Intent debate is not necessary for this thread. Any means of verifying LoF is acceptable so long as both players agree to it.
Any thoughts on whether step 5 of the order declaration is the (badly worded) solution to this? You have to check LoF when you declare ARO initially (step 2) to make sure that ARO is even legal to be declared. That seems to be the point of checking LoF specifically... just to confirm that it is technically possible to, say, hit the target at SOMEWHERE along route/during their order. Then the 2nd skill is declared (step 3), then any new ARO opportunities that present themselves are declared (step 4). Then step 5 is: 5. ARO Check: Check that each Trooper that declared an ARO has been in one of the situations that makes their ARO declaration valid. If they have not, they are considered to have declared an Idle. I know it's worded strangely, but what would be the point having step 5 if not to give troops a chance to figure out exactly where they want to to take their 'shot'? If the AROs were already valid at the time of declaration in steps 2 and 4, how could they be rendered invalid by checking it again - and what else exactly would you be checking that is different from Step 6 Resolution, since that's when you measure and etc.? It just seems like a badly phrased way of saying (possibly due to translation) "check AROs again and figure out where/when they happen"
Not all skills have LOF as a requirement. Oblivion, for instance, requires the target to be Hackable or a Hacker and it is at step 5 that this is checked.
BTW, related topic (and still being discussed, so not really solved anyway) https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...-are-line-of-fire-requirements-checked.38309/ No, declarations are not at the same time, but clearly one by one: first short skill (or full order), followed by AROs to that, and then maybe second short skill (because it was not full as first), followed by AROs to that second skill, 4 steps. If they were all at once, it would be some kind of negotiation, with changes until both parties agree about all the 4 things (not steps). Resolution is all at once, making shooting be FtF even if the fire to/from locations are not the same. Sincerilly, the "all at once" should be rephrased and clarified, because after years, I keep seeing the same confusion. In N4 the text is before the order steps (wtf), not after, which does not help. Declaration is sequential, and then all what was said is mashed up into some kind of quantum time instant. I say mashed up because things can change or be useless, and of course the weirdness of being shot at one end of movement when you shot full burst at the other end still being considered a FtF. Step 6 is the "all at once" IMHO (and ignoring it's also linear: 6, 6.1, 6.2). You declared ARO (in steps 2 or 4) of something thing that requires being in ZoC but not LoF, then in step 5 you check the distance is correct, if that fails, ARO becomes Idle. Then continue to step 6 with what applies, declared or Idle. Yes, it is redundant, step 6 repeats the Idle thing. Step 5 could be dropped, or step 6 trimmed. IMO translation does not alter things about steps 5 & 6, so it's as bad or as good drafted in both languages.
My take is that if model B can LOF to model A when A declares a move then an ARO of shoot is valid. Then when A breaks cover during the resolution the shot is taken at any point in the move. If B has no LOF at declaration then no shoot ARO can be declared.
That's not the Scenario, this is: 1. Alice declares BS Attack at Bob from a position in Cover. 2. Bob declares BS Attack at Alice from a position in Cover. 3. Alice Moves into the open. 4. No additional AROs. 5. Bob's ARO was valid. 6. Does Alice get Cover? A. Yes, because the location of the target is a detail of the BS Attack and needed to be specified by Bob at Step 2 and at that time the only valid position was in Cover. B. No, because... Why do you think it's B?
Film-wise, Alice is in a corner, shots and gets shot by Bob in wild exchange of fire, and then runs to the other side of the street (maybe cover again, maybe hidden in the end, but going without cover in the middle of the street... Bob was a bit scared by then in any case). Specifically, how "B. No, because..." taking into account "All details and choices" in: P21All details and choices related to the execution of a Short Skill, Short Movement Skill, Entire Order Skill or ARO must be specified when it is declared. For instance, if you declare a movement, specify the entire route; if you declare a BS Attack, specify which Weapon will be used, who the targets are, where the Trooper shoots from, how the Burst is divided, etc. Even if there is no "where the target is when being shot", there is "etc" (burst vs anti-materiel mode of weapon, eg) and there is no "except target position". There is zero "except" to be precise. If CB drops by and says "target location is an exception" and later puts that in errata/new PDF, fine. But so far, "all" and "etc". Maybe we are going in circles since Thursday. And crossing threads.
You just explained the argument for answer A not the one for answer B [emoji14] Edit: I misread, that was you intent. Then yeah, that's how I read it as well. I don't know how to justify B except by "that's how it worked in N3".
Right, it was a request of the text(s) that contradict(s) what we pasted over the last days. Which rule(s) declare the exception(s)?
The problem with your last paragraph is that the third IMPORTANT box on p.21 also exists: Emphasis mine. This runs into the same issue of declaration sequence and when information becomes "set" into the game state, because it's really really weird to declare BS Attack first, and as part of that declaration say "I'm going to shoot from over here where my model currently isn't (yet), what's your ARO?" and then afterward declare Move for the second short skill to retroactively make it possible to declare fire from a location you didn't occupy yet at the time the attack was declared. It creates a question of whether it's permissible at all to declare BS Attack from somewhere your model hasn't been declared to exist yet. That would create a situation where you declare BS Attack while behind a wall within the enemy's ZoC using your first skill, claim you'll shoot from around the corner after you pop out, then your opponent has to declare an ARO...but we know they won't be able to legally declare BS Attack ARO, because they don't have LoF to you when you declared, and the fact you're in ZoC means they lose the ARO entirely if they don't declare it now, so you effectively force them to Dodge. If, at that point, you realize that your intended pop-out path could put you in ZoC of an enemy hacker you didn't see before, granting them a new ZoC ARO after your second short skill. So to avoid that, you decide not to declare Move around the corner for your second short skill, and instead you Move *away* entirely, never entering the hacker's ZoC or the first trooper's LoF. At that point you've failed to fulfill your stated declaration from the first short skill, so you end up doing Idle > Move, your opponent's gunfighter gets a Dodge I guess, and everyone's cross, plus now we have solo models without Stealth doing BS Attack ARO baiting from around blind corners. If you and your opponent weren't on the forums and had no way of knowing that your opponent's gunfighting ARO troop had to Dodge instead of BS Attack, then it's the same weird end result except they BS Attack (Idle) instead of Dodging with their ARO. Functionally, "BS Attack from somewhere I will Move with my next short skill" is roughly equivalent to declaring both short skills at once and then asking your opponent what AROs they want to use against you, and at that point the turn structure as written in the book makes no dang sense whatsoever.
FWIW my N4 preference is that BS Attack ARO target position is locked in at the point of declaration, because it gives a reason to shoot from cover with your first short skill and then dart to full (or useful) cover with the second, or even declare Dodge with your first skill while in partial cover and then Move to full cover. It feels really cinematic to pop up from behind a barrier, fire off a barrage to throw off your enemy, then dart out across an alleyway in the confusion. I've always wondered what the tactical point of declaring BS Attack before Move is, if your enemy can just ARO you while you're in the open anyway. The only downside I can see (and it's a big one) is that it makes the active turn even more effective by giving the active player that much more control over what ARO options the reactive player can use, but the cinematic aspect of the game is such a big draw for me that I'm ok with that trade-off.
Yes, I'm aware of this paradox of declaration - I'd considered that as a counterpoint to my own impression of the rules intent. BUT I also figured that declaring a BS Attack as your first short skill without valid LoF (even if you planned the second action to be a move into position) would immediately invalidate it at the point of declaration (since LoF does need to be proved immediately) - so you can't declare a BS attack before you have a valid target... nor would they be able to declare ARO since they can't see you yet. I think the issue comes down to the way the game played with the temporal execution of an Order being kind-of wonky. What is the temporal logic, for example, behind declaring a move action from a point where the opponent gets an ARO, waiting to see what they choose to do, and then retroactively firing from the starting position rather than the end position of your move? Why not allow the game to resolve skills in the order they're declared? It doesn't really make any sense - rather the first-skill, ARO, second-skill, ARO is just a form of trying to balance the unbroken flow of the simulated combat into 'turns' to keep one player from getting the inordinate advantage of being able to wait for an opponent to choose to do all their actions and then intentionally choose something after the fact that disadvantages the opponent's choice. Some of that (mind games, riffing off of another player's choice) is still part of the game, but I think that version A gives the active player too much of an edge in getting to read the reactive player's moves and then decide what they are going to do, especially since the reactive player (somewhat arbitrarily, per the rules) does not have the choice to delay their ARO and see what the active player will do. Method A allows the active player to use information about the reactive player's action (which is in theory simultaneous) to gain too much advantage. Method B may frustrate the Active Player's intended plans, but it does not disadvantage them, nor advantage the reactive player, because the active player knows full well when they choose to move away from cover what the result will be, having already received the BS Attack ARO declaration as a means of making their decision. It's not exactly a textual defense of B, but the vast majority of the 'simultaneous' action stuff makes much less sense to me if A is the way it's meant to be. I would personally hazard to guess that the designer intent for the combat sequence was that the 'declaration' step is just to establish the baseline legality of the actions being taken and the specifics of things like weapon choice is to prevent players from changing their choices based on what the opponent declared in a way that would be like 'mind reading'. If you have LoF when you make an ARO declaration of a BS Attack, then you can be confident that regardless of what else the opposing figure does, you can carry out your BS Attack at some point during its order regardless of what skill(s) the active player chooses - then the actual positioning and measurement happens during resolution. Again, it's not textual, but I can't imagine why CB would have gone to the trouble to create all the mechanisms for simultaneous action if it could be manipulated via method A.
To be honest, I think the downside of putting more power in the court of the active player is very small. It's a very niche situation that can't often be exploited. More important I think is that it removes the false sense of agency from the reactive player. Being a game that kind of feeling is important for the enjoyment
I agree that I think this is a big-ish bonus to the active player - I had the same thought in my own previous post (which I posted without seeing yours just before it). Ultimately I think there are various ways to rationalize one or the other narratively. For example, I could take your description and use it as an argument for my preferred way of playing it thusly: if you shoot from cover as your first short skill and then dart to full cover, but every action is "simultaneous" this represents you spraying gunfire whilst running back from cover, which is a risk because you are running before checking to see if you've suppressed the enemy and can't really guarantee that it effectively deters the reactive player. As such you've got to depend on winning the BS Attack face-to-face roll. If you shoot and the reactive player dodges rather than shoot back, you know you can move safely, but the reactive player is definitely more incentivized to dodge now if they KNOW you will get cover no matter what. The safest course of action is (if you don't get cover just because you started there) to spend a whole order with a BS Attack and hope to win the face-to-face, at which point the opponent maybe fails their Guts and falls back, and then you use another order to double-move or whatever you were going to do. I personally think that if there's no difference (e.g. no penalty) for shooting and moving out of cover in the same order vs shooting first from guaranteed cover and moving in the next order (or something along those lines), then 'conservative' play is actually no safer than a hasty play for the active player. You'll also end up with a lot less instances of sticking to cover for the active player, way more mobility, and less ability for a reactive player to 'pin down' an active player in position.
N4 question: Fusilier declares move, a nearby hulang reacts in ARO by making a dodge that moves him into an engaged state. Is it allowed for the fusilier to declare move as a 2nd short skill or not? What happens if the fusillier declares move+move regardless of any AROS at the start of his order. (In this particular example, the fusilier had to go to a console and had one last available order to be able to make a draw)
That is not the right sequence. The right One is: Fusilier declares move and move Up to 10cm Hulang declares Dodge Fusilier declares second half, if he declares move then he moves again Up to 10 cm. Now the hulang roll a dice to Dodge, if suscecfull he moves. Check this: https://infinitythewiki.com/Trooper_Activation#Order_Expenditure_Sequence
