Please clarify one point for me. Trooper A is activated and moving inside ZVZ. Trooper B could have LOF if there was no ZVZ. Can Trooper B declare any ARO?
ZVZ being zero visibility zone, I assume? That depends on some other factors. Do you have a more specific situation in mind?
Yep - zero visibility zone. Just simpliest situation: Trooper A is moving totaly inside ZVZ. Trooper B (no msv), is too far to have ZoC, and his LoF to A is blocked only with ZVZ. Can Trooper B declare any ARO?
I believe you can declare any ARO irrespective of circumstances, but it will be deemed invalid during step 5 of the order expenditure sequence if the conditions for said ARO were not met. So in this example, trooper B can declare "BS attack", but during step 5 of the OES you will find out that they did not have LoF, so "BS attack" turns into "Idle"
Then there will be no one ever left to declare ARO in phase 4. Because everyone who could(you say everyone can) but did not do this in phase 2 loses ARO.
No. (edit: added the correct list based on FAQ) A Reactive Trooper is allowed to declare ARO in the following situations: An enemy Trooper activates within its Line of Fire (LoF). An enemy Trooper activates within its Zone of Control (ZoC) or Hacking Area. It has a Special Skill, weapon, or piece of Equipment that specifies that the Trooper can react to enemy actions without LoF or ZoC. It is affected by a Template Weapon, or is the target of a Hacking Program or other Comms Attack. Unless in your example the enemy is within ZoC or within your hacking area (if you're a hacker), then you would not have an opportunity to declare an ARO.
It's hard to keep track of since it changed a few times via FAQs. However, under the current FAQ I believe the B cannot declare an ARO in this situation. - First you check if B can declare an ARO. He can declare an ARO if the active trooper acts in his LoF or his ZoC. - If B can declare an ARO, then he can declare an invalid ARO which will convert to Idle unless A's second short skill makes it valid. - However, if B can't declare an ARO at all, then he can't declare an invalid one either. Consequently, he won't have lost his opportunity to ARO if A's second short skill gives him an ARO. So in the given scenario, B has no ARO. However, if A gives B an ARO with his second short skill, then at that point, B can declare an ARO. For example, if A attacks B through the ZVZ, B can then declare a BS Attack back. On the other hand, if A's first short skill had been inside B's ZoC, then B would have had the ability to declare an ARO, and consequently would have had to declare or lose his ARO. That's where he might declare an invalid ARO (such as BS Attack) which might become valid depending on A's second short skill. Edit: Ninja'd. (Fidayed?) Bokhtared.
Not trying to be confrontational here, but that's not what it says: ARO: Automatic Reaction Order In Infinity games, thanks to the Automatic Reaction Order (ARO) mechanic, the action and decision-making never stops. Even during their opponent's Active Turn, a player’s Models and Markers can react each time the opponent activates one of his Troopers with an Order. The ARO declarations of the Reactive Player’s Troopers are considered valid in the following situations: ... 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.
The Order Expenditure Sequence is replaced with entirely new text by the errata section of the current FAQ. And the WIki hasn't been updated with the current FAQ. Yup, it sucks. You're quoting from text that no longer exists in the rules but you can't tell from the out-of-date wiki.
I should not have used "requirements" as a word here. I meant it as "the opportunities where you are allowed to declare an ARO" and not the requirement of the skill you are declaring. I'll edit my message for clarity. See page 8 of the FAQ for the new Order Expenditure Sequence and the new ARO "opportunities?". https://downloads.corvusbelli.com/infinity/faq/n4-faq-en-v1-2.pdf
Its an ongoing discussion in our meta. But here is what LOF says about that For a Trooper to be able to draw LoF to its target, it must meet these conditions: The target must be totally or partially within the Trooper's front 180° arc, unless some Special Skill or piece of Equipment ignores this restriction. The Trooper must be able to see part of the volume of its target, with a minimum size of 3x3mm. LoF can be drawn from any point of the Trooper's Silhouette to any point of the target's Silhouette without being obstructed by any pieces of scenery or Models (friendly or enemy). If LoF is not blocked by scenery or models - you can draw Line Of Fire. Zero visibily zone check goes under step 5 of your Order Expenditure Sequence.
Apart from you can't draw LoF through a Zero Vis Zone. That's not a requirement for a skill to check you just can't do it at all. You don't get to just ignore the ZVZ for who gets to declare ARO's you need to have another reason to ie ZoC in order to do so
I don't get it... Model A declares a Move. He is within a ZVZ and doesn't leave it. ARO Check. Is model B within ZoC (ZoC is measured by the active model A)? Is model B within LoF (ZVZ blocks LoF if model B is not equipped with a MSV)? If the answer is NO to both, then model B does not get to declare any ARO. This is what the FAQs say.
I am always amazed by discussions like these. I never thought about ARO with a unit unable to see an activated enemy obscured by either scenerie or ZVZ and outside ZoC unless beeing the target in the first way. I have the feeling, everybody knows what Covus belli has in mind what they want to tell us, then they think "How can we write it as precise as possible, so everyone knows, what we want this rule and interaction to be and it is crystal clear for every occasion": A soldier is far away from another soldier which he cannot see or feel in any case, so he does not react UNTIL something else happens (for example, he beeing shot at). And then RaW happens. Gaps in rules are important to be pointed out. But sometimes it feels like CB is fighting windmills
Our discussion arose around this argument. What about me I don't see the difference between ZVZ and Total Cover here either.
well, thats for gaming purpose ZVZ can be downgraded to poor visibility when be shot at (or even less in case of Sixth sense, or can be negated by visors) whilst total cover "always" means you cannot draw LoF due to an irreplacable object standing between you and the opponent.
Ah, now I see! Well, remember that with the new FAQqued Order Expenditure Sequence, you are sort of "granted the chance to declare ARO" when in LoF or ZoC. There is no more the possibility to declare ARO from the other side of the table if Zoc or Lof are not triggered.
Wouldnt that be fun? Player A: I spend my first order of my first turn on this unit in my DZ behind a 8x8 inch building of invinite hight declaring MOVE. Player B: Wunderful. I start declaring ARO for all of my 15 Units now. All of them are in my DZ facing Walls.
