Hello everyone!! Let's get start with a example. A:Active Trooper R:Reactive Trooper A and R don't get LOF, maybe blocked by a wall or other things, close enough to move to Sil contact. A - First short skill: CC Attack R - ARO: Deploy a mine A - Second short skill: Idle Then nothing happened except R lost a mine. Maybe this example looks a little strange, why not other AROs? One order one mine looks not so good either. But if A is the Shinobu Kitsune, in this case the reactive player may lost a effective way to stop her, in a unreasonable way. But the rules would not stop it. In my opinion, Speculative CC or other First-Attack-Trick make active player more active, but reactive player may lost some effective choice. Troopers in active phase are powerful enough. It's good for the game to give the reactive players more choice, but now some effective options were cutoff in some case, actually. So when I saw the new faq didn't stop these things, I feel disappoint, not a little. Of course I can use these First-Attack-Trick to beat the enemy down easily or gain an position advantage by making a threat to the guys out the LOF, to win the game. But I don't like it at all. I really miss the N3 rules in this respect: "A Skill declaration is not valid if the Requirements for their execution are not met" Now we agree to add this to our local tournament rules. Most of us think this can help to make a better experience of the game. It's the first time we add additional rules for match. We can check the LOF, after this faq, we get chance to check the ZOC. There's nothing trouble us to check if the attack skill's requirements are met when we declare it, isn't it?
I don't think we can return to N4 requirements timing without resuscitating smoke shooting within ZOC ARO manipulation. And given the choice between that and CC-baiting, I will sign smoke shooting within ZOC's do-not-resuscitate any day of the week. (Mind you, both it and CC-baiting aren't exactly easy to explain to a new player - this isn't an argument in favour of either, just that given the choice I'll take CC-baiting over smoke shooting ARO manipulation)
I'm not going to defend FAQ 1.1.1 - I'm still kind of confused about it at best. And now that we have ZoC premeasuring (hurray!), I would definitely prefer a system where all Skills must meet their Requirements at Declaration. But I'm not sure why the particular scenario in this thread is a problem. Kitsune declares CC Attack. I declare Place Deployable for a mine. Kitsune doesn't move. Ok, so my opponent just burned an order (and lost Kitsune's marker state, though that may not matter) just to burn one of my mines. Sounds good to me! I'm happy to repeat that twice more before I run out of mines. My helpless dude who was about to get trivially murdered by Kitsune just wasted three of my opponent's orders first.
Based on the aro guide you posted earlier, wouldn't the aro choice be illegal as if there is total cover you cannot declare lof based things? Or is it exclusively cannot declare bs attack preemptively through total cover?
Smoke shooting behind ZoC is a meme, it's so minor compared to all the bullshit that the current state has. Preemptive ARO is a mess to explain and actually contain stuff that breaks the game. Getting idle-shot in the back or in Smoke still lets you do the best ARO you could do ofherwise, which is Dodge without penalties. It's super order intensive to setup, you need to have particular equipment, and it's all on mediocre guns. And you'd be Dodging regardless. It's also easily countered by placing models properly. Making the game into a complete mess of covoluted rules to avoid such a small part of the game that doesn't really do a whole lot in the grand scheme is thing is outrageous. There are also many ways they could "fix" idle-shooting through smoke without ruining the rest of the game.
Exclusively BS Attack. But you're right! My chart doesn't address non-BS AROs that require LoF. I'll update it when I get a moment.
Hmm. Reasonable points well made. Assuming you had the design goal of fixing the lack of choice from reactive player getting ZOC smoke shot, what would you change while returning to requirement checked at declaration?
Allow delaying ARO against enemies if they are both within ZoC and in a ZVZ? It’s adjacent conceptually to delaying vs camo markers.
Mind you that this is a very fast answer to a prompt and I haven't thought this completely through for every implication. That being said I'd consider adding ARO to Intuitive Attack (With a -6 to the WIP roll), it could be a very interesting addition to the game. Positives Lets the reactive player contest the shot provided you have a template. This still keeps the smoke shot be a counter to some trooper, but it gives the reactive trooper a possible counter to the action by using the appropriate trooper (template wielding troopers are meant to protect the angles of attack afterall) The player using smoke still has an upside that is relevant (cannot use direct template unopposed because intuitive attack is opposable) Is a soft-counter to camouflage marker, being able to attack them if they get without template range, without making them completely irrelevant as the shot is opposable. (This would be a very big plus imo, camo marker are too strong imo and this would add a whole other dimension to the decision making versus them. It's not too strong as it's B1 opposable, but it forced reveals in a much more relevant way than declaring Discover and getting your brains blown up.) Adding the -6 to WIP roll mimics the current FtF modifiers that you get from responding to a shot in smoke, so declaring your intuitive attack before your opponent attacks you would end up with the same modifiers to replying through smoke. So it's not too oppressive. It would also keep reactive trooper intuitive attacking you in check from being a bit too strong. (You can reply at full burst with -6 versus their single burst at -6) - - - - - Situations ARO versus being shot by MSV trooper Active player idles inside of a Smoke with Ko Dali Reactive player can Dodge with no penalty, or Intuitive Attack with WIP-6 Active player shoots active player This lets the reactive player have their chance at damaging the opposing player ARO versus Camouflaged trooper Active player moves a Camo token close to your Daturazi Your Daturazi declares Intuitive with WIP-6 Active player has a choice of disrespecting the WIP roll, or opposite it with a shot This gives a new option to the reactive player and forces the Camo to make a choice: disrespect the WIP-6 roll and keep moving, or oppose with great odds. Unlike Discover, this doesn't leave the reactive player completely defenseless. ARO while inside of a Smoke Active player moves near a Daturazi who is inside of a Smoke Daturazi declares Intutive with WIP-6 Active player is being shot through smoke, so is allowed to reply with a BS Attack at -6 (using their full burst) This gives an extra option to the reactive trooper when under smoke (whether it is there smoke or the opponent). However, the option is not great odds, so it's mainly only good at slowing down an opponent from just going Move-Move through smoke. - - - - - The change gives more options to the reactive player in every situations without any of these options being overwhelmingly good. In most cases, they just force decisions to the active player rather than be straight up powerful.
Apology first , my example got some mistake. But what I tried to say is declaring any skill without Requirements check will give active player more advantage on choice. (Two guys roaring through the wall, wielding large knife, then one of them run to the Objective token ,the other one can only stare at him until he out of sight and keep wielding knife......) I can win by this but I really dont like this stupid scenario.
About smoke shooting, outside ZOC, even without MSV, there's still something. I can declare BS Attack behind(not in) a smoke as my first short skill. The target(no MSV) may declares BS Attack , Dodge, or other skills whatever as ARO. If the target shoot back and I choose to stay behind the smoke, there may be a gun fight through the smoke without MSV, both with a -6 MOD, cause in Resolution step both of them are the target of a BS Attack through the Zero Visibility Zone. If the target Dodge or do anything else, I can move to get LOF to shoot him normally. A Sixth Sense one(a fireteam leader looks good) can do this better, get advantage in some scenario with smoke, no need MSV.
Hello, I really like the FAQ, finally go forward with N4 and remove the "setep back N3" provided by the previous FAQ in the ARO matter. About the first topic exposed by @Diphoration I disagree with the interpretation of "loosing the mine", because if someone declare CC inside my control zone and I choose "place deployable", later if the enemy don't move, I will do "idle", but now "I'am allowed to declare de ARO so is a legal ARO" but in resolution time not a valid one, so I will do "idle" instead, I will place no mine and I will don't loose one of the "uses". As far I can understand the rules. I think we, the "N3 players", are having a lot of troubles struggling with the subtles changes now in N4. Not all of then are obvious and we try to "do in the N3 way" insted of "do in N4 way" because is easy for us or I understand in a manner which comes more from N3 than N4. Of course, maybe I should read one more time the english rulebook because not a few times the differences are too big, but in this case I think the "wording" is pretty much the same. About the "intuitive fire as ARO" should good at first, a lot of things should work different than now because if not the troups with direct templates will become a lot stronger in ARO, because it will be no way to avoid then unless you have stealth. Not even with eclipse. And how it works against camo troups? It will be allowed or not? This are the very first questions that come into my mind.
What's your interpretation of the bolded portion of this excerpt from the Disposable rule?: "This weapon or Equipment has a limited amount of ammunition or uses, and one is expended every time you declare its use, regardless of the success or failure of the Roll involved, or if a Skill has been declared illegally."
I was to answer too quickly but I wait until review one more time the rules, and you were right: IDLE SHORT MOVEMENT SKILL No RollEFFECTS►A Trooper that declares Idle performs no action. As such, its declaration just activates the Trooper, potentially generating AROs.►Whenever a Trooper that received an Order in the Active Turn chooses not to perform an action with one of the two Short Skills of that Order, that Trooper is considered to declare Idle.►In the Resolution Step of the Order, if a Trooper is found to have not met the Requirements of a declared Skill, they instead perform an Idle. In this situation:►The ammunition of Disposable weapons or pieces of Equipment is spent.►If the Trooper is in Marker form, it is revealed, and its Model is placed where the Marker was. Because "idle" take in consideration that option. So, if you declare "place positionable" and later you don't fulfil the requisites you will loose your mine. I made a mistake looking only in "disposable" and "deployables". My bad. Still, no problem there, if the enemy declares CC, when he is so sure to go in contact after the second skill, then, to loose one mine for thar CC specialist wasting time is a cheap trade for the guy with the mine. If we look carefully the "new situation". The word "illegally" really should go out of the rulebook, because exists only in "disposable". Maybe a reference to idle will be better. Active (A) and Reactive (R). Old ARO "R" only could place the mine after "A" goes into our LoF with the first half order skill, if "not" "R" only could do dodge (to turn around, not to move) reset or another ZC ARO (not too many if R isn't a hacker, "tohaa" or has a jammer). So, A still could take silouette contact with the second half without risk. "New ARO". R could declares anything when gains ARO. The enemy should take the "reaction" in "more" consideration than before. If the CC specialist don't take the silouette contact with the second half, yes we will can not place the mine, but our troups will be "safe", at least until run out mines. Even loosing the deployable I still don't see "problems" with the new "order sequence" or, at least I see more advantages than disavantages. Only we will have to use on how the secuence works now. I think the new interactions will be positives for the "game experience".
