I see your point and understand you think it is a problem. I think that sixth sense was intended to be that strong. I also think it should be removed from fireteam bonuses. The proposed rule was not intended to "add safety nets for bad positioning" but to remove ARO baiting abuse which I think is negative for the game, and to simplify the rules.
I wouldn't mind Sixth Sense to be a very strong skill if it was only present on the handful of troopers that natively have it. Having a couple of troopers per sectorial be immune to being outmaneuvers and great at reacting to anything could be a nice thing. I have an issue if a version of Sixth Sense that strong was to be widespread through fireteams though.
Hello, how to fix this is really simple in most cases, let the ARO as it was before the FAQ, at least as how in my "local area" undestand how it works with the "order expediture sequence". When a troup has right to declare ARO, because "enemy activation" in his LoF or control zone", allow the ARO be declared, no matter if the requirements are fullfilled in that moment or not. Later when players check the "requirements" in the last part of the order sequence, things will happens or not. This will remove too the neccessity to have extra rules for camo marquers, no more delay ARO. If a camo moves into your LoF you will declare the ARO right away, if you choose "shoot", you will can shoot if the camo reveals himself if not, "nothing happens". This probably will required too to remove the "inaction" wording which forces a camo or a hidden deployment to be revealed... Even without changing this, I believe the problems will be less than we have now. At least more clear.
You'd also have to gamble on whether the camo marker was a hacker or not and it seriously shifts the balance away from the active trooper that's trying to do tactical movement in favour of the passive trooper, plus melee troopers would have a greater problem getting in close as they'd never really be able to do a move-move into base contact. It's a pretty massive shift in gameplay balance, just like Rocker's suggestion, a bit like if your cat claws at a wall and your solution is to tear the wall section down, rebuild it and paint it a different colour - instead of just fixing the claw mark itself. Maybe that wall needs rebuilding, but not because of the cat.
I really don't think the balance game wil be so drastically changed, not at all. The ARO pieces will be stronger? Different, yes, but stronger? No. Yes, CC specialist with no "marker state" will have, maybe, a harder time triying to engage, only in the case that the enemy fails the dodge roll... And the specialist is triying to "end in base contact with his second half order"... Maybe is a thing of my "narrow" sight of the game, because this situation happens only in a few games and then maybe once in the whole match... How this works isn't really so different, as I said, before the FAQ... the wording in the "sequence of order expedititure" works in this way: 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. 6.Resolution: Check that the declared Skills, Special Skills, and pieces of Equipment meet their respective Requirements, measure all distances and Zones of Control, determine MODs, and make Rolls. If any Skill, Special Skill, or piece of Equipment does not meet its Requirements, the Trooper is considered to have declared an Idle. So, my proposal it isn't of my own invention, it is how it works before the FAQ, as wrote in the rulebook. This was a really fine solution to a lot of problems from the past without almost no "new rule problems", only new "ways" to play, same as the new rules about hackers, programms, state's phase... The only big change will be in "Active Marker against ARO Marker" and this only if CB would choose to no include the "delay option", thing they didn't. So, this problem. about we are talking, appears only after the FAQ, the solution is easy: go back. Sometimes is the right way. Yes, if CB goes back, we will have the situation where we can't do "move+move in order to try reach the enemy contact" without risk... but nothing more. I think this fix the problem of the claw marks on the wall with a little "putty" and "paint", but the wall still be the same wall as before. best regards :)
I didn't write that you (Urobros) invented it yourself; my memory isn't so short as I don't remember what happened only a few months ago when IJW said that that was how it was written in the rules. I'm saying that the change itself is a lot deeper than you make it out to be and would require thorough testing. It's not a bit of putty and some paint compared to how we have played it and compared to how, by all accounts, it seems the rules were tested; a bit of putty and some paint would be to limit the fix to address the interaction between Guard and CC Attack only. This does remind me that I need to apply a second layer of putty to one of my own walls and paint it this weekend -.-;; However, if the game works better (for an arbitrary definition of "better") by changing even core rules then they should change those rules, but they may need to make further adjustments. For example, with the suggestion you make they may need to alter the cost or existence of certain combinations; maybe hacking skills need NFB so they can't be used while in Camo and maybe melee skills on troopers without smoke or camo/imp states need to go down further. Or with Rocker's suggestion, maybe they need to add a "if the second short skill is a movement skill" clause similar to camouflaged/Impersonation states and remove template mode from shotguns and reduce the number of profiles with true DTWs down to about half of current, then that will need evaluation. I am a lot more partial to your suggestion, though, as it removes a lot of exceptions instead of creates them. It just needs further adjustments and vetting is all.
