Yes, you're wrong. In the original N4 rules, you were permitted to declare an ARO even if it was clear that it would be invalid. The ARO would still succeed if you got a valid ARO later in the order (for example, if the active trooper moved into LoF or ZoC with its second short skill). There was a very extensive discussion of this, here and everywhere else, a few months ago when some people realized that this meant a hidden deployment trooper could leave hidden deployment by declaring an invalid ARO. So it's very old ground at this point. It's also out of date as of FAQ 1.1. But you asked about the original N4 rules.
We have different rulebooks? My says that only "eligible" models "must" declare aro. Who are eligible models? Its prety obvious, those who can declare a valid aro. And "must" applies only to timing of ARO declaration. Otherwise why was needed to "check LoF" before declaration of ARO? Another point: "Troopers that did not have ARO against first Short Skill" Note "did not have", then you are saing that every model always have aro. Don't underestimate the fresh look. P.S. And looking at FAQ 1.1.1 its clear that this reading of original rules is closer to how it was originally intended.
Read for yourself, again it's just commentary on the 1.1 and 1.1.1 FAQs not a ruling. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/a-dire-need-for-patch-notes.39885/page-2#post-408072
Thx for the link. HellLois there said exactly what I have been saying here for two pages... Step 2.1 - you check if you have aro; Step 2.2 - you declare aro; Step 5 - you check requrements of declared aro. In original N4 steps 2.1 and 2.2 were combined in just "step 2"... And now I have only one question.... HOW?!? How could the prety obvious text in rule book be read that way!?... Cry from the heart. No need to answer that...
I think you missed this part "When we delete the first question of the faqs, was because that dosent fit with the order sequence." He then comments on how he thinks the order sequence should work: "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." Which means the check for Total Cover, same as the removed FAQ question, should in his oppinion be during step 5, not step 2. He then comments on the resulting problem: "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."
Dude. If you're that interested in how the rules used to work, go back and read the very extensive existing threads on the subject. And then if you still think you know better than everyone in those threads, including ijw, I guess you could post in those threads to see if anyone wants to debate it with you. I'm super not going to debate it with you here. It's all been done already.
You are talking about cheking declared aro reqirements, they were in step 5 in original and now they are there too. Its ok. But I'm talking here abuot checking if you have any aro at all. And it always was in step 2. That missundestanding in the rues lead to that HellLois called "strange situations":
An attempt at banal pressure by authority does not do you credit. Here is the text of the rules with which you argue, not with me.
No I'm talking about i.e. Trooper A activating in ZOC with Total Cover. If you have no ARO against the first Short Skill there is no problem to begin with. Trooper B has an ARO and declares BS Attack in case Trooper A uses his second Short Skill to move into LOF. RAW Not possible, at declaration you're blocked by Total Cover. Going by Hellois post according to FAQ intent Should be legal since everything should be checked during step 5, that includes including LOF validity. However that opens multiple cans of worms. Not that easy either way.
Understood. And I dont have any objections here. The dispute begun with QueensGambit trying to prove me that every reactive trooper on a table can declare any ARO even if its clear that there are no LoF, ZoC, or other valid ARO giving possibilities. That what I can't agree with.
Before 1.1, you could declare a ZoC with any trooper on the table. You could not measure ZoC, so there was no way to know if a trooper was inside or outside of ZoC after the active player spent an order on one of their trooper.
Interesting... But if concider that any trooper on a table always get an ARO after declaring first skill, then according to the: "The Reactive Player must declare AROs for all eligible Models or Markers immediately after the Active Player declares his Entire Order or the first Short Skill of his Order (see: Order Expenditure Sequence, page 21). Troopers that fail to do so lose their ARO against that Order" reactive troopers can never get ARO for the second skill declared. And who are "eligible models" and "Troopers that did not have ARO against the first Short Skill" in this case? This way was bringing too many paradoxes.
You would check at the resolution if your trooper was eligible for a declaration and if they declared them at the right timing, otherwise it would revert to an idle. You'd have to guess if you were eligible, whereas now you know if you're eligible.
Yup. And FAQ just allowed ZoC check. And if you think about it FAQ inherently dont change rules, it explains them. Which hints to us that this is how it should have been played from the very beginning. But admitting delusions is sometimes so difficult.
The ARO changes are under the "Errata" section, showing these are deliberate changes, which one of the rules team has confirmed. I'd prefer if you didn't launch into personal attacks on people that disagree with you, thankyou.
Declare and then check were you allowed to do it that or not.... and you were not confused by the huge number of inconsistencies? Thats really "strange situations" (с) HellLois What a blessing that this is in the past.
