Hidden Deployment LT and Aro Declaration

IMHO AROing half a kilometre away to archiev this "trick" is beyond any sportmansship, so he can play against someone else next time.

 

It is, literally, built into the rules.

CB chose not to include premeasuring Zones of Control for AROs, knowing that this was one of the consequences of the decision.

 

The intention of the rule is clear and the intention of its abuse also. No one will declare an ARO if it is cleary out of any ZoC range.

 

I mean, the guy from the rules team just told you what the intention of the rule is.

It's certainly a change from N3, and some players are finding it hard to get used to, but at this point it's 100% confirmed. Declaring an ARO does not imply that you believe the ARO may turn out to be valid. That's simply not how the rules work in N4.

 

They will, and they do. Please don’t try to tell me what the intention of the rule is, when this was one of the first things I pointed out to CB when CodeOne was being designed.

 

Oh my bad, I thought the intention is, that an invalid ARO will blow you cover if it is an marker (otherwise the idle will not to much) so you better only delcare an ARO if you are pretty sure to be in range.

Still: If someone declares an ZoC ARO 30" away its pretty clear that he will abuse the rule or has a big problem with his eyes

So I just hope this rule will be fixed.

 

Hmm, maybe there are some wires getting crossed. An Idle will cancel Camouflaged State or Hidden Deployment State, leaving a revealed Trooper model on the table.

I don’t know how to type this with enough emphasis. This is not abusing the rule.

What is it that you’re expecting to be ‘fixed’? Any changes in this area, no matter how small, have surprisingly big ripple effects on the rest of the game.

 

I fully second this point.
It's fully under the responsibility of the designer/s to write the rules at the best of their ability in order for them to express what they have in mind. When that does not happen (and it can totally happen, since writing good rules is really, really difficult!), is again up to the designer/s to provide a new rule, if they so decide.
It's not up to the players to figure out what and what not those rules should have implied and their intentions.
If we go that way, there is no end to it and everything becomes subjective.
This OR a group of players decide to change some of rules in a way everyone agrees on in order to create a game experience they like more. Nothing wrong in this, as long as it's clear what are exactly the home-made changes.
For how little it may be worth, I published some games myself and no game designer would ever argue against this.

 

I appreciate this approach and philosophy.

Using ruleset to full potential should never be considered “abuse”.

Happy to have a statement on the forum about the interaction being known and intended to avoid all possible confusion.

 

Out of curiosity was part of their reasoning to help make some of the LT profiles like Kitsune actually make some sense?

 

I think you’ve got that bass-ackwards.

The reasoning is that CB don’t want premeasuring of Zones of Control, and that they don’t want ‘failed’ AROs to be retroactively cancelled because that gets horribly messy. That leaves Idles being possible at any distance.

The interaction with Hidden Deployment Lieutenants is an acceptable side effect, not an aim.

 

Alright, help me out with my stupidity here:
If a model acts up, my dude far away can declare some ARO (that we will find out is illegal in resolution and do Idle instead), so far so good.

But then, how does this point:

2. "(...) Troopers are not forced to declare the AROs, but if a Trooper can declare an ARO and fails to do so, the chance to declare an ARO is lost."

and this one

"4. Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player checks Lines of Fire to the Active Trooper from those Troopers who didn’t declare an ARO before, and can declare any new AROs that are available."

supposed to interact?

If player A can ARO Dodge from 40" away, can player B argue that AROs must be taken upon the first short skill? Because if you don't declare them, you can't on step 4.

What am I missing?

 

See https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/the-elephant-in-the-room-order-declaration.39408

Properly, it should say 'if a Trooper could have declared a valid ARO and failed to do so'.

 

Thank you!

 

It seems like a pretty crappy shortcoming to include intentionally, when it could have been excluded with a single-line rule.

Declaring a "ZoC ARO," something done by definition in an 8" radius or the player's guess at that, when the unit is clearly outside 8" is disingenuous.

Encouraging disingenuous action does not lead to good play.

At the very -least- this counterintuitive effect should have been pointed out explicitly in the rules.

The main outcome of this obscure, hermaneutic approach is that unscrupulous players will use it as an easy hit on newbs and people who think they are playing a friendly game.

Yuck.

 

What single-line rule are you suggesting? Bear in mind that it can't allow declared AROs to retroactively stop being an ARO at all.

This is N3 thinking applied to N4. N4 doesn't have a 'ZoC ARO' or a 'LoF ARO', it has AROs that you declare, then find out if the declaration was valid.

I agree, and suggested it.

 

"If, after measurements are taken, the ARO declaration is found to be invalid due to lack of LoF or distance, no ARO action is made by the Trooper and the chance to ARO for that Trooper is forfeit".

Nothing happens (not an Idle, nothing), but it's not the "no ARO happened retroactively, it's as if nothing was declared" you wanted to avoid. Invalid ARO due to measurement of LoF / distance = you've forfeited your ARO chance for this model. It's right between "you didn't actually ARO at all" which we don't want and "it's Idle instead".

You've declared an ARO, a poorly ranged one, you can't ARO anymore with that dude, sorry.

 

I'm not clear on how this is different from retroactively cancelling the ARO.

Going back to the original situation, what are you saying should happen if a Trooper in Hidden Deployment declares an ARO, and then is found not to have a valid ARO?

 

I'm assuming he's implying that hidden deployment troopers wouldn't be able to use this to get onto the table to generate their TacAw or LT order next turn.

 

Which is retroactively cancelling the ARO.