A: "I spend my last order to move this guy." B: "Ok, I use Dodge to reveal this hidden guy so that I'll have his order next turn." A: "Can you do that? You're nowhere near my guy who moved." B: "Yup! You're right that the dodge doesn't work, but it still reveals my guy. It's a useful way to make his order available, but the downside is that I have to fully reveal him to do it." A: "Oh, ok!" I have trouble seeing how that interaction is problematic, or how it's any different from the way a new player learns, like, every other rule. And calling B unscrupulous or unfriendly seems like an enormous stretch. As for an "easy hit" - just how powerful do you think this play is?
Yes, but also bypassing the current mechanic which allows for angle shooting for an obscure tactical benefit with a handful of profiles. I assume that's what he was going for.
With the current array of profiles, it's pretty limited in value and I don't think it's going to come up often which is why I'm pretty ambivalent about it right now other than I find the mechanic messy and explained like shit in the written document to the average player on a technical level. If you say gave Nomads an interesting and viable hidden deployment LT profile though, you could expect to see this impossible to assassinate LT crop up alot more I think. I think the Cutter is the most likely candidate to abuse this currently as it stands, take the LT profile so your LT is impossible to alpha strike off the table plus you get the LT order on the TAG for extra efficiency. On the other hand the Cutter is available where the Zulu Cobra is so it's not like they were hurting for a good, safe, LT option anyway.
No, there's three solutions: 1. "Retroactively cancelling ARO" which means "ARO never happened at all, you may ARO again". 2. My solution, "ARO happens, is found to be invalid, nothing happens" (no adjustment to the Trooper, model or table) but the chance to ARO is wasted, you can't ARO again, you're treated as having ARO'd already. 3. ARO becomes "Idle" (with all the shenanigans that we're trying to avoid). I was describing the #2 middle ground between "retroactively cancelling ARO" and "Idle".
HD trooper remains in HD. No model is placed on the table. However, ARO is not cancelled, ARO has happened, this trooper will not be able to ARO again this time. His chance to ARO against this Active trooper's action is lost. Yes, the Active player now knows there's your "hidden" trooper there. Good, you should not have tried a bullshit ARO.
1. As far as I'm aware, you're the only person who has suggested this. 2. This is what I'm referring to as retroactively cancelling the ARO. No premeasuring means that ARO validity checking must wait after all Skills have been declared, so there can never be a chance to ARO again. See up-thread, it's been ruled out already. It caused substantial problems in N3. I think it would cause fewer problems in N4, but it's still not on the table. EDIT, and this:
Moreover, doing as Nauda suggests, gives away the position and identity of the HD model. That way is clearer to put it on the table and go on.
I do not have so much experience with the game, but I was wondering: would it be SO game breaking to have HD written this way? "The Hidden Deployment state State is automatically cancelled whenever the Trooper declares any Short Skill, Entire Order or ARO except Idle". Because this alone would defintely save the day, leaving everything else as it is. The only consequence I see is some more safety in declaring fringe ARO for HR models knowing that failing validity won't reveal them (but would let the opponent know where they are). And back to the topic of game fairness, I do not see any unscrupulous or unfriendly behaviour in applying the rule as it is now either. Again, if we start with "you can do that, but you should not", the abyss opens up. Like: "can you declare a shot with a weapon clearly out of range to measure the effective distance?" and going on. You can do everything the rules tell you can. And this is fair. Add a smile and a fair attitude, if you can :)
Then we have a different definition of what "to cancel" means. There's a huge difference between "cancel" (announce that something doesn't happen at all, or that it's effects are nullified, removed, neutralized, negated, annuled, etc) and a "take back" which means a game move where something happens but instead it's resolved differently (an Idle instead of a previously declared ZOC ARO). I assume you meant "no take backs" then.
What if the ruleset just added the ability to reveal Hidden Deployed troopers in the States Phase? (Without granting marker state if the players does do.) “The Hidden Deployment State may be cancelled during any player’s State Phase, placing the model on the table.” (Or something along those lines) It’s essentially the same thing as the side-effect from the far-ZoC declaration, but it’s a lot more obvious interaction for players who don’t scour the forums. And you keep the current new declaration, because the new system of checking declaration at the Resolution has some really nice benefit to the game overall.
Just saying, but being allowed to keep the HD and Camouflaged states on a genuine (or genuine enough) failed declaration is typically much stronger than what you can gain from jumping through this hoop with HD. Easier, yes, but as IJW stated this was never the goal, only the least undesirable consequence.
Well, the game by every count goes on by considering that declaration to have been an Idle, by point 5 of Order Expenditure Sequence. At least, as long as I've understood. 5. ARO Check: Check that each Trooper that declared an ARO has been in one of the situations that makes their ARO declaration valid. If they have not, they are considered to have declared an Idle.
Wether it is the goal or not is irrelevant. It’s now part of the game and simplifying the ruleset should always be something they go for imo. I personally have no issues with funky rules, and I’ll take advantage of them to the fullest extent. But if you look at some of the comments from previous divisible issues, some communities really dislike those. If the rules can be adapted to enable the same gameplay, and by the same time make it clear so it’s not divisible, I think that’d be for the best.
I feel like we're talking past each other completely. :-( When I say 'cancel', I mean 'announce that something doesn't happen at all, or that it's effects are nullified, removed, neutralized, negated, annuled, etc' and that the Trooper gets taken off the table and goes back into Hidden Deployment. But it's worth looking beyond the edge-cases of Lieutenants and Tac Aware Troopers and at more general situations: For everyone that didn't get involved in the mind-numbing N3 discussions about this, if failed AROs don't drop you out of HD/Camouflaged States it's a massive boost for 'TO'/Camo Hackers because they can declare an ARO hack and: If the ARO was valid, they get to Hack. If the ARO wasn't valid, they regain all the protections of Hidden Deployment or Camo State. It's a win-win situation for them, with almost zero downside. And it impacts far more games than the edge-cases that triggered this thread.
That's the closest I've seen to a workable fix, but bear in mind that it would also require rewriting Idle as it's not an ARO Skill and specifically says that Marker States are cancelled, all the Marker States to include similar wording, and the Order Expenditure Sequence. I fear it would also have other knock-on effects that aren't coming to mind at the moment.
"The Hidden Deployment state State is automatically cancelled whenever the Trooper declares any Short Skill, Entire Order or ARO except when the Trooper's ARO is found to be invalid and thus changed to a declaration of Idle". How about this then? No change to Idle required.
Yeah, that's why I appealed to the broad community, to figure out what they could be. But except having to rewrite Idle Skill and Marker States, I do not see any major game alteration. So, probably it's a big change in the sense that it alters several paragraphs, but (I think) it's at the same time a very minor one, since the game flow would just be like it is now, without the unwanted interaction.
I understand that people dislike them, my own community dislike this interaction as well - or at least the few who are aware of it. However, automating it at no consequence also removes the counter-play that an opponent could use (intentionally or accidentally) to punish the behaviour, which is one of the things that makes it kind of bad to rely on.
