So Open Information and Private Information are both defined as the information on your army list. Success Values are not on this list and as such are neither Open nor Private Information, but the attribute and the modifier from the skill in question can be Private Information if the Trooper has Camouflage or Impersonation. Will e.g. an Oniwaban infiltrating across the middle of the board have to reveal their Success Value of 15 before making the roll even though all components of the Success Value are private? As a side note, when you make rolls during orders not only will making a roll typically drop your Camouflage or similar and thus revealing all information, but the Order Sequence specifies that you determine the target numbers before you make the roll. This is, however, not about the Order Sequence. Historically this lack of specificity in the rules has meant that Success Value of the Infiltration roll were kept a secret, but whether the roll is a success, failure, or critical had to be announced. Unlike for Lieutenant rolls, no rule has really changed since N3, but I think community opinions have changed with more people being taught that the success value has to be announced even for Infiltration and Impersonation.
I think that for consistency it’s good to announce the target number before the roll. I’m actually happy that they fixed this in N4 and support applying it universally.
For consistency, since you do declare your Lt TN (even for a camo Lt), I support applying it to infiltration rolls. But, i'm not happy with known Lt WIP.
Well, you can read the fact that Lieutenant Roll specifies the Willpower attribute* in two ways: 1. Here's a hidden value in pre-game that's revealed, this sets precedent and other hidden pre-game values should be treated the same. 2. Here's a hidden value in pre-game that's the only one explicitly revealed, this is clearly an exception and other hidden pre-game values should remain private. * Yes. Attribute - not Success Value which is Attribute+MODs. Let's just hope we don't get a Lieutenant(+3).
Or you could apply your memory of time, and consider... * In N3 they tried, for a while at least, having the lieutenant's WIP value secret for the initiative roll, after all of the arguments back and forth about it. * In N4, even that isn't secret any more. If you're going to insistent on pedantry, take this part in the rules: Check that the declared Skills, Special Skills, and pieces of Equipment meet their respective Requirements, measure all distances and Zones of Control, determine MODs, and make Rolls.and find the part where it's mechanically possible to make a roll without sharing the success value that you're rolling against. Otherwise, you're now claiming that you can just do even a BS attack vs. Dodge involving two completely revealed troopers without the success values on either side being public.
Solkan, dude, before you call someone pedantic and start pointing out errors you should probably check what they write. I wrote it is neither open nor private info. It's on the same level as line of fire and any other stuff you can just observe on the board. Same as everything that's not information on your army list. People like to try and make open or private information do a lot more leg work than the rules specify. Then there's the fact that you quote the order sequence which I've already brought up and this is a roll made outside the order sequence.
Sorry to necro, but has this received any official FAQ or response from an authoritative source? I'll be playing JSA for a few months at least, so the answer has renewed relevance for me...
I don't think it has. I made this thread to increase awareness of it and as a concept it essentially only hurts JSA, but it hurts JSA in a very meaningful way.
The motorcycle optional impetuousness rules was a nice help, I think. I do like my bike gang, and having options is useful...
So placing hiddens is usually private. So we are playing it like this , one player turn around the other place the miniature, make a roll if needed and make a photo of the placement and of the roll. For sure still you are informed that smth happened bit anyway Suppose it's a great and funny part. Also you can ask a "turn around" phase for yourself without placing anything and just rolling the dices :-) I suppose there should be such "private deployment" phaze and 3d person who can classify/verify actions I had a situation, when opponent made a mistake and placed the hidden without a roll. So we've just agreed to move it back a little. In terms of the big tournament it could lead to a big dispute
We do it the same way :) You're suggesting an umpire. Well, it definitely solves the problem, but it generates another one: you have to find somewhere a third person for the (by nature) two-player game, who will not participate in the game themself. A solution that works in professional sports, but arbiters there are paid serious money. Now, I do arbitrate games between newbies (also, if a newbie is playing against a more experienced player, it is acceptable for an arbiter to advise the newb. We're talking friendly games here, as my meta is not tournament-oriented) in my local community from time to time, But to do that as a rule, well, I think I'd ask to be paid some serious money, too ;) At a tournament... I guess you could ask the organiser / arbiter to take a look, and make sure you're doing, say, Hidden Deployment fair and square. Unless, of course, there is one arbiter for a dozen tables, and everyone is asking their attention at the same time...
While not in the rules, I like hidden information being hidden. I'd like to see LT rolls, HD, infiltration rolls etc just get written down on a piece of paper visible to both players with the value of the dice and whether it was called as a success or failure. i.e Player 1 rolls for LT, gets a 14 which is a fail, and writes down 'LT, 14, Fail' ... Player 2 rolls for LT, gets a 15, which is a pass, and writes down 'LT, 15, Pass' At the end of the game, the values are compared to the actual profiles and if any player lied or were mistaken they automatically lose with zero VP, zero OP. Double check, don't lie, and everyone gets a fair game while keeping the mystery of hidden information and minimising the meta-gaming. If performing multiple rolls for HD, you'd have to denote these in some way openly on the paper and privately on your army list perhaps just A, B, C, Bluff roll etc. P.S, I don't play tournaments/competitively, so no idea if taking the Loss, 0op, 0vp, or any of the above could be gamed in some way.
Rolls can't be hidden so I think that you can roll and just say you passed or failed. The TN doesn't need to be known but if you see they rolled a 16 and still passed, then you kinda know what it is anyway. But if it's a 1, then it could be anything.
You said it far more concisely than me. Public rolls, private TN, plus some way to confirm no one was lying after the fact is what I was going for.
