The background for this post is the recent discussion regarding declaring CC+move while in ZOC but out of LoF of the target. This led to a temporary ruling that CC needs to have its requirements met at declaration, and not at resolution. This now means that Guard can now be used where the only valid ARO is dodge/reset. I suppose this was not intended. BS attack is also an exception to the general rule that skill requirements are checked at resolution. In order to remove the temporary ruling and allow all skill requirements to be checked at resolution (including BS attack) would be: If you are in ZoC of an enemy trooper or marker AND have no LoF to it, you may delay your ARO declaration till after the opponents declaration of his second short skill. I believe this would solve ALL ARO baiting situations, and also makes sense realistically to be able to react as soon as you see the enemy. The flip side is that some tactics are no longer usable, such as a hacker in ZoC back arc of an opponent getting to either shoot or hack the enemy unopposed, or running into melee with units around corners without giving them the chance to fire their guns. Both of which can be discussed if that's how it was intended to work. As an added bonus, this suggestion would solve the situation of a unit having MSV2, standing in smoke and ZoC of an opponent, forcing him to do a dodge ARO. With this suggestion you could delay, wait for the MSV unit to declare BS attack on the second short skill and then declare BS ARO (though with -6 for shooting through smoke). Do you see any problems that appears with such a rule?
Makes link teams significantly stronger. So I am against this being implemented. Right now I can move to within 8 inches of a link in their back arc. They have to declare an aro so they will declare dodge. I shoot them in the butt. With this, I move to within 8". They declare delay. I shoot them. They shoot me back.
Fireteam rules are under review. Sixth sense could be removed form fireteam bonuses. But yes, it makes sixth sense skill stronger. Again, isn't this how this rule was intended to work? I mean, I get shot from 8.1 inch in my back arc, and I can respond by shooting. If the enemy is 7.9 inch I cannot. Ridiculous.
Considering that this idea was removed from Sixth Sense going from N3 to N4 I'm pretty sure it is not a desired choice.
N3 sixth sense didn't have the restriction of the trooper being outside LoF making it much stronger. I understand why that was dropped. A limited version like proposed solves alot of shenanigans currently breaking the rules imo.
Delay mechanics quite bad and should only be used when absolutely necessary to prevent a situation that becomes too advantageous. Allowing Guard to be powerful in the way it is now is the least bad situation I think as proposals like this will wreck havoc on game balance when trying to fix it. That's a feature, not a bug. You even get a negative MOD to Dodge specifically for this situation. Counter-proposal: when declaring CC Attack versus trooper with Guard, Base to Base requirement is checked at resolution steps rather than immediately.
Delay mechanics are already in the game vs camo markers for example. Are you saying they are bad there as well?
I've updated my response to provide more nuance, but yeah I think they're a band-aid. Luckily that kind of delay comes with a few more limitations than the one you suggest.
Speaking of band-aid, this is an exception to an exception. :) I think my suggestion is a much easier and cleaner solution and I don't see the game-wrecking balance problem you are talking about.
So you are saying that being in someone's Zone of CONTROL gives them less control of their actions? I certainly hope it's a bug..
It wouldn't be an exception to an exception, it would be an extension to an exception that Guard grants the opponent. You're free to think as you please, of course, but I've played with the mechanics you suggest for a few years and honestly it was the thing that sucked the most about N3. Yes. That's fully the intention according to IJW. When you no longer have control of your zone of control, your options start stinking. It's intentional and a required part to make close range gameplay functional from hacking, to melee, close range guns and generally just rewarding players for taking the effort to completely outflank your opponent. Or punish players for over-extending.
Unfortunately people here have a problem with anyone suggesting CB made a mistake. Indicators of a solid system are that mechanics and rules are universally applicable. People naturally like things like that because then it means they dont have to remember what gets an exception and everything is fair. CB had a great start for this but then did a 90° turn on the freeway. Your idea seems like it would work, at least at first glance, but as you said an exception to an exception is what it is, and smoothest operations involve no exceptions.
If you're out of LoF and in ZoC of your opponent, you outplayed them. If you're out of LoF and ZoC of your opponent, you can also shoot them with their only ARO being Reset or Dodge. I really don't see the issue. Don't let your opponent get in your back arc? Position your trooper better. Have some trooper declare Look Out! if you want see a bad situation about to happen. Getting caught in the back is a play problem, not a rules problem.
I would say that my suggestion would be universally applicable, and CB could go back to the original rule of checking all skill declarations at resolution. I.e. removing the current exceptions of BS and CC requirements being checked at declaration. This would put it back on that freeway you talk about imo. Anyhow, I guess it boils down to whatever intent CB had with how skills and gameplay should interact in these situations. If ARO baiting was the intention, then I suppose everything is fine. If not, I simply provide a suggested fix which is generally applicable without requiring exceptions and band-aids. Seems like most replies here are negative to the suggestion though so I guess the community prefer ARO baiting and the current ZOC shenaningans that are possible. A second best suggestion would be to not allow move as the second short skill, unless you performed move on the first short skill. Not as clean though and I'm not sure it fixes all the things I consider problematic with ZOC AROs.
You clearly haven't understood my post. Let me try and explain. 1. "If you're out of LoF and in ZoC of your opponent, you outplayed them." Not very difficult to achieve, but ok. 2. "If you're out of LoF and ZoC of your opponent, you can also shoot them with their only ARO being Reset or Dodge." Current rules does not allow any ARO here, which is fine. Being shot in the back from afar shouldn't allow any ARO. My suggestion doesn't change this. 3. "Don't let your opponent get in your back arc?" It's not so much the back arc thing which is an issue. Even so, the effect of back arc attack wouldn't change due to my suggestion, except granting models with Sixth sense an opportunity to shoot back. The main issue is with declaring a first short skill in opponents ZOC, triggering or "baiting" a reset/dodge ARO, and then moving out into the opponents LOF on the second short skill safely. This is what I mean with ARO baiting and what i'm trying to fix with the suggestion above. Even more abusive is ARO baiting which allows you to attack the target at zero risk to yourself (such as with guard). Example: I have a trooper on suppressive fire covering a building corner, standing 2 inch from the corner, i.e. he is defending that corner. Now my opponent declares move on the first short skill, and moves up to the corner but not around it so I don't get LOF. Now I have to choose reset/dodge or my ARO is forfeit. Second short skill my opponent can move into base contact- negating me to pull the trigger (or CC me with guard if he has that skill). I don't think I was outplayed. I setup in a defensive position, and due to rules interactions on move-timing, my opponent completely negated the defense. But maybe this is how it was intended? I just can't make any logical/tactical sense to it and i think it creates negative "gotcha"-situations especially towards new players. I believe CB did not intend for this, which is why the temporary ruling of CC requirement being checked at declaration came to be.
This is not like Sixth sense in N3. In my suggestion delaying requires you to have no LoF to the active player. That is a big difference. Secondly, the change in N4 to dodge-movement in active turn allows you to still move into CC with a guy around the corner without allowing him to shoot as ARO, but you would need to succeed at a Dodge-roll to do it. So implementing my suggestion would not mean going back to N3 sixth sense gameplay, i.e. you have not tried it for several years.
Look, I'm not arguing this specific situation only. I just think it is reasonable that a trooper setup to specifically cover one approach should be able to do so. My main point is suggesting a clean, easy way to fix multiple ARO baiting issues and situations where I think the current rules are not what CB intended. This is entirely up to CB how they want the game mechanics to work, Im just giving my opinion. Remarks like yours is borderline "l2p n00b" and not very constructive. What I'm looking for is feedback whether anyone sees some situations which breaks the rules or game-balance due to this suggestion. Sixth sense getting stronger is one such consequence. Apart from that I haven't seen alot of feedback on any concrete negative consequences.
Sixth Sense getting stronger and positioning becoming less important would both be very negative effect to “fix” a situation that I don’t think is an issue. Correctly positioning your troopers and correctly maneuvering based on your opponent’s troopers positioning is a fundamental in the game. 360 visors, alert, look out, warning, dodge. The game already has tons of tools to reposition and tons of way to mitigate being taken out of position. I really don’t think Sixth Sense needs any extra benefits. It is already plenty strong. The issues raised here are problems about bad positioning that can be solved with current, already existing options. Adding more safety nets for bad positioning would diminish counter-plays, which would negatively affect the game in my opinion.