ARO when enemy in ZOC need measure?

You don't need to know your ARO is valid when you declare it, it only needs to be valid when you check its validity at Step 5 (a specific exception exists for determining LOF - which @ijw has provisional ruled is done at declaration).

So yes, this is legal:

1.2. Alice Moves to 8.1" from Bob
2. Bob's player assesses Alice is inside ZOC and declares Spotlight
3. Alice Moves to 4.1" from Bob
4. No additional AROs
5. The validity of Bob's ARO is checked and it's determined that Alice is a valid target of Spotlight and Alice is inside Bob's Hacking Area

 

So Bob majes his gamble and -waits- for Alice to declare 2nd half of the order to check if then ARO is valid...which wasn't during first half.

Can Bob declare shooting Alice when she's out of cover -even if she isn't in first half of the order- and wait gambling that she'll leave cover in 2nd half??

I know we've been told many times that the answer is "no because Bob must declare in which point of Alice's ALREADY DECLARED movement he's shooting" , but at least in a philosophical way this should be possible too.

I think it's a bit misleading to have these fundamentally different criteria for ARO declaration & validation:
1. You can declare an ARO which is in fact not valid at the moment of declaration but becomes valid after full active order declaration (ex. Hacking out of initial ZoC)
2. You cannot declare an ARO which is not valid at the moment of declaration (ex. Shooting out of initial position)

I think the FAQ should set a clear single criteria instead of reviewing each specific case.

 

The point is that explicitly different timing actually works best for achieving the gameplay CB desires.

You can know whether or not something is in LOF when you declare a LOF based ARO. Making this a requirement means that you can't pre-emptively declare AROs to shoot someone rounding a corner. Forbidding pre-emptive AROs in these cases allows ARO baiting which is a feature CB desires.

You can't know whether or not something is in ZOC when you declare a ZOC based ARO. This allows you to declare a ZOC ARO at the first opportunity and not have to worry about the fact you may have guessed wrong. Allowing pre-emptive AROs in these cases eliminates a complicated process that only results in bad gameplay experiences.

Ultimately this difference improves gameplay, or at least makes the game play as CB intends. You won't need to look at each specific case (there are two clear and distinct sets of AROs), but I do agree that both sets need to be clearly dealt with. This will need a FAQ to make IJWs provisional ruling permanent.

Aside: there's another issue I take with your wording. N4 allows you to declare anything at any time: its just that you only resolve valid AROs as their declaration, invalid AROs are resolved as an Idle.

 

Yes, in this case you would lose your ARO because you didn't declare an ARO at the first opportunity. It's the "bad gameplay experience" I was talking about

This is why being able to declare an ARO pre-emptively at the first time you go "well maybe I have one, I don't really know" is a very good thing.

 

Thanks, I do get your point (and I stand corrected about my wording which isn't precise) and agree that sometimes pragmatism must be above coherence.
But then, the current system leads to those "bad gameplay experiences", hence my earlier post.

Dunnow really... what are the downsides of ZoC measuring at the time of ARO declaration? Honest question here.

 

You may as well ask "What are the downsides of just allowing pre-measuring at any time, for any reason?" You'll have plenty of case studies available looking at the various games that have started out 'no pre-measuring' and then switched over time to allow it; and you can compare reactions to the proposed changes with reactions from people playing with the changes.

Being unable to measure distances before attempting something means that players have more opportunities to make mistakes, or perform sub-optimally. That's true for ZoC estimation, movement estimation, range band estimation, etc. How you feel about that is going to determine what you think the answer to "What are the downsides of ZoC measuring?" is.

 

i had a convo with some friends a few weeks back about this topic. He made a very good point.

shotguns.

if i walk around A corner with a hackable Troop to see your hacker and you get to measure, i now know what my ramges are for shooting. It would be unfun being the only one to not know ranges when declaring.

 

Nothing forced you to reveal your Hacker then, you *can* hold on until you're sure with essentially no risk because you're in a marker state.

By revealing when you did you forced your opponent to waste a Short Skill, and almost certainly re-work their plan of attack: that's a not inconsequential outcome.

 

Yes. I think what he means is on the next order. He can't attack you at all if you are a camo marker, so you might as well wait until you are certain the enemy is within 8".

The only downside would be if that next move would put them in LoS so they can actually react meaningfully to your hack (or whatever).

 

Exactly.

If the next move (in the first order) puts them in LOF, then "Deploy Mine" is probably my ARO. Or at least one I'd strongly consider.