I don't think anything's changed with Holomask logic. It goes to idle at step 5 when the owning player says there's private information that causes one or more requirements to fail.
Making that explicit would help those who are new to the rules, as well as prevent argument by obtuse players who miss that logic.
You have put it perfectly. I love the game (and the devs), but the lack of explanations, stated intentions and (sometimes) amount of ambiguity in the rules certainly hurts. Having complex rules is a part of the game, that's fine, but the guys could really do much better FAQs and, in general, wordings. Not that it is that hard, to be honest, and not that the rules are updated that often. Come on, CB, you can do it
I've been saying every now and then that a "tactics book" made by the community needed to be made, with tips & tricks, and playing aids. Explanations of certain rules would need to be included, certainly. Plus a smidge, since the small teardrop is a little more than ZoC (21cm to be precise, vs the 20cm of the ZoC), but for experienced players it won't be much of an aid, since most of the time you can bet that's a mine or not if you are so close. Personally, I think it will have the most impact with weapons for which the first range band is critical (HMG, smoke grenades, pistols...) and hacking.
Right, I was just saying that if the rules achieved a full "there is no Requirements check - you have to meet all requirements in order to declare" (which FAQ 1.1 came close to doing), then the whole "a failed skill becomes an idle" thing would vanish from the rules. So it would just have to be put back in under the Holomask rule. I agree it would be straightforward.
I love FAQ 1.1, for all sorts of reasons. Mines are definitely one of them. It's FAQ 1.1.1 that's confusing. Not necessarily bad, just... it could use some explanation.
The lack of any direct designer commentary, even superficial, at this point is very bad. Deciphering CB intentions on how the game should be played from the start of N4 has been a constant state of consulting a pagan oracle or reading tea leaves. IJW does good work but even he sometimes acts like he is testifying under oath and warcors... Usually local warcors just say its the users fault that they read the rules wrong - even after the latest clusterfaq. It would've been amazing if we ever saw a honest post on how the rules are developed and changed and whether or not CB considers some things as mistakes. Most other companies do that and they tend to be pretty honest "we missed this interaction and it was problematic", "this overperformed and meeds changes" etc. At CB it is radio silence for anything except new models.
As far as I can tell, this is the sequence of events: 1.1 gets released containing the revised order declaration sequence while also containing the “LoF is necessary on declaration, ZoC will be a surprise” statement. 1.1.1 strikes out the “LoF is necessary on declaration, ZoC is a surprise” statement. Because ZoC and LoF are both knowable, enforceable requirements, you get reasonable results if those are both required now. If they aren’t... Well, I’d say there are plenty of threads where people are demonstrating the negative logical conclusions.
I don't come to this forum very often anymore. But I just wanted to say THIS ! Couldn't agree any more. I'm doing a lot of work with my friends and my Youtube channel to promote the game (tutorial, tactical advice, battrep), trying to show it's not as complicated some people say ... this kind of 1.1.1 FAQ feels like taking a nuke in the face as an answer to this work. I'm more and more tempted to let it go and say "yes Infinity is a super elite wargame for some people willing to spend their life rule lawyering" ... after spending so much time trying to prove the opposite that kindda hurts me. EDIT : I understand this is meant to stop Uxia and other MSV smoke thrower to force dodge ARO, but imho the game balance is not worth all the harm this does to the clarity of the game which is much more important to get more people playing (and buying miniatures ... which is CB interest)
It's help but remember the small template is a little larger than the ZC, so still could be problems there. More than help to accidental mine explosions it helps the "active player" to avoid the mine. :D I'am really sorry that you an others feel this way, because I sense the opposite, to me this make the game a lot easier because "a lot of things" really happens in the "same place" not in different "subphases" which in the end are a lot of exceptions to the "general flow of game". You have right to do an ARO, so do it, we will check the requisites later. Don't worry about thinking what will come later. II really think is a clean way to fix a lot of problems and too do the ARO decision more important and simplier. At first N4 in my local meta we understand the expediture order sequence exactly as the new FAQ explains, so, we have a hard time comming back to "N3" way to do thins, and the new FAQ erasing the "old N3 way" is refreshing and a step forwards and not a step backs. Best regards.
@Urobros you still can't declare a BS attack, special skill or equipment that require LoF if you are in total cover. So you still have to check some stuff before the resolution ... But glad some of us are happy with the change.
BS Attack is the only skill banned. (It's "BS Attack with Weapons, Special Skills, or Equipment, that requires LoF.") Preemptive Discover and Place Deployable from behind total cover are still allowed.
oh wow, that was free... XD ok, well some notes, why we did this update: Basically, this change was made to avoid strange situations when declaring AROs. First an ARO was declared and then it was checked if it was allowed to do so. This was undoubtedly an abstraction a bit hard to understand, because first I say I will do something, but I don't know if I have the option to do it. So all those problems of doubts, of whether I can or not do it, are gone. This change has also been made to try to eliminate the ARO BATING, avoiding those annoying speculations that only made the players discuss what was more convenient for each one instead of enjoying the game. Also, to put an end to that tendency of: "I declare ARO with everything, and I take the opportunity to make an ARO with a hidden Deployment and try to win an order for the next turn". Avoid those annoying situations where the assumption of: "I think I am in ZoC and you do not think I am, so I want to declare something and you do not let me, because you really have to presuppose, and when something is a presupposition enter the opinions of each player and not something clear. Basically to avoid situations of: "twisting the rules" to exploit situations that do not help to enjoy the game. When we delete the first question of the faqs, was because that dosent fit with the order sequence. You declare an order/ARO, and then during the resolution is when you check that the declared Skills and pieces of Equipment meet their respective Requirements. Thats why, I think this change doesnt work with the question removed. if not, we should have to move the check requeriments when you declare order/AROs, and that would produce the problems we have on n3.
Thank you very much @HellLois ! Many of us have been struggling to work out some of the the implications of the changes. Would you be able to confirm whether my understanding of the declaration sequence is correct here: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/aro-chart-as-of-faq-1-1-1.39892/ ? It would also be very helpful if you could explain how these two situations work: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-no-lof-preemptive-direct-template.39894/ and https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-fake-template-baits.39893/ @ijw is particularly skilled at answering this sort of question, but he hasn't posted on the forums in a couple of months, so if he isn't available than official answersfrom you (especially if noted as official) would be very helpful.
Funny that @HellLois was writing his post at the same time I was creating my post of appreciation of the new FAQ rules!
Even if I'm happy with the solution provide in this FAQ I think still exists some issues which should be fixed, I started in the "spanish section" a "topic" in order to bring atention over these exact question. I believe some of them are now in other topics created for other users in the english version, so I follow this instead open a new one with the "same wording" I did there. With the new FAQ you can declare in first half order BS attack hidden behind a wall and later, with the second half to move beyond the corner where you truly can trace LoF against your selected targets. A little weird, but is the same as in ARO if you choose to do BS when someone is moving around (no LoF) in his first half, with the hope the enemy will be "dumb" and shows his face around the corner in the second half.
They are gone for the purpose of being in ZoC. The doubt of "Do I have an ARO" are gone (thanks to the measure after move change), but the doubt of whether or not you can do something are now common in every single aro because, because you can presuppose any ARO with their legality that changes after what the first player will do. "I will BS Attack you if you leave the smoke" "I will CC Attack, but it will only be valid if I enter BtB" "I will CC you if you enter BtB" "I will Template you there, and if you leave the smoke, you will be hit" "I will BS Attack, but it will only be valid if I leave the smoke" "I will place down a Mine, but it will only be valid if you enter my LoF" etc. Thanks for clarifying the purpose of the FAQ here, the goal of removing these 2 interactions make sense. (Even if I personally do not see the issue with how they were, and think those problems were blown way out of proportion ) If you forced to meet the requirement, you will have the "problem" or "aro bait" someone in smoke with MSV1, where they can only Declare Dodge (Dodge is their best option in 90% of the cases anyway), but you add the problem of a new kind of "aro bait", where you can Declare illegal shot through smoke and see the opponent's reaction before moving out or not to make your BS Attack valid. The kind of bait I'm describing here is the summit of "twisting the rules". I described some of them in these posts https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-no-lof-preemptive-direct-template.39894/ https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-fake-template-baits.39893/ https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-in-smoke-versus-through-smoke.39920/ https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-cc-bait.39921/#post-408091 https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-look-out-interactions.39922/ - - - - - If we can make sure that issues like these don't exist (with or without preemptive skill declaration), I think the game will be extremely enjoyable.
Thanks to @HellLois for taking the time to answer to some questions here and explaining their intent. I think we all understand and agree with the explanation about the Zone of Control check change. And it's now clear that you don't want the ARO mechanic to work as it worked in N3 ... but I do not understand why ... I have been playing the N3 from the first to the last day and it was fine. Checking the condition when you declare the ARO allows the player to use it to force a Dodge ARO in Zone of Control but it's not a problem in my opinion. You already removed the old "Change Facing" and "Engage" ARO. So now dodge is much stronger. If a trooper use the second move skill to get into close combat there is a chance that the trooper who dodged can move out of combat. What is the problem you had with N3 ARO ? Edit : Also, if your intend is to let people declare any skill as an ARO and check later, does it mean we should be abe to declare a BS attack ARO to a model we can't see just in case we can see it later ?
