonable - standard of "you're forced to suicide if it's necessary to advance". And guess what. That's also what the rules say.
I assume it works this way because it is clearly written in the rules, it is not implicit, the must is even in bold. Declaring Move would be illegal in that situation, there is no “exception” here, you would be breaking the rule that force you to jump if that would shorten the route. The rules even force you to go through a mine instead of using the longer (and safer) path, even if both reach the enemy within 1 order. In the case you declare a move and the shortest path ends in b2b with an obstacle that forces you to stop, then you can stop, we agree on that. But if the shortest path is jumping out a roof (and it almost always would be because you save a lot of orders thanks to the free movement of the falling plus not having to climb), then declaring a move would be illegal RAW. But as I described in the other post it cannot be enforced because how this game is played (no measure), but the rules aren’t flexible on this case. This doesn’t mean I agree with how it works. I do think that not forcing the impetuous to kill themselves is better, but I’m talking about RAW, this is just a theorical discusion about what the rules say, and by RAW impetuous troopers have to jump out of a roof at the first opportunity.
