Rainbow Six Siege Y11S3.2 Noor Lineup Retest Guide

Y11S3.2 changed several confirmed Horus Lance interactions. Recheck the job, dependency, and fallback behind your Noor pick before carrying an older plan forward.

What Y11S3.2 confirms about Horus Lance

Replace the older evidence boundary with the Noor-specific changes directly established by the official patch notes.

• Drilling time on Ballistic Shields, soft surfaces, and solid non-destructible surfaces is 1.5 seconds, reduced from 2 seconds.
• Guard-break strength when a Horus Lance projectile hits a Ballistic Shield is 100%, increased from 30%.
• Equipping Horus Lance uses quickdraw animations, and equip-animation timing is 0.4 seconds, reduced from 0.9 seconds.
• Horus Lance impact damage against an operator is 80, increased from 50.
• The patch notes report a hitbox update intended to improve accuracy and consistency.
• Horus Lance can damage Ballistic Shield Operators during the removal animation.

Separate confirmed changes from lineup conclusions

Prevent patch values from being presented as proof of performance across every match context.

• Treat the listed timings, strength, damage, hitbox update, and removal-animation interaction as confirmed patch facts.
• Do not infer a preferred map, lineup, route, or opponent response from those facts alone.
• Identify the exact surface or Ballistic Shield interaction on which the proposed job depends.
• Mark practical value as untested until the interaction is repeated under conditions relevant to the player's plan.

Rebuild the Noor job statement

Turn the patch changes into a specific lineup responsibility rather than a general claim that Noor is stronger.

• Write the round plan and the missing lineup job in one sentence.
• Name the confirmed Horus Lance change that could support that job.
• Check whether another teammate already covers the responsibility.
• Reject the rationale if the pick depends on an interaction not established by the current official or in-game information.

Run a controlled Y11S3.2 retest

Help the player test the changed dependency without confusing one round result with a stable conclusion.

• Choose one interaction to test at a time: drilling, Ballistic Shield guard break, equip timing, operator impact damage, projectile registration, or removal-animation damage.
• Keep the relevant setup as comparable as practical between attempts.
• Record the expected sequence, observed sequence, and any condition that changed.
• Repeat the interaction before classifying it as reliable for the intended plan.
• Label the result supported, mixed, unsupported, or unresolved.

Check lineup fit and fallback value

Connect the retest to a bounded lock-or-switch decision.

• Keep Noor in consideration when a confirmed and successfully retested interaction fills an uncovered job.
• Check whether the lineup still covers its more important responsibilities after assigning the Noor job.
• Define a fallback responsibility for rounds where the expected shield or surface dependency is absent.
• Switch when the relevant job is already covered, the dependency remains unresolved, or another currently verified kit maps more directly to the missing job.

Review the decision after comparable rounds

Create a patch-aware feedback loop without claiming that the update determines match outcomes.

• Review whether the assigned job was needed, attempted, and completed.
• Separate execution errors from a weak lineup rationale.
• Look for the same pattern across comparable rounds rather than relying on one memorable result.
• Retest the affected dependency after a later patch changes Noor, Horus Lance, Ballistic Shields, surfaces, or the relevant interaction.

Decision checklist

• Confirm that the game is using the Y11S3.2 behavior described in the supplied patch notes.
• Write the missing lineup job before selecting Noor.
• Map that job to one confirmed Horus Lance change.
• Check whether a teammate already covers the same responsibility.
• Test one changed interaction under comparable conditions.
• Record the expected and observed sequence without filling gaps from memory.
• Assign a fallback responsibility when the expected dependency is absent.
• Keep, revise, or replace the pick based on repeated evidence rather than one round result.

Worked example

A lineup plan expects Noor to handle one soft-surface dependency and retain a useful responsibility if that dependency is absent. The player first records that Y11S3.2 sets Horus Lance drilling time on soft surfaces to 1.5 seconds from 2 seconds, then tests only that interaction under comparable conditions. The observed sequence repeats cleanly, so the drilling dependency is marked supported. The player then checks the wider lineup and finds that no teammate has been assigned the same job. Noor remains a reasonable conditional pick for that plan, with a separate fallback responsibility defined for rounds where the surface interaction is unnecessary. This example supports a decision process, not a universal operator ranking.

Common mistakes

• Treating higher confirmed values as proof that Noor fits every lineup.
• Combining several changed interactions in one test and then being unable to identify what affected the result.
• Selecting Noor for a job that a teammate already covers without a stated reason for the overlap.
• Assuming the expected Ballistic Shield or surface dependency will appear in every relevant round.
• Using one successful interaction as sufficient evidence for a stable lineup rule.

Related guides