1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Hidden Deployment LT and Aro Declaration

Discussion in 'Rules' started by MrAnarchy, Mar 16, 2021.

  1. Sangarn

    Sangarn TRIUMcorp CEO
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2018
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    1,531
    dude ... Varuna already have a camo lt the zulu and JSA have CoC so the two HD lt of those factions change nothing your not going to waste orders hunting lt VS those two faction
     
  2. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    What we have here is basically a chain reaction.

    Hidden Deployment Lts should have been fixed at some point along the way but weren't.

    ARO Declarations defaulting to Idle instead of being completely null and void has unforseen side effects CB didn't care or want to fix.
    One of them being Hidden Deployment Lts.

    So what we have here is the following situation.
    CB knows about this and decided they'd rather leave it as is instead of trying to fix it.
    I can only assume why, but my guess is they were too concerned about a potential fix ending up very ressource intensive or potentially leading to even bigger issues.


    My main complaint here is that N4 could have easily been released as a Beta to allow for quite easy and natural improvements for things playtesting behind closed doors didn't catch.
    Instead it didn't and the full release has all bugs and problems that fall under the radar when you work on the game and don't have an outside angle and the brute force fool proofing that automatically happens when you increase the number of testers from a small group to a large one.
     
    #242 Teslarod, Mar 25, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
    Sirk, wuji and Sangarn like this.
  3. wuji

    wuji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    369

    Exactly this. The more universally applicable and intuitive the rules, the better.

    The simplest and best fix is:

    • Skills can cannot be declared without Requirements first being met.
    • Troops in ARO may check ZoC before declaring AROs.

    What would you say is the fix for HD Lts?

    I agree with everything you said. You can tell Idle was used as a bandaid.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  4. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,407
    Likes Received:
    4,864
    Retcon all AROs without a trigger to not have happened.

    Which means you can declare 2 AROs (one against the first Short Skill and one against the second of an Order) and figure out later which one was legal.
    I.e. if you have no idea if something you might have an ARO against is in your ZOC or not.

    Fixes a good amount of gotcha bullshit in the game while you're at it,
    Repercussions: Limited Ammunition stuff doesn't expend Ammo on illegal AROs that never happen (oh no).
    Problems: You have to deal with illegal AROs revealing hidden Information. A Hidden Deployment ARO that wasn't legal would need a ruling on what happens.
    Further Problems: A lot of stuf I haven'd even started considering. This sure as hell ain't easy, but I refuse to accept that as a reason to not try.


    As far as being the Lt and Hidden Deployment fix is concerned.
    Hidden Deployment should get automatically cancelled if the Lt is not on the board in Step 1.3, Start of the Turn: Tactical Phase, Loss of Lieutenant check.
    This consumes all Lt Orders the trooper would generate this turn which will be generated in the next phase, should not be too hard to keep track of. Alternatively change Lt Orders to only get generated if the Lt starts the turn on the table (which he won't if he revealed in 1.3).

    This makes HD Lts a secure option at the cost of paying for the privilege with their Lt Orders (and should also eat potential Tac Awareness Orders, requires slight adjustments there too).

    It should not be cheap to have a Lt that can only be targeted if you manage to get a Sensor on him. But imo LoL is a shitty mechanic and I'm all for any option that lets people avoid it if they want to pay reasonable utility cost to minimize the risk.


    But quite frankly this isn't worth even discussing unless CB shows a hint of motivation to treat N4 as a living rulebook.
    We're most likely stuck with this till N5 and the earlier we get comfortable with that thought the better.
     
    Sirk likes this.
  5. wuji

    wuji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    369

    But at least you're thinking outside the box.

    Though I wouldn't go as far as saying LoL is a terrible mechanic in regards to, some sort of game effect should take place if the Lt dies. I'll say I see no reason for fireteam to effected, I also dont know why number 2 isnt built into fireteams. I dont think a whole force should become irregular for the turn but something that demonstrates a lack of coordination. Perhaps, NCO should be more common, like at least one unit in every sectorial has it and should function as CoC as well as being able to funnel Lt orders through it. This would be realistic. Where as, I look at CoC as being the equivalent of having a Jr. Ranked Officer on the field, i.e. O1-O2, where Lts considered as O3-O4. Yes I'm aware the Navy is a special kind of special... I will say that if NCO becomes like this, there should be some representation of loss. Perhaps, available orders get halved rounding up. It still allows a force to more effective than everyone gets one order. Or allow the player to choose between those two negatives.
     
    redeemer likes this.
  6. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    +1
     
  7. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    HD LT would still be trash with that ruling. *shrug*

    (They’d be paying the SWC tax and points associated with HD and only using it at the most on the first opponent turn, and only if they go first, and only if the game has no points tied to killing LT. They’d also lose marker state and have to waste an order to get it back.)

    People way over value the impact of that rule in any competitive game.
     
    Sirk likes this.
  8. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,086
    I believe last time this was brought up as a "fix" the rebuttal was something along the lines of... "OK, so I'm going to measure my ZoC of this unit way over here that is obviously way further than 8" away just so I can effectively measure something else."

    It's functionally the same problem that was brought up before with the whole "how far away is so far that declaring became 'gamey' instead of 'genuine'?" How do you judge that?

    The general conclusion I've found is that if you go so far as pre-measuring ZoC, then there's no reason to not allow pre-measuring of everything. I think this is the biggest reason CB went the way they did. They are adamantly against pre-measuring and this "declare first, find out later" interaction was the best they could come up with for now.
     
    inane.imp and Savnock like this.
  9. spears

    spears Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    349
    Likes Received:
    435
    Seeing as hidden deployment is now a separate skill to camo, mimetism (-6) could they just use that to remove hidden deployment from the LT profiles?
    You essentially end up with a lt profile that you cant put into HD which is largely how they functioned anyway before N4.

    It doesn't fix the root cause but reduces the use case somewhat:
    You can't deploy in b2b with most/all objectives anyway (I haven't checked every mission).
    Controlling a zone feels rough with it, I cant think of anything to do about that. That said if you went first you effectively spent an order to keep that level of protection.
    Does using it to generate orders feel much more abusive than breaking links to get free impetuous moves?
     
  10. nehemiah

    nehemiah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2018
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    2,951
    I am mistaken, there is no ruling such ruling for LoF in Hidden Deployment. The only mention of LoF I see in Hidden Deployment is:

    'Until a Trooper's Hidden Deployment State is cancelled, that Troopers is considered not to be on the game table at all. Consequently, such a Trooper does not affect LoF, is not affected by Template Weapons, etc.'

    There is no mention of Hidden Deployment in the LoF rules.

    When I asked about a HD Trooper failing to declare an LoF ARO during step 2, and instead revealing itself by declaring an ARO in step 4, that the troop would go back into the HD state in Step 5 because it failed to declare its ARO in step 2 as it should have.

    I have still not received an answer to the following: What would happen if a unit with Hidden Deployment which never has LoF to the active model declares a ZoC ARO in Step 4, but in Step 5 it is found to have been in ZoC during Step 2, and thus failed to declare a Valid ARO in Step 2?
     
    fuzzyguy, Hecaton and TheDiceAbide like this.
  11. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    1,502
    I'm pretty sure you can manage to put your Lt out of HD without loosing marker state (using alert)

    It's a bit trickier (than what was discussed you would have to plan to do it in the last 3-5 orders of your opponent) earlier but doable
     
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    It's called Look Out! in N4 now, but yeah.
     
  13. Arkhos94

    Arkhos94 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,572
    Likes Received:
    1,502
  14. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    If your opponent's army list obliges and if you're feeling gutsy, you could position the LT as a TO camo sniper and use Delay to get out of HD and avoid both LoL and avoid losing Camouflage. If done correctly your opponent may even believe it's a sniper and work around it.

    Alert is an automatic skill, as such it doesn't trigger Hidden Deployment cancellation clauses.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  15. Savnock

    Savnock Nerfherder

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,555
    Likes Received:
    2,620
    -Declaring- Look Out breaks camo.

    Being one of the other allied troopers that is allowed to change LoF after someone else declares Look Out does not break camo, from what I can tell. So if say a warcor sees an opposing trooper moving, the Warcor could declare Look Out. Then all the allied Hidden Deployment guys could “change LoF.” Which I assume reveals their markers, but would not break camo?

    [EDIT: Derrrrp, I missed the obvious section right below that stating that it’s a Dodge. Thank you @Diphoration for pointing that out.]

    However markers have no facing, so not sure they can even do this.

    Is there a rule anywhere that would clarify this? I can’t find one.
     
    #255 Savnock, Mar 25, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2021
  16. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    Disregard what I had replied, I had misread a rule, sorry!
     
    #256 Diphoration, Mar 25, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2021
    inane.imp and Savnock like this.
  17. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Alert isn't an ARO, and I'm unclear if models in HD can even do it.
     
  18. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    Please, feel free to read it again with TAG in place of Lieutenant. Or TAG Lieutenant.

    People way underestimate the consequences of some choices...
     
  19. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,349
    Likes Received:
    2,533
    LT Tag are still going to be bad. I'd be very surprised if the marginal upside of netting 1 order (only if you go second and only in missions where LT kills are not part of the scoring) at the cost of losing marker state would outweigh the fact that your opponent can just skip the turn and put you in LoL. (And that's without considering the increased SWC cost of those units, which is an extra downside that affects your list regardless of you going first or second)

    It'll be a marginal upgrade for Hidden Deployed TAG who will net a whopping 1 order (if they go second) at the expense of losing their biggest strength (marker state), which they'll probably spend that extra order in regaining most of the time.
     
    Zewrath and DaRedOne like this.
  20. nehemiah

    nehemiah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2018
    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    2,951
    Reading through this and other threads, the argument for why you cannot declare a LoF ARO invalidly is because LoF is checked in both steps of the ARO sections of the Order Expenditure Sequence, (LoF is assumed in both of these steps for HD Troopers.)

    ZoC is not checked until Step 5, the Resolution step, and is never assumed, thus a ZoC ARO can be declared invalidly.

    However an invalid such as Dodge can become valid if it triggers something like a mine, because the mine must trigger if an ARO is declared within its trigger area, and one of the requirements for Dodge is getting hit by a Template Weapon.

    So my understanding of the question I have asked regarding ZoC AROing on Step 4 and it being found that a ZoC was valid in Step 2, is that in Step 5, the HD troop would go back into Hidden Deployment.

    Some confirmation of this would be helpful.
     
    #260 nehemiah, Mar 26, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2021
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation