I came across this situation the other day and wasn't quite sure how it worked. A fireteam of 4 or more members have the option to delay their ARO as part of sixth sense l2, when their opponent triggers an ARO in their zone of control. As an example, a Mutt walks into your fireteam ZoC and you decide to delay your ARO as you want to see which weapon it's planning on using first. Once the Mutt has made its declaration could you then decide to break your fireteam up and respond with some different ARO's for each of the fireteam members even though doing this removes the sixth sense bonus?
You could, but any model that loses sixth sense would not be able to declare an ARO at all and be considered to be idling.
As has been answered by IJW when I asked this question previously; the declarations are still valid because there is nothing in the requirements of their skills that would invalidate the declaration they make. Keep in mind that the delay-declare and Stealth ignoring aspect are the only parts of Sixth Sense that actually functions, a BS Attack skill still has LOF requirements and MODs from shooting through smoke can only be ignored if you have Sixth Sense during resolution.
Do I have this right? The option to delay their AROs was valid at the time of doing so, so fireteam integrity is maintained until a when the delayed AROs are declared, and then if a Trooper doesn't take the fireteam's ARO, it resolves as it normally would, just without the fireteam bonuses.
My thinking is if you don't have SSL2 when trying to declare the skill it's not legal to be declaring it at that time. And it seemed to me to square better with HellLois' "if you misjudge your ZOC and try to hold you idle" ruling. It seems in both cases you've claimed entitlement to a skill that come resolution you learn you aren't entitled to.
We don't remove them: we just resolve them as Idles. This is how any misjudged ZOC ARO is managed. I'm with @Spleen on this.
The scenario seems to be different from the one in Hellois ruling in a pretty important way though. All of the requirements for the fireteam to use SS were met at the time of declaring they would do so, as opposed to his example where they aren't. In the ZoC misjudgement example, because all measuring is done in resolution, it looks like the following happens: Declaration of the First Skill: Move Declaration of AROs: Delay (model is outside ZoC) Declaration of the Second Skill: Attack Declaration of AROs: Choose ARO (Becomes Idle) Resolution: SS wasn't legal, ARO at step 4 becomes Idle. I would argue what actually happens is this: Declaration of the First Skill: Move Declaration of AROs: Delay (Becomes Idle) Declaration of the Second Skill: Attack Declaration of AROs: ARO already used, it was Idel Resolution: SS wasn't legal, ARO at step 2 becomes Idle. So applying that logic to the new situation, I think it goes; Declaration of the First Skill: Move Declaration of AROs: Delay (All requirements are met) Declaration of the Second Skill: Attack Declaration of AROs: Fireteam picks ARO, some choose differently. Resolution: Fireteam bonuses calculated appropriately.
Whereas this is the alternative view, but it follows the same logic; Declaration of the First Skill: Move Declaration of AROs: Delay (Idle) Declaration of the Second Skill: Attack Declaration of AROs: Fireteam picks ARO, some choose differently. Resolution: Fireteam bonuses calculated appropriately: SS wasn't legal, ARO at step 2 becomes Idle.
I could be convinced that this is correct if it is clear that delaying your ARO is itself an ARO declaration. I don't think it is based on the wording of sixth sense.
It's not an ARO Declaration but it constrains your ARO Declaration: your eventual Declaration must comply with the reason why you delayed. Against a Camo Token it means that you can only declare an ARO against the Camo Token which enabled you to delay. To delay with SSL1 you: A. Must have SSL1 B. Must ARO against a Trooper inside ZOC Dropping from a link and losing Fireteam bonuses means that you no longer meet A, and consequently don't comply with the reason why you delayed in the first place. BUT this turns on 'all at the same time' IE if you drop from the Fireteam you count as being out of the Fireteam for the entire order, even retroactively. It's possible the intention is for it not to apply to the entire order but rather only from "the moment the Order [or ARO] is declared". If that's the case then you'd check A at the moment you say "I delay due SSL1" and that would be the end of it. Because you'd have had SSL1 at the moment you delayed even though you don't still have it at the end of the order. I don't like that interpretation, but it is plausible. The principal reason I don't like it is because it means that you can both benefit from SSL1 and not benefit from SSL1 in the same order. For instance: Bao with LSG Moves within Smoke to see a single Trooper (A) in the Link, the entire link delays due to SSL1, the Bao LSGs the link, the Trooper A BS Attacks back through smoke, everyone else dodges. SSL1 would have been used to delay Trooper A's ARO but they would still suffer the -6 MOD for BS Attacking back through Smoke.
Fireteam bonuses aren't like camo state which is lost retroactively. They are lost immediately and following the event that caused them to be lost. When the troopers declare they will delay, they have Sixth Sense and the declaration is legal.
Don't get me wrong, though: I'm happy with either answer, I just think they're both plausible. Yes I have a preference for one over the other, but I'd rather that it was clear.
Can I ask, would you allow this situation? Model X moves into LOF of 2 Haris team members, A and B, Model X is in A's ZOC but not B's ZOC. A holds his ARO using Sixth Sense (he had it natively, lucky him), but B is forced to declare, he declares 2 combi rifle shots at X. X fires a DTW hitting A as his second skill A declares a dodge to try to avoid the incoming DTW, but causing one of the AROing models to leave the link. Regardless of who is majority in this case, Model B definitely is no longer part of a 3 man link and thus, loses his burst bonus, but has already legally declared a B2 ARO based on the bonuses he had at the time, do you allow him to fire both rounds?
I don't think burst is part of the Aro declaration as fixed as this question would imply. Dividing burst is part of the active player declaration. But I think reactive player only specifies shoot and what weapon. This is further reinforced by mods being calculated at the resolution step, the +1 B in Aro is a mod no?
Declaring Burst is a function of splitting targets. At this time nothing let's you split targets in ARO. So, right now, @Spleen's point is moot. However, that still doesn't address the fact that unless you play it the way he suggests you can simultaneously benefit from Sixth Sense's ability to delay AROs and not benefit from Sixth Sense's abilities to ignore certain negative MODs. As an aside though: CC MODs are calculated at Declaration (from my understanding MA5 isn't a Burst MOD). "Burst Modifiers Certain situations can alter the usual B value of a weapon. Players apply Burst Modifiers when declaring the CC Attack." Edit: @Spleen is correct (as usual), Burst MODs both CC and BS Attacks are determined at Declaration: "Burst Modifiers Certain situations can alter the usual B value of a weapon. Players apply Burst Modifiers when declaring the BS Attack."
That particular problem doesn't go away just because Sixth Sense is solved. A and B part of a Triad and are guarding two corners of a 12" building, standing roughly 7" apart. A warband reaches A's corner, right in front of A but not inside B's ZOC nor LOF. A declares shoot with burst 2, WB declares Chain Rifle, B who is now touched by a template declares Dodge. (And do the same for a clustered team where only one model can see the attacker and the attacker opts for a Direct Template Weapon.) And for the record, again, this is me retelling ttmhe arguments that I had explained to me when I asked on the old forums. This answer has caused me significant problems in handling hostile Fireteams since.
You're right it doesn't, both are essentially: Does a Trooper who leaves a Fireteam lose Fireteam bonuses for the entirety of the Order (having this applied retroactively) or only from the moment they left the Fireteam?
