I fear we're overcomplicating a lot interpreting this faq. I think it's much more simpler by interpreting the changes from an "all-at-once" point of view (and using the difference between "declare" and "perform), without adding options or overinterpretations. In this case the rules are much more easier to apply: - You can Move + BS/CC attack (choosing the point of fire along the way) - Specularly you can BS/CC attack + Move (choosing the point of fire along the way) The only exception is on DTW (see the "declare" point that was moved from the total cover paragraph to the weapon template one), but it's something that was already existing in the rules, just moved somewhere else. And... well, that's it. It doesn't change the interpretation of the Aro/aro-bait mechanics, the rules stay the same. It only changes the scope of feasibility. I fear we're trying to implicitly add new mechanics to justify the rule interation proposed in this new FAQ, but no, really. The part added in the BS attack (the "you can fire from a LoF") I think it's just a clarification of an already commonly used interation: you cannot move+bs attack and declare the shot from a position without LoF, to abuse the weapon's rangeband (a clarification that I never felt necessary, but I can see a malicious player could try to leverage the missing wording). That's my personal opinion, btw. Peace!
I've played a number of games since the FAQ launched with the new BS Attack bait, which renders templates ineffective, and I can say with some confidence that you almost definitely don't want this in the game. It is not difficult to pull off, it is not rare, it is not intuitive, it is not fun, and it further escalates the active turn to absurd levels. Very frequently I've been using squishy models such as Fidays to push into enemy deployment zones on turn 1. My testing is obviously very limited at the moment but this takes them to absurd levels. In one game I was able to completely ignore my opponent's Kuang Shi defence and effortlessly remove them, just because of the BS Attack bait. It wasn't even hard to set up or niche. Literally made those cornerguards pointless. I've found that most people set up many troops prone with few hard AROs such as snipers, because my active turn pieces (Asawira, Knauf), are so powerful that it's suicide to leave up AROs. Instead they try to use templates to cover their deployment zone. Now I can rob the reactive player of most of their agency and just ignore the templates. It is not fulfilling gameplay. This came up frequently. Any kind of skirmisher or warband in the midboard with a chain rifle or shotgun was left to rely on their pistol or hit mode instead of blast mode. It was therefore very easy for me to push around my big, powerful heavy infantry and be at nearly 0 risk from AROs because I knew they weren't going to win a face-to-face, let alone two (two wounds on my heavy). Here's the problem with the current game context and this rule: the active turn is extremely strong with many threats that you can't ARO efficiently, such as powerful TAGs. Due to this people tend to lean on templates, because they guarantee some hits. This FAQ removes one of the last remaining potent ARO threats. So not only is it counterintuitive and strange from a rules perspective, it's also extremely problematic from a game sense. The reactive turn is struggling, it didn't need this blow. Please, please fix this. I need to be absolutely clear that this dramatically, dramatically, weakens the reactive turn in terms of impact.
Spare a thought for Starmada and other factions with units packing non lethal DTWs to try and stop bigger rambo pieces from running them over as well. Or you know, Flamethrowers, which tend to scare the shit out of everyone smaller than a TAG.
I dislike these changes for how much farther from an intuitive understanding of how table top games work it takes the game, and I dislike it for not thoroughly explaining whether you enter a contract to actually move to the indicated position or not. That said, I am not going to spare a thought for Starmada or any other faction perceived to be affected by this in some sort of knee-jerk reaction to the tune of "oh no the game is changing and I hate it". If this moves the game in a direction where more unit types can participate and dirt cheap hobos with a reverse vacuum cleaner stops being the optimal defence choice, I'm all for it as long as they can iron out the sequencing jank. So the question I asked was who are affected by this. Add to that "and is it actually bad they are affected by it?" The meme "Wargamers only hate two things; change and the way things are right now" spring to mind
I still just hope this is a massive misunderstanding and we cannot declare BS from somewhere we intend to be in case of BS->Move. There is no precedence for this, why on earth would you be able to declare shot from somewhere you haven't been. What if you don't even declare move later? What if you move in opposite direction? I know, you didn't meet requirements and you idle but come on this is bullshit, what sane person would assume this interaction is intended?
Ok, ok, bear with me for a moment: Wasn't the entire thing, about being able to declare BS attack before checking for requirements, there to make ARO baiting go away? Now we got another FAQ and ARO baiting is still a thing because now Direct Template weapons are useless against ARO baiting. WTF? We've made a full circle. This is ridiculous. Who tests these rules before they go live? ARO baiting is integral part of the game and was there forever, but if it's really such a sour spot, maybe just allow to withheld ZOC ARO until second declaration, similar to how it works against CAMO. If you hold then you loose the ARO if enemy Trooper won't come into LOF. Bomb the entire checking for requirements at resolution to orbit. Keep it simple. Keep it coherent.
Imho you are miss reading the rule as written, and obviously twisting the intention if you think it changes anything for direct template weapon in ARO. ________________ There is only one direct template placement condition, which is to be in base contact with the trooper that shoot it and not go though it. https://infinitythewiki.com/Direct_Template_Weapons According to the FAQ p2, this condition should be met when placing the template. And the FAQ goes on and gives an exemple of it. "For example, a Direct Teardrop Template must be place d so that it is in contact along the Trooper's (NDT : the active trooper I guess) movement path, and not from a point they haven't reached yet." ==> that's clearly a declaration of the author intention. https://downloads.corvusbelli.com/infinity/faq/n4-faq-en-v1-2.pdf And last but not least, the template weapon general rule says : "If the Main Target is outside the Area of Effect of the Template Weapon or Equipment, the BS Attack is automatically considered a failure and no Game Element will be affected by the Template." https://infinitythewiki.com/Template_Weapons_and_Equipment To me that is something that is checked during resolution. It's not a placement condition. ___________________ Conclusion : the reactive trooper can declare a preventive shoot with a template weapon without seeing the target. This will be cancelled if it can't hit the target during resolution step. __________________ Not saying the rule is 100% clear, that's a satisfying way of understanding it. It's the way me and my friends are going to play and the way i'm going to enforce it in tournaments. And imho it's clearly the writter intention.
More the point I was making to your question of "who's being kept in check by this" is it isn't just one wound infantry, it's everyone given the full spectrum of targets that various DTWs threaten. The changes just take a shit on DTWs in general and make them un-intuitive and for some units near non functional.
I've seen this interpretation before. But then what does this mean: "The Template must be placed when declaring the Attack in order to determine if the Main Target is inside in the Area of Effect and which Troopers and Game Elements (Markers, Deployable weapons or Equipment…) will be affected by the Attack" To me that reads like a placement requirement. Something that needs to be achieved immediately. The target must be in the AOE straight away. Some people read it as being at resolution. How do we know which it is?
I need to point out that, any reader of this thread is not in each posters mind and probably does not experience the same meta each poster has, likewise while there is a variety of player levels, experience and opinions, it does not mean ones opinion if superior to the others. What I have to say is to provide feedback you need to make out a case, with examples, outlining what are the perceived issues in more detail than "I do not like it" and maybe a solution other than "I do not like it take it back", preferably in a calm and constructive manner, ideally polite too. It also helps identifying what the perceived issue the change tries to solve is and suggest something as an alternative. I would like to thank posters who tried to make their case and were polite.
So what? If it's everyone then no one is adversely affected because everyone is equally affected. If it is strictly just affecting an auto-hit style weapon that's being used to prevent close range game play, then perhaps that's for the better. There's not a lot of thought being put into what this actually means for everyone else. All the criticism seems to be focused on how change is bad and not what about the change is bad or how good or bad it is. It's hilariously predictable. "Oh no, I can no longer use my absolutely cheapest troops to punish an expensive Reverend Moira that's managed to get to my side of the table from doing anything productive there to punish my lack of proper guards!" Good. "Oh no, I can no longer place warbands to lock down all approaches to mid field objectives without regard for their expensive hit modifiers" Good. "Oh no, I can no longer use my DTWs to punish my opponent for grouping up" Yeah, you can, nothing prevents you from using it actively in the manner you've done for years. "Oh no, my TAG can no longer get its one shot at guarding against a Nourkias rushing around a corner into melee" Okay, so you've got a point here. Get it? Nuance. Not everything new about this is necessarily bad.
I mean they just fixed Antipodes and Puppetbots. Just deploy them to eat enemy orders. Active turn is supposed to be effective.
Whether or not one thinks that DTWs ought to be nerfed in ARO, surely the way to do it isn't by creating an unintuitive ZoC baiting maneuver. I mean, a degree of ARO baiting is an inevitable result of the ARO system, but in the past it's been limited to fairly rare cases. Moreover, I can't imagine that the FAQ writers intended to stop DTWs from working in ARO, whether to rebalance them of for any other reason. It seems much more likely that they intended that you can't declare a BS attack from a point you don't yet occupy. Or, maybe even more likely, the possibility didn't occur to them at all, and now that it's been pointed out, their reaction will be "oh dear, no we certainly didn't mean for you to be able to declare a BS attack from a point you don't yet occupy." We know that @HellLois is watching the thread, so hopefully we'll know soon one way or the other.
This. This indeed appears to be how it’s meant to work. Myself and my gaming group have been looking over the FAQ and came to this conclusion. It’s ironically how we’ve been playing it at Kyrell gaming (according to Jon). My auxbot (using these rules in aro) managed to dodge around a corner then heavy flamethrower a haris of veteran kazak and line Kazaks… they all burned to a crisp. If it affects everyone adversely then it’s absolutely fair. I also like the inference here that players will now have to think more about their deployment and tactics during the game.
Speaking as someone who plays a brute force sectorial that has a distinct lack of DTWs, it's one of the tools that people use to stop me from ramming a 15+ order core link down their face on turn one. This is definitely not a case of everyone is affected the same. As other people have pointed out the active vs reactive turn is already extremely pushed in favour of the active player with fireteam/massive alpha strike power creep. DTWs are one of the equalisers in this scenario. A big reason there's been a big shift for alot of factions/players favouring a tucked in deployment is not so much DTWs are overpowered but it's just there's really not much you can do about some of these ridiculous alpha strike pieces yelling BRRRRT and face rolling hard AROs off the table with potentially over 10 orders in their combat group. I also very much agree with other people that effectiveness of DTWs are not the problem that plague elite 1W units from being good it's there's just too fucking many of them in the game. The fault fully lies on CB from making them spammable to the point of omni presence. There shouldn't be random chain colts and nano pulsers on every man and his dog. We shouldn't be encouraged to run shit like 4 Kuang Shi and a bunch of Monks. DTWs should not have propogated to shotguns. That N4 change was cancer. It's just situation of scissor paper rock and CB decided to put a fuckload of scissors in the game for no good reason and naturally paper is having a rough time of it. There was a time when profiles like the 1 Wu Ming with the Chain Rifle was functionally a specialised fireteam member you included to perform a very distinct role. Now you have shit like this very real fireteam comp that I use regularly: 5 1 SHÀNG JÍ (Tactical Awareness) AP Heavy Machine Gun, Chain-colt ( | TinBot: Firewall [-6]) / Pistol, Shock CC Weapon. (1.5 | 49) LÉI GŌNG Shock Marksman Rifle, Nanopulser, Blitzen / Breaker Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 34) KOKRAM FTO MULTI Rifle(+1 Dam), Chain-colt, D-Charges / Heavy Pistol(+1B), CC Weapon. (0 | 36) HǍIDÀO (Hacker, Killer Hacking Device) Boarding Shotgun ( ) / Breaker Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 24) ZHANSHI (Paramedic) Combi Rifle ( | MediKit) / Pistol, CC Weapon. (0 | 13) 4/5 of these fuckwits are packing a DTW, none of them are taken as a specialised close range role like the Wu Ming Chain Rifle profiled was designed to be. At the end of the day it's a power creep issue with N4. The better units/fireteams in the game are frequently stepping outside of design spaces and covering multiple roles with greater ease and efficiency. Trying to claim this FAQ is a fix for the game is just badly patching up a core issue with the game that has been long overdue for a full overhaul.
Apologies here but I thought this change was in late N3? Or is my brain confused and I’m remembering things from a different timeline/universe again? Don’t laugh, it’s a Monday. No one’s brain works right on a Monday.
In N3 they were impact templates on shotguns that used to be fired at range in N3 like a circular template. In N4 they changed to just behave like a Chain Colt DTW.
Ah yes, so they did. Sorry, sometimes my mind plays tricks and then the past becomes the future and the future becomes the past and in the present I just get a headache.
