Something that cropped up on another site. So far, I've understood that since "everything happens all at once, throughout the whole Order" (which is why we can shoot somebody on the whole path of their Move + Shoot order). Delaying ARO, as far as I understand, delays the declaration of ARO, not the execution of ARO. The ARO still reacts to everything the model does in the entirety of its Order. The only reason for a Delay is to see whether the model drops the camo marker status or not - whether you would need to interact with a marker or a model, because those are two separate sets of interactions. Now, for an example, I'd play it as such: situation #1: My model is being stalked by model A (no camo) and model B (camo marker state), they both come around a corner in a coordinated order of whatever kind (Command Token, G: Synchronized, etc). I declare Delay ARO because of the camo marker. Both models declare Shoot, model B dropping the marker state. I can now declare ARO towards both models because the other model's status has changed. situation #2: My model is being stalked by model A (no camo) and model B (camo marker state), they both come around a corner in a coordinated order of whatever kind (Command Token, G: Synchronized, etc). I declare Delay ARO because of the camo marker. Model A declares Shoot, model B walks away behind anotehr corner with Move, without dropping the marker state. I can now only declare ARO towards model A, because the other model's status has not changed. Some people are claiming that should I Delay ARO towards model B, I forfeit ARO towards model A. I see no reason for that, the Order has not finished, I'm just waiting for the whole sequence to end to see if the model B unveils and allows me to interact with it. This means Delay ARO is just a check for how limited the pool of ARO interactions with the Order sequence are - just the visible models, or maybe models which drop their marker states as well. This does not preclude interaction with the non-marker state models, which have been available for interaction all the time. Last bullet point on Camo cancellation clauses:
CB has greatly screwed up in terms of consistency as to whether delay is an ARO. I'm pretty sure most people used delay to describe not declaring an ARO against a camo marker, but now delaying can reveal hidden troops so it's definitely an action. Delay should be removed from the game in N4, instead any model entitled to an ARO should be able to declare invalid AROs, performing them if they become legal at the resolution step. This would also fix a bunch of ridiculous interactions around smoke and stealth.
Explain, please? There's no "Delay ARO" action on the Wiki. There's only: If, by declaring the second Short Skill of its Order, the active trooper gives ARO to enemy troopers that did not have ARO against the first Short Skill, then those enemy troopers can declare their AROs. and "delay ARO" as a naming convention comes from the FAQ description of: N3 Frequently Asked Question FAQ Version: 1.2 Q: Is it obligatory to declare that the ARO is delayed when waiting for the second Skill when a troop in Camouflage or Impersonation State is activated? A: Yes, it is obligatory. Related Pages: Structure of an Order, ARO: Automatic Reaction Order, Camouflage, Camouflaged, TO Camouflaged, Impersonation-1, Impersonation-2
See above, there's still not a "delay ARO" action. This quote is just a "what if a non-model, non-marker unit wants to ARO? It has to become at least a marker to do that" edge case clause. Otherwise if you delayed and declared Shoot, where do you measure from? How do you check Line of Sight? Where do you place the actual model? You need to have that specified beforehand. This is just a workaround for the limitations of models, silhouettes and Hidden Deployment. There are some unsolved issues like that in the game, e.g. enemy models walking over my TO camo Hidden Deployed model :D
Also, I think the idea that "delay ARO" is an action incorrectly stems from the naming convention people online and playing have assumed for the ease of use, such as "I Delay ARO" or "I declare Delay ARO". Even I've used it as such above, out of convenience. The rules themselves however talk about delaying ARO as something a player does, not a model does (a tactical choice, not an in-game Action). See: If it were an action, the paragraph would read "Is it obligatory to declare Delay ARO when waiting for the second Skill [...]".
Please see the example for Coordinating Camo and non-Camo troopers: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Coord...d_Order_example:_Coordinating_Marker_troopers
Do you mean this? I'm not certain how this applies, please explain? What exact part of this interaction do you mean? It seems the choice of a single model for reaction is forced, why?
It's a bit convoluted, but I think it comes down to this: The Reactive Player must declare AROs for all eligible troopers immediately after the Active Player declares his Entire Order or the first Short Skill of his Order (see: Order Expenditure Sequence). Troopers that fail to do so lose their ARO against that Order. If, by declaring the second Short Skill of its Order, the active trooper gives ARO to enemy troopers that did not have ARO against the first Short Skill, then those enemy troopers can declare their AROs. So if both come around the corner with their first short skill (move), you can either ARO against the visible target or choose to delay against the camo marker. If you ARO against the visible target, you forfeit your reaction to the camo marker (you have already declared your ARO). If you choose to react against the camo marker, you have, at this point, failed to declare your ARO against the first short skill of the visible target (see paragraph above). You can then delay your ARO to the camo marker, as this is a special provision for AROs against markers or targets that were not visible after their first short skill. What I find confusing is that the rules specifically refer to "losing their ARO against that Order" and not "losing their ARO agianst that target", so RAW it looks like you have to attack the visible target or lose your ARO against a Coordinated Order altogether (it is, after all, a single order). I believe these rules have not been written with coordinated orders/synchronized models in mind.
Because the text says that you have to. And, as Knauf says, against the non-Camo Troopers you have chosen not to declare an ARO when available, so you have lost the chance to declare an ARO against them.
I can't see any rule that says I have to? That's just an example without any rule that says the same thing. Why are you treating examples derived from no rules as rules themselves. Who does that? O_o
Yes, specifically the rules state that you lose ARO vs an Order, not a model / target. A Coordinated / Synchronized Order is executed by several models / targets at once and should be treated as a whole. Therefore, the presence of a Camo marker should add options instead of taking them away from you. After all, the provision for ARO vs Camo marker is an added option to delay your ARO to see if it unmasks. Otherwise we're getting into exactly those kinds of ridiculous loopholes.
I mean it's fairly plausible that you wouldn't wait for an invisible presence to maybe pop up when there is a guy with a gun taking aim at you, so I don't mind the RAW scenario that much. The way it is described in the example is already very accomodating for the defending player, as he at least gets to make a choice. In practice, delaying would be a wasted ARO in most cases, but if you really need to shoot that camo troop because it is certain to reveal itself, you can do that. N4 will hopefully make things easier to follow ;)
Well, per RAW everything happens at the same time, but not really, because all ARO happen until the end of first short Order, but if the ARO target is a camo, ARO happens throughout both short orders / entire order. So, I have only the first half of the time it takes for the enemies to do two actions, but if the target is a Camo, then I have all the time, but only against that target, but I just can't react to 2nd halves of orders of normal non-marker state models. Because reasons. This is extremely convoluted and I have little faith CB will manage to straighten these kinds of BS out in N4 :(
I think you're conflating execution (performed simultaneously, other than movement) and declaration (follows a strict sequence). AROs are executed 'throughout both short orders / entire order' but they definitely aren't declared 'throughout both short orders / entire order'. Let's look at it another way, going back to the example of two TO markers and an Orc. The first Short Skill of the Order is declared, Move. The Raicho has a chance to declare an ARO. If they choose to delay against one of the markers, they have failed to declare an ARO against the Orc, so lose their chance to declare an ARO against the Orc. The second Short Skill of the Order is declared. If the Raicho delayed, they can't declare an ARO against the Orc, as per point 2.
