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

A question for Order Expenditure Sequence/ARO

Discussion in 'Rules' started by L.jae, Mar 31, 2021.

  1. L.jae

    L.jae New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2019
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    Hi All, a question that some of my nearby players started to argue with.
    KakaoTalk_20210331_122418145_01.jpg KakaoTalk_20210331_122418145.jpg
    Here's two part from N4 pdf. On ARO Section,Right after squares, there's a paragraph says 'must declare ARO immediately ---', and on sequence section, at #2, there's a paragraph 'Troopers are not forced to declare ---'.

    And there's got a crash at our user pool, with AROs that can be declared with ZoC.

    Here's an example that one of my friend stated.

    'There's a player in active turn (Player A), and a player in reactive turn (Player B)

    One of A's model placed a mine in front of B's fusilier, and A spends another order on his another troop, who's little far from B's fusilier.

    As A declares first short skill of new-activated model, he asks B to declare all his AROs.

    At this point, A says that "Your fusilier need to react too, because there's a word of 'must' on ARO section of rules, So that fusilier still need to do his reaction because my new-activated troop can potentially enter your fusilier's ZoC.
    Since ZoC requirements need to be fulfilled at resolution step, you need to declare whatever ARO he can try with ZoC, and it will detonate my mine"

    This topic is on board now at our user pool, because of English wordings on rule's ARO/Order sequence.
    There's a FaQ says that ZoC fulfillment need to be fulfilled at resolution step, so such example like that can be happen.
    Also there is no saying about 'No ARO' on rules, whether it makes a troop idle or just purely standing there.

    So, i want to see what you all think about such situation like this, majority of us think this 'Must' wording as a word to prevent someone who want to declare an ARO after seeing active's second short, but we needed to make a double check.
     
    Ugin likes this.
  2. colbrook

    colbrook Grenade Delivery Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,295
    Likes Received:
    17,066
    The key word is Eligible, meaning a trooper that fulfils the requirements of a Legal ARO must Declare at first opportunity or forfeit. If you're certain the trooper doesn't fulfil the requirements for an ARO (is not Eligible) then you can safely wait until after the Second Skill.

    The wording isn't ideal and I believe it's already in the FAQ queue.
     
    #2 colbrook, Mar 31, 2021
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2021
    Ugin and inane.imp like this.
  3. L.jae

    L.jae New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2019
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    2
    looks like Your LEGAL and FORFEIT is Key, Thanks for reply, will also make discussion with my fellow players
     
  4. Ugin

    Ugin Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    But the question is, what if you are not certain abour ZoC? You can only know whether it meets the requirement by measuring ZoC at the Resolution step(according to FAQ).

    Can I still 'wait' until the next skill, even if me and my opponent are not certain about whether it is eligible, and the rule says "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."?
     
  5. wuji

    wuji Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2017
    Messages:
    1,327
    Likes Received:
    369
    @ijw not sure if you're aware of this one or not, no need to reply but seems like worth adding to the list
     
  6. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Yes you may choose to wait. However, if it's determined (at Step 5) that you had an eligible ARO at Step 2 (that is, the active Trooper was in your ZOC at Step 2) then the ARO you declared at Step 4 would be invalid and become an Idle. If, on the other hand, it's determined (at Step 5) that you had no valid ARO until Step 4 then you're good to go.
     
    Ugin likes this.
  7. Ugin

    Ugin Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Would that be considering the 'wait' as another form of ARO?
     
  8. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    No. You basically have 3 options at Step 2 and Step 4.

    1. I am not declaring an ARO at this time.
    2. I delay my ARO declaration against that Camo/Holoecho Marker.
    3. I am declaring X.

    Only 3 actually involves declaring an ARO.

    There a several reasons for choosing 1 including "I don't thinkI have a valid ARO yet, so I won't declare until after your next skill when I may get one". The think is the kicker there: if you get it wrong (and think you don't when in fact you do) then you get punished for that error by losing the ARO (that is, it's treated as invalid and becomes an Idle).
     
    Ugin and chromedog like this.
  9. Ugin

    Ugin Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    So I assume your interpretation is that in the phrase "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.", the part "fails to do so" includes...
    1. Have actually failed noticing the opportunity to declare AROs,
    2. or 'chose to fail' at declaring AROs on purpose.
    Is that correct?
     
  10. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Yes. If you don't realise you have an ARO and as a result don't declare an ARO you don't get to go "oh, at Step 2 I actually had an ARO with my Noctifier ML. Do you mind if I do that now?" equally you can simply choose not to ARO "he he he, I don't ARO now. But next order when you move the WHOLE link out THEN I'll ARO with my Noctifier ML."

    The reason why you fail to declare an ARO is irrelevant, the outcome is the same.
     
    Ugin and ijw like this.
  11. Ugin

    Ugin Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Thanks a lot for your elaboration. I actually wanted to believe that 'failing' includes either forfeiting and overlooking, but then the word says "you must declare AROs", and no other explanation about forfeiting AROs other than "Troopers are not forced to declare the AROs"... I wasn't sure. Thanks again.
     
    #11 Ugin, Mar 31, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2021
  12. Ugin

    Ugin Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    Apologies for pulling out the post again. I've re-read the post, and I realised I've misinterpreted what @inane.imp said.

    What I've interpreted was "You can choose not to declare AROs at Step 2 and 4, but if you've had any chance to declare it, your AROs become Idle instead."
    But now I see what he actually said was "Suppose you choose not to declare ARO at Step 2 since you 'think' you don't have a chance at the moment, and instead you declare ARO at the step 4. But it turns out that you had a valid ARO chance at Step 2, thanks to the result of the ARO check at Step 5 and 6. It's like you've unfairly delayed the ARO, so it's considered invalid and the ARO becomes Idle."

    So, the final question is, when you just forfeit the ARO declaration both at Step 2 and 4, even when you had tons of chances, you're not even considered having declared an Idle, did I get it right?
     
  13. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Yes.

    If you don't declare anything there is nothing to become invalid and be performed as an Idle.
     
    Ugin likes this.
  14. Ugin

    Ugin Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2018
    Messages:
    542
    Likes Received:
    2,136
    And again, thank you so much!
     
  • 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