Troopers in a Foxhole can't perform movement. It appears, from the above, that 'perform movement' means 'declare a skill with the Movement trait'. All the skills in the incomplete list have the Movement trait (or in the case of Lean Out comprise of a skill with the trait), and I read Change Facing / Dodge as specific exceptions to that (to prevent an easily exploitable weakness against templates). Idle has the Movement trait. (Yeah, I want to be able to execute Sappers with HD Snipers on Normal rolls).
I think it gets away with it because the restriction isn't on declaring things, it's on performing them, and Idle is explicit that: "A trooper that declares Idle performs no action." If so, You declare Idle, nothing restricts your declarations, you perform no action, therefore you can't have broken a prohibition on what actions you perform.
The next two bullets could also be relevant: Whenever a trooper that received an Order in the Active Turn chooses not to perform an action with one of the two Short Skills of that Order, that trooper is considered to declare Idle. Simply choose not to perform an action with the first half of your Order. It becomes an Idle. The trooper is also considered to perform an Idle when he has declared a Skill not allowed by the rules. Can't declare an Idle? Declare an Idle, and it turns into an Idle.
If the rule for foxhole said you couldn't declare movement skills it would be another matter, you can't make invalid declarations, they don't revert to anything you just can't do it in the first place.
The rules for Idle would indicate that you can, in fact, make a declaration that is not allowed by the rules. It's just not going to be terribly useful.
Nah, you can make declarations that you determine at resolution were incorrect, and those become idles. That's different to declaring a skill whose requirements you evidently do not meet or whose declaration has been restricted by other conditions, which is just expressly forbidden.
Neither way is 100% clear in the idle text, being able to declare an illegal skill that just becomes idle improves play-ability in situations such as this and being engaged. Further it mirrors the fire team behaviour where an active trooper might declare climb, be unable to climb and so idle despite it being completely obvious they could not climb at point of declaration. Whilst this is only explicit within the fireteam rules It seems to make things smoother if you extend it to individuals too.
I'm not sure I agree here. Fireteam, G:Sync, and G:Servant rules call it out because normally you can't (my interpretation, anyway). What do you gain by being able to declare a skill that is clearly illegal upon declaration? I imagine for every use-case, there's probably an exploit .
If you distinguish between AROs you get and declare invalidly (at declaration) and AROs you never actually got but declared in error then most of the exploits go away (you need to do this anyway).
It fundamentally alters the "I force you to declare change facing" interaction by allowing the AROing player to speculatively declare shoot (or CC Attack) if you accept knowingly invalid declarations. Similarly the "I force you to ARO against this target" coordinated orders et al. go out the window. Not necessarily for the worse mind you, but they are widely accepted rules situations and the latter is even supported by a FAQ about an Auxilia forcing you to ARO his Auxbot or lose your ARO.
A skill must be legal at time of declaraction to be able to choose it and if it somehow becomes illegal between declaraction and resolution then it becomes idle. That said, if no legal 2 short skills are available (or wanted) one of them will be idle. (Otherwise what other short skill would be declared if a model is engaged in cc)
No it doesn't. You declare BS Attack, it isn't valid, it becomes an Idle THEN I walk into LOF. You still need to check requirements at declaration (and again at resolution). The declaration can be invalidated at either point.
I think you can declare idle whilst in a foxhole, because your reasoning (can't declare skills with the movement trait) also prevents a trooper in a foxhole from declaring discover, which I don't think is how it is meant to work. The 'no movement' restriction seems to be stopping you from actively moving, rather than locking you out of movement skills. (Hence the dodge exception, allowing you to declare dodge and keep inside your foxhole).
I agree that's probably what was intended. The rule says the Foxhole is a 'fixed position'. But having rules rely on peoples logic is terrible, thus the rule is terrible. To me, this is a great example of the Infinity rules. Foxhole says you can't perform any type of movement. In a good set of rules that statement would indicate a very specific category of skills you can't perform. In this case movement. It would also list any exceptions. Foxhole doesn't do that. Foxhole instead lists some skills you can't do and some you can. If the list of skills you can't perform was complete there frankly wouldn't need to be a list of any skills you can perform. So, the rule does not indicate a category of skills unavailable, it just makes a general statement with examples which is very open to interpretation. Leaving people to debate what is meant by 'any type of movement'. Is it movement on the table top. Or the category of movement skills listed in the rules? The former makes sense but the latter is what a good rule set should be doing. Both are reasonable conclusions. Depending on your interpretation troopers in a Foxhole can or can't Discover. Dodge is allowed.. but can the trooper move 2" as part of a successful dodge? Does the Foxhole state move with them lol? I guess we need to check the cancellation rules for Foxhole. The trooper is not declaring prone, nor performing the short skill move. So they can dodge 2" to the left and still remain in a foxhole? Another tidbit from the rule. Maybe CB doesn't want me Dodging 2" to the left with my foxhole: "Troopers are not allowed to move in the Reactive Turn, only to dodge the Attack)." It's like CB is saying the Dodge skill has two separate components and assuming players know the difference. There's a movement component and a dodge component. So is the above statement simply being redundant by emphasizing you can't use movement skills but the exception is you can use the Dodge skill? I mean they've already given incomplete lists of skills you can and can't perform after all. So I wouldn't put it past them. Or is it trying to separate the two components of a dodge into what part you can and can't do? I have no idea. I have my own interpretation/guess, but it's not enough to tell another player what it should be. Good rule CB /rolleyes. EDIT: The rule even says I can't declare Move... but I can cancel the Foxhole state by declaring the short skill Move. w t f
Yet it's entirely playable. And the actual answers to my question have rapidly told me I'm wrong for not 1 but 2 separate reasons. Foxhole is in fact a perfect example of CB's rules. It works if you apply a degree of common sense, it doesn't if you try to read it extremely closely. Can it be better? Yes. Does it work well enough to have a fun game? Most people on this forum think so.
Yes it does. 'it doesn't allow its user to perform any type of movement' 'but can declare Change Facing or Dodge' That's a category of Skills (those with the Movement label) with a list of exceptions (Change Facing and Dodge). As written, no they can't. This is the bit that needs correcting, as it needs to be added to the list of exceptions. So you just answered your own question? Dodge does have two separate components - avoiding attacks, and allowing Short Movement Skills in the reactive turn.
Many on the forums are accustomed to these cases and their resolution. How many players don't frequent these forums and try to come to grips with the games rules within their own community? I get it, you can wing it with your opponent and get the job done. Interpret a rule as 1+1=X and if your opponent agrees, all's good. I don't call that applying common sense. You know what common sense means to me? A set of rules that doesn't rely on it. How funny is that? At least we both agree it's a perfect example, sadly just for completely opposite reasons.
