This post is a consequence of trying to read and understand all the interactions between hd and ARO declaration. I believe there is one big elephant in the room that I have not seen discussed. I could be totally wrong, but let's see :) Let me paste from the rulebook. "The Reactive Player must declare AROs for all eligible Models or Markers immediately after the Active Player declares his Entire Order or the first Short Skill of his Order (see: Order Expenditure Sequence, page 21). Troopers that fail to do so lose their ARO against that Order." The point here is very simple: every model is eligible to declare an ARO, as it has been accepted in the hd aro in order to reveal the model. Following me again in this silly conclusion: NO model can EVER declare an ARO to a second skill, since they did not use their option to declare ARO to the first skill, as they could as we know. Now, I agree no one reasonable would EVER try to enforce this, not even the most rule-lawyer annoying guy, but yet we do have a problem in the rules, since there are edge cases where it's not clear how to proceed. Like: when do you measure to see if that model HAD an aro declaration that he lost? And if you do not measure, WHEN you decide he lost the option to declare on the first skill? But even if you do this, measuring I mean, you still need different wording for the whole thing, since it's definitely not the "option to declare an ARO" that, if not taken, prevents you the ARO on the second skill. One other way of saying this is: you cannot have that "eligible" written up there and then checking ARO validity during resolution, since now everyone is "eligible". The whole structure does not work. And the current interptetation of table-wide ARO for HD models reinforces the issue. If that had been solved as "you cannot do that, since it's against rules intention" then we could do the same here, but since that has proceeded by RAW, now we do have a precedent. Again, maybe I am missing a big point that solves everything here, if that's the case, please let me know :)
It goes like this: 1. Active player declares first short skill. 2. Check LoF to determine what reactive troopers have LoF to the active trooper. 3. Reactive player declares whatever AROs they choose. For troopers that have LoF, if they declare we know that the declaration is valid. If they don't declare, we know that the ARO is lost. For troopers without LoF, we don't yet know whether declarations are valid or whether non-declarations have lost their ARO opportunity. 4. Active player declares second short skill. 5. Check for new LoFs. 6. Reactive player declares any new AROs he chooses. 7. Measure all needed ZoC and hacking areas. For any troopers who didn't declare until step 6, at this point we find out whether they had a valid ARO at step 3 - if they did then they lose their ARO.
Well, if there is LoF it's easy, since that is public information, of course I am speaking of ZoC cases. So, I do not declare an ARO at step3. I do declare one at step 6. In step 7 we find out I "had" an ARO at step 3, so the one declared at step 6 is canceled. Basically, it adds: "Check if any trooper that declared an ARO on the second skill had a valid ARO to the first skill it could have declared but he did not. If that is true, then that trooper is considered to have declared an idle in the second ARO declaration". It's quite a good process. But I think you'll agree you are not strictly applying Order Expenditure Sequence and that last part should be added to that sequence on page 21 of the core rules, since it's not something to be left to interpretation.
You must declare an ARO the first time you have a legal opportunity, or lose it. So an enemy moves out of LoF, ZoC, Hacking Area, etc. You can be pretty sure you don't have a legal opportunity to ARO so you can wait for the second opportunity, or declare Speculatively. If you choose to wait and it turned out you did have a legal ARO against the first Short Skill, then your ARO would become invalid.
Ok, same answer as QueensGambit then. During Resolution I should also check if there were conditions for an ARO to the 1st skill and, if so, invalid the second ARO. So that "eligible" does not mean "who can declare an ARO" (since everyone can), but "who can declare a valid ARO". Again, the situation where a second ARO that has been already declared is canceled (or becomes idle, whatever) because, by measuring during resolution, it comes up there were conditions for a first ARO declaration is not a marginal case and I think it should be explicitly defined in the rulebook. Anyway, thanks :)
You declare at your own risk. You declare after first skill a ZoC ARO? At declaration it will be valid even if the active model entered ZoC with the second skill. But if he is still out of ZoC, well.... You'll Idle (and maybe got shot for free) You skip first skill declaration but you are confident your ARO has been violated on second skill? Declare now, then check because if ZoC has been violated on first skill, you lost your opportunity to ARO.
The real issue is that legacy language wasn't updated to be clearer: "The Reactive Player must declare [valid] AROs for all eligible Models or Markers immediately after the Active Player declares his Entire Order or the first Short Skill of his Order (see: Order Expenditure Sequence, page 21). Troopers that fail to do so lose their ARO against that Order." Adding the word 'valid' to that line makes it clear that you only lose their ARO if they fail to declare a valid ARO (that they may or may not have) but if they only had invalid AROs at Step 2 of the Order Expenditure Sequence (Queengambits 3) then their ARO is not lost at that time. This is in line with the HD and Stealth rulings that all Reactive Troopers always have an ARO (the question is whether they are permitted to declare it or whether, if they declare it, it will be valid). This means that you can't really know if you lost your ARO until Step 5 of the OES and you check. In practice, what this means is that if you're at all in any doubt then you just declare your ARO at Step 2.
That and also, in case of a second movement, keep marked, when in doubt, the exact previous position to verify that during resolution. But, really, what should be added is an example where this happens, because it would help the most someone just reading it for the first time.
