Since we already discussed here about the no need of "facing" the target when declaring an attack (i.e. AT-ST, e-web eng. and Nexu), what the point on spending MP for turning them 90 degrees? Thats only justifiable in case of those units needed to be in front of them or at least an arc of fire based in their orientation. I stand unsatisfied with the omission in this part of the rules. Any thoughts?

The only units that it currently matters on are the ATST and EWeb. One of the only times it will matter is if the unit wants to move through an area that is narrower than their wide side, but big enough for their narrow side. In other words, if an EWeb wanted to go through a 1 wide hallway but was oriented wrong you would need to spend a MP to turn. Also, since the turn can actually get a unit one square closer to a target it makes sense to expend movement for that as well.

"One of the only times it will matter is if the unit wants to move through an area that is narrower than their wide side, but big enough for their narrow side".

Ok Aahz, got your point, but lets put this particular situation in check with an E-web engineer moving into a narrower space, where "##" is impassable/blocked terrain:

[ ][ ][##][##][ ]

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

[ ][##][##][##][ ]

[ ][##][##][##][ ]

[ ][##][##][##][ ]

[ ew ][ ew ][ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

[##][##][##][##][##]

[ ][ ][##][##][ ]

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

[ ew ] [ew ][ ][ ][ ]

[ 3 ][##][##][##][ ]

[ 2 ][##][##][##][ ]

[ 1 ][##][##][##][ ]

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

[ ][ ][ ][ ][ ]

[##][##][##][##][##]

Thats just one example off the "shrinking" when moving, then the figure returns to its original size after it reaches the desired square, respecting the rule of 50% of the figure must remain in the square its moving on.

Since the AT-ST have restrictions for indoor spaces, he will never have problems with positioning in closed quarters, besides, since he's a massive unit, he can just ignore terrain restrictions.

Also, having a look at the tile variations, I cannot think a possibility where an e-web or even an AT-ST would be imperatively forced to move 90 degrees.

This post didn't come out like you expected it to. Probably need a code block around it.

Edited it.

This is not Descent. Large figures do not shrink to move. In your example the EWeb must rotate.

Also, the indoor restriction does not apply in a skirmish match (only campaign), so a 2 square wide hallway is definitely a possibility for an AT-ST to have to navigate.

As stated above, this is not Descent, large figures do not "shrink", they rotate. See the movement examples in the Appendix, RRG, Page 27 of specific examples.

A more accurate example (utilizing a Fizzgrid™) showing the movement of the E-Web Engineer , along with the rotation move.

The "E" and the "W" are the spaces the figure occupies:

Start of activation:

[#][_][_][#][#] [#]
[#] [_] [_] [#] [#] [#]
[#][_][_][ E ][ W ] [_]
[#][_][_][_][_] [_]

Move West one space:

[#][_][_][#][#] [#]
[#] [_] [_] [#] [#] [#]
[#][_][ E ][ W ][_] [_]
[#][_][_][_][_] [_]

Rotate 90 degrees:

[#][_][_][#][#] [#]
[#] [_] [ W ] [#] [#] [#]
[#][_][ E ][_][_] [_]
[#][_][_][_][_] [_]

Move North 1 space:

[#][_][ W ][#][#] [#]
[#] [_] [ E ] [#] [#] [#]
[#][_][_][_][_] [_]
[#][_][_][_][_] [_]

Ty everyone. Got enlightened about the difference between movement rules in Imp. Assault and Descent, however, even considering the rotation, the figure will still not lose the MP point to keep the patch it is on. That’s the main concern of my post. Taking the accurate example from Fizz, I see no need from the e-web to rotate, but, even rotating, it will not lose its MP just to take a new orientation (thanks to the rules from page 27, RRG). Ok, narrower places will require an AT-ST to change its orientation to fit in the space, but in this case you will just reiterate the movement rules, having in mind that the figure will NOT lose a square when it ends its movement.

The point is - rotating a large/massive figure is useless, it’s just figurative.

So, I stand with the question: In wich case will be a large/massive figure imperatively forced to move 90 degrees?

I understand that the mechanics try to balance the movement from regular figures to the larger ones, but in this case, I don’t see any difference between them, since regulars can move diagonally and large/massive figures use the rule stated in the RRG, pg. 27 (the figure must remain 50% in the original space when rotating). So, the only feasible justification for rotating would be the need of "facing" the target of the attack, and not a rear attack. But there is no such a thing, since the rules are silent about this.

It costs a movement point to turn 90 degrees.

it is for maneuvering through gaps and tricky areas or into cover, like fizz explained pretty clearly.

if they didn't have to occupy at least half their base, their movement across the board would be too fast, and have to many options to move.

im struggling to find the point, it seems very clear

The short answer: Tile 06b will require turning to navigate from some points to others (this was the first I found, there may or may not be others).

More generally there are many manoeuvres that benefit from turning (in fizz's example for instance you're 1 space further ahead than you could be if you didn't turn (the rotate 90 took a movement point)).

I see no need from the e-web to rotate, but, even rotating, it will not lose its MP just to take a new orientation (thanks to the rules from page 27, RRG).

rrg 27 clearly states that taking a new orientation DOES cost a movement point.

Edit: Sorry for double post, still not used to quoting on this forum.

Ty everyone. Got enlightened about the difference between movement rules in Imp. Assault and Descent, however, even considering the rotation, the figure will still not lose the MP point to keep the patch it is on. That’s the main concern of my post. Taking the accurate example from Fizz, I see no need from the e-web to rotate, but, even rotating, it will not lose its MP just to take a new orientation (thanks to the rules from page 27, RRG). Ok, narrower places will require an AT-ST to change its orientation to fit in the space, but in this case you will just reiterate the movement rules, having in mind that the figure will NOT lose a square when it ends its movement.

The point is - rotating a large/massive figure is useless, it’s just figurative.

So, I stand with the question: In wich case will be a large/massive figure imperatively forced to move 90 degrees?

I understand that the mechanics try to balance the movement from regular figures to the larger ones, but in this case, I don’t see any difference between them, since regulars can move diagonally and large/massive figures use the rule stated in the RRG, pg. 27 (the figure must remain 50% in the original space when rotating). So, the only feasible justification for rotating would be the need of "facing" the target of the attack, and not a rear attack. But there is no such a thing, since the rules are silent about this.

Let me make an assumption here, please correct me if I am wrong. Is your definition of "rotation" where the large figure occupies the exact same 2 (E-Web) or 6 (AT-ST) spaces, just turned to point the model in a different direction? If so, that's just OCD, and technically, not even movement.

Example:

E-Web placement. "E" is where the barrel of the gun is, and "W" is where the trooper is:

[#][_][_][#][#] [#]

[#] [_] [_] [#] [#] [#]

[#][_][_][ E ][ W ] [_]

[#][_][_][_][_] [_]

And you want to "rotate" him 180 degrees so that his "facing" looks like this:

[#][_][_][#][#] [#]

[#] [_] [_] [#] [#] [#]

[#][_][_][ W ][ E ] [_]

[#][_][_][_][_] [_]

Is that what you are asking? If so, then the simple answer is: There is no "facing". There is no "front". There is only LOS. LOS can be drawn from any square the model occupies, even if that means it looks like the butt of the trooper is firing, or the AT-ST would have to break its neck to fire.

If not, the simple reason for large model rotation is simply for movement in tight spaces, and lack of diagonal movement, nothing more.

The game defines "rotation" as a method of moving that is not orthogonal.

Perfect Fizz. I must rephrase my position, since I see the 90 degrees are usefull . The player actually move one square when rotating. I expressed wrong. But, in my understanding, the game would make more sense if the figures had an arc of fire [yes, with front (you can attack) and rear (you cannot attack, must rotate to perform this particular action)]. But this is something personal, a criticism to the game mechanics. The rules are pretty clear to me now, and I will have to live with the rear attack.

Just for the record, I really compared the movement rules of Descent and Imp. Assault and now I see they are completely different. I take the blame of my misunderstanding.

Ty all for the support! I really appreciated this

Hey, no problem.

If it makes you feel better, my OCD kicks in when firing from the butt of my E-Web and AT-ST as well, and I want to spin it in place, just so that it looks good. My group allows me to do this since it has no effect on anything other than to look less stupid.

Stay classy, Dommus.

Hey, no problem.

If it makes you feel better, my OCD kicks in when firing from the butt of my E-Web and AT-ST as well, and I want to spin it in place, just so that it looks good. My group allows me to do this since it has no effect on anything other than to look less stupid.

Stay classy, Dommus.

same here

The way I reconcile that is I say the guy can swing the TURRET in any direction and therefore shoot in any direction, but the movement point is spent on changing the orientation of the BASE of the turret so that he can maneuver it through tight spaces while moving...

The way I reconcile that is I say the guy can swing the TURRET in any direction and therefore shoot in any direction, but the movement point is spent on changing the orientation of the BASE of the turret so that he can maneuver it through tight spaces while moving...

i was even thinking of slicing the e-web off his base and off the top part of the turret, then add some swivel motion to the turret

This game is great but it just has some very silly generic rules that is all. I can see however why they made this rule lame. The reason is the map; its to small for an AT-ST to have to try to move and have a firing arc. Heroes would just move around it and avoid its arc. Did I say around it I mean walk though it. Sorry silly rule again.

I still love this game.

This game is great but it just has some very silly generic rules that is all. I can see however why they made this rule lame. The reason is the map; its to small for an AT-ST to have to try to move and have a firing arc. Heroes would just move around it and avoid its arc. Did I say around it I mean walk though it. Sorry silly rule again.

I still love this game.

I don't see those rules as *lame* or *silly*, I see them as intentionally abstract concepts that keep the game flowing at a quick pace, without getting bogged down with excessive detail for detail's sake.

Sounds good Fizz while you are at it you should marry it. Love on it, honor it, remember that it is beautiful every day. I am just playing with you Fizz. I my self find the game has generic rules by dropping details you lose game play. Is it fast yes but it still has lame rules. If this post has hurt your feeling I will take it back. its just a game Fizz.

This game is great but it just has some very silly generic rules that is all. I can see however why they made this rule lame. The reason is the map; its to small for an AT-ST to have to try to move and have a firing arc. Heroes would just move around it and avoid its arc. Did I say around it I mean walk though it. Sorry silly rule again.

I still love this game.

I don't see those rules as *lame* or *silly*, I see them as intentionally abstract concepts that keep the game flowing at a quick pace, without getting bogged down with excessive detail for detail's sake.

sometimes, if we get confused on a rule, or cant decide. we discuss what cinematically would be happening and come to a decision, just to keep the flow going.

The game is not bad Fizz but the game has so meany rules even FF can't get it right the first time. Its just like Spidey NZ is saying the rules can bogg you down just becomes there not well done. So me using the word "silly" or "lame" is just my way of saying this game has flaws.

Sounds good Fizz while you are at it you should marry it. Love on it, honor it, remember that it is beautiful every day.

That's legal here in Minnesota, how do you know I already don't?!!?!?

LOL