Greetings, As is customary with every big rule change, we're kinda left in the dark with no patch notes explaining the changes. Is ARO baiting gone? Is it back? Partially back? Intended? Unintended? Are interim rules still applicable? It's always a nightmare to figure out what is the intent every time this happens. I'm one of the most active user in rules discussion (both on the forum and in every single discord) and rules interactions are my favourite thing about this game, but even I'm starting to get really frustrated at having to figure out how the game is actually meant to be played. Needless to say, transmitting the information to my local meta is a big headache. Having a couple of lines or examples explaining the changes, why they were made and how they're intended to impact the game would go a long way. - - - - - EDIT: FAQ timeline and implications Pre 1.0, Pre-Interim You can declare any skill at any time. Their validity doesn't matter at declaration. Check at resolution if skills are valid. Post 1.0, Pre-Interim You can declare any ZoC skill or CC Attack skill at any time. Their validity doesn't matter at declaration. BS Attack needs to have LoF at declaration. Check at resolution if skills are valid. Post 1.0, Post Interim You can declare any ZoC skill at any time. Their validity doesn't matter at declaration. BS Attack needs to have LoF at declaration. CC Attack needs to have base contact at declaration. Check at resolution if skills are valid. Post 1.1 (with Interim still active?) You measure ZoC to make sure you have an ARO before declaring one. BS Attack needs to have LoF at declaration. CC Attack needs to have base contact at declaration. (assuming interim was still active) Check at resolution if skills are valid. Post 1.1.1 You can declare any skill at any time. You measure ZoC to make sure you have an ARO before declaring one. (But this is completely irrelevant, because you can declare any skill at any time) Check at resolution if skills are valid. - - - - - There is a steady progression of shortening the amount of invalid ARO that can be declared up to the point where 1.1.1 nuked the restrictions. Measuring ZoC doesn't really serve any purpose, because you can still declare any skill at anytime. Being able to declare any skill means you can do things like "I'll shoot, and it'll resolve if it becomes legal at resolution". This breaks a lot of things (especially with templates) - - - - - Personnal opinion "Preemptive" skill declarations are extremely hard to explain, especially to new players. They make the decision flow a lot more convoluted and the game devolves in a lot of "do x if", "do y if", and really clog down the flow of the game. I think adding things like "All skills need to meet requirements at declaration" would make the game extremely clear and have a much better flow of the game (which I feel was one of the main N4 goal) People have raised the "issue" about being able to Idle->Shoot to force the opponent to Dodge (while in back arc, or while in smoke within ZoC when done with a trooper with MSV). I think those are perfectly fine in the game. In nearly every single case, the best course of action for the reactive trooper would be to Dodge anyway. It mainly only denies the opponent from trading via dropping a template on you. It might be a "feelsbad" for a player who's not used to it, but it's far from being as bad as the amount of "feelsbad" that will emerge from a overly convoluted system.
I second this, a short statement from @ijw or @HellLois would go a long way in understanding the intent and implications behind this.
Preferably from ijw. HellLois doesn't have a great track record for clarity when it comes to rules explanations.
Depends which language it's in! This sort of thing should be worked on as a team though, so it shouldn't matter who posts it.
It just seems super weird to me that FAQ 1.1 was all about making things super crystal clear in term of what and when you can ARO. We even now pre-measure to be sure things are valid at declaration. Then 1.1.1 goes "lol jk, just pre-emptively declare stuff, except make sure you got an ARO" which just makes it seem like 1.1 added an extra step that serves absolutely no purpose. I really don't get what the intent is.
- The weird “can’t declare certain AROs” problems are all gone - The weird “declare an ARO for every model” argument is gone - “Does my mine go off?” is now neatly solved - No “invalid ARO” to reveal Hidden Deployment Lts
Also, I would be very surprised if allowing every to be pre-emptively declared was the intention. I had suggested this change a while back in a thread and IJW pointed (rightfully so) out how they would need to completely rewrite the template rules to allow such a thing. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/aro-rules-suggestion.39466/page-2
Unless I'm mistaken, this was the rollercoaster of N4 ARO validity so far... Pre 1.0, Pre-Interim : You can declare any ARO, validity doesn't matter, check at resolution. Post 1.0, Pre-Interim: You can declare any ZoC ARO or CC, validity doesn't matter, check at resolution. Post 1.0, Post Interim: You can declare any ZoC ARO, validity doesn't matter, check at resolution. Post 1.1 (with Interim still active?): You measure ZoC to make sure you can't declare any invalid ARO. (No invalid ARO are possible at declaration) Post 1.1.1: Every kind of invalid ARO are possible at declaration, measure ZoC for no real reason, check at resolution. We could see a progression of reducing the amount of invalid ARO at declaration with every step, 1.1 being the spot where no invalid ARO could potentially be declared. And 1.1.1 threw it all out of the window. The intention of pre-measuring ZoC seems like it was to prevent invalid ARO at declartion to be a thing?
Remember, ARO validity and skill Requirements are different. I think it's: Pre 1.0, Pre-Interim : You can declare any ARO, check validity and requirements at resolution. Post 1.0, Pre-Interim: You can declare any ZoC ARO or CC, check validity and requirements at resolution. Post 1.0, Post Interim: You can declare any ZoC ARO, check validity and requirements at resolution. Post 1.1 (with Interim still active?): You measure ZoC to make sure you can't declare any invalid ARO. If you have a valid ARO, you can declare any ZoC ARO. If you have LoF you can declare a LoF ARO, and if you have sil contact you can declare CC Attack. Check requirements at resolution (but this step is largely obsolete and mostly relevant because of Holomask). Post 1.1.1: You measure ZoC to make sure you can't declare any invalid ARO. If you have a valid ARO, you can declare any ARO. Check requirements at resolution.
I expect something along the lines of "you need to fulfill skill requirement to declare them" for 1.1.2, seems like it's be the logical progression of the FAQ and would really make the game crystal clear to explain imo.
Yes please! A major benefit of ZoC premeasuring is that you can always check all the requirements at declaration, so there's no need to allow declaring skills that don't meet their requirements. It would just need an update to the Holomask rule to explain what happens when a hacking program is declared against a target that's secretly not hackable. Not hard to achieve. FAQ 1.1.1 seems to be a step in the opposite direction, though. But as you say, maybe we're just not understanding the purpose of 1.1.1.
It feels to me the purpose of 1.1.1 is to prevent ARO baiting using a Zero Vis Zone, mainly the type exploited by Ko Dali and Uxia.
Possibly, but it kind of came out of nowhere. ARO baiting has worked through every iteration since at least N3. None of the other changes seem to have been intended to change how ARO baiting works (other than the interim ruling to prevent a particular new kind of ARO baiting with CC attack). Like, ARO baiting just wasn't an issue on the radar with any of these changes. So it would seem strange to issue FAQ 1.1.1, which by its numbering is presented as a patch to FAQ 1.1, for the purpose of changing (fixing?) this totally unrelated mechanic that had nothing to do with FAQ 1.1 and has been around since forever. I mean, I don't object if they want to eliminate ARO baiting, it just seems really weird to do it as a patch to FAQ 1.1 if that was indeed the purpose.
From what I see the intent of the ZOC measurement is to see if you have the ability to declare any kind of ARO. It seems like they're trying to separate the declaration of an ARO, and the declaration of the specific ARO skill as two separate things. You need to check if you are allowed to ARO before you declare the ARO. The ZOC measurement is to check whether you need to declare the ARO or not.
But the fact that you can declare any ARO, valid or not, makes the whole verification process moot. The outcome of checking or not doesn't change anything, you could've just pre-emptively declared one like we could pre 1.1. It adds unnecessary steps (unless the intent was that we can't declare invalid ARO anymore)
That is what I think the intent is, no "I declare ARO dodge from across the table to get out of hidden deployment."
If the entire change to the Order Expenditure Sequence, and Measuring ZoC twice per Order is only for this insignificant interaction to stop existing, that's a terrible decision, lol.
Should be pointed out that this is in the same errata that clarifies TacAw won't be generated on models left in hidden deployment which specifically targets the Cutter and Sphinx, two of the few profiles in the game that actually would get mileage out of abusing that mechanic to generate TacAw and LT orders (and in the case of the Cutter creating a more or less invincible LT profile on turn 1). Not a major balance thing but perhaps a loophole they wanted to close.
While I can understand the sentiment, I am not sure the responsible people can do such an article right now.
If not for a patch notes document, a clarification on the intention of the new 1.1.1 FAQ would go a long way, we went from having preemptive ARO, to not having any via a forum interim rule, to not having them via 1.1, to having them via 1.1.1. It's kinda hard to keep track of what is intended. (Though I understand that this will obviously not happen tonight, it's past midnight in Spain afterall)
