Greetings! With the new 1.1.1 interactions being so covoluted due to the preemptive ARO, the only arguments I heard in favour of it is how it removes the interaction with MSV trooper in smoke declaring Idle->Shoot versus a trooper while in their ZoC. I think the game would greatly benefit from having a very clear Order Expenditure sequence, not only from a rule perspective, but from a game flow perspective. I think having the following changes could go a long way into making the game much eaiser to teach and give a bit more agency to the reactive player. - - - - - Change One "Players must meet requirement when they declare a skill." This makes the Order Expenditure and the flow of the game crystal clear, there is no obnoxious preemptive ARO and teaching the possible interactions is very simple. - - - - - Change Two Intuitive Attack is declarable in ARO, with the caveat that when used in the reactive turn, the player adds an extra -6 to their WIP roll. 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. - - - - - I think the combination of those two changes would neuter the MSV in ZoC interaction that people dislike, it would create more agency for the reactive player, and would make the game a whole lot easier to teach and follow. - - - - - Please give me your insight on whether or not you believe this would be a positive change for the game.
I really like this idea honestly. Though they could also fix a lot by just biting the bullet and providing a "Hold" ARO
I also prefer a meet requirements at declaration rule, since it is easier to grasp. As for the 2nd rule suggestion, while I think the intention is right, I don't think it will have an effect on ZoC+smoke trick as the wip - 6 is probably worse at winning the Ftf than Dodge - 3. I'd prefer a "delay" option vs troopers in ZOC and out of LOF as I've suggested before.
Yeah, an ARO specifically to do preemptive shoot would also be a very elegant solution. Much cleaner since it keeps the whole "meet the requirement". I love that suggestion. Dodge is not -3 when shot through smoke, it's on regular PH. I'm not a fan of the delay suggestion or something that would give you a great odds. If you're getting shot through smoke by a MSV unit. You would normally only be able to shoot back at BS-6. Being able to delay would just make you stronger versus someone in the smoke than someone out of it, the active player should be the one deciding the skill they do after the reactive. I think the idea is to give option, but not to make you better than you'd usually be. Let's not forget that if you're getting shot through smoke while you don't have a visor, you should be in a bad spot, because the opponent paid for their equipment and got a good setup on you. A penalty-less Dodge would and should nearly always be the best option in term of winning the FtF.
The delay option in the case of being shot by MSV unit through smoke would still give you - 6, so it wouldn't make you better. It would just mean you would get the same ARO if you are within or outside ZoC, which seems logical to me. A separate Hold ARO could also be interesting though I don't see the difference with just implementing the delay ARO as suggested which is already in the game.
Declaring after is so much stronger, regardless of -6. It's not even close. Being able to pick the weapon mode that counter your opponent as the reactive player is the strongest asset. Getting that benefit because the opponent is obscured makes no sense. The difference with a "hold" ARO is that you could force the reactive player to force the modes at the declaration of the ARO. It would work like the preemptive ARO we have, but being confined to a single skill would allow the interaction to be clear and not mess up any other part of the rules. It would let the dev put in parameters that only affect this particular skill.
OK so if my MSV enemy is behind smoke and 8.1 inches away from me, I get to decide what to do after his second short skill (assuming he did move+shoot). Now, assuming the enemy ends up 8 inches away instead then I cannot decide what to do after his second short skill anymore but is forced to Dodge. Giving that benefit back is considered unreasonably good? I really don't see the game breaking issue here. (The delay would work as with camouflaged units that if your opponent keeps moving out of LOF instead of shooting you would lose your ARO.) But I'm OK with a separate Hold ARO as suggested.
What about trying to engage a sepsitor user through smoke. The large dtw is so big its almost 2 orders worth of movement. The Avatar's wip is 17. I like this idea, but now it just became a dodge on 13 or 14 vs a wipe roll of 11 for various samurai/ninjas. Not to mention a wip roll against their camo. I like the idea alot but I'd want CB to make some corner case exceptions or addiyional -3 for a total -9 penalty for sepsitor used in the reactive this way.
How about this new "Hold" action: HOLD ARO Requirements Troopers can declare Hold if one of the following is true: - An enemy camo marker, holo echo marker or Impersonator marker activates in your LoF or ZoC. - An enemy trooper activates inside your ZoC but remains outside your LoF. Effects Your reactive trooper can delay the declaration of their ARO until the second half of the Active Trooper's Order has been declared. In the following cases, the delaying Trooper can declare an ARO: - If the Active Trooper in marker state reveals themselves with the second half of their Order by cancelling their marker state - If the Active Trooper moves into LoF (from outside LoF) - If the delaying trooper is the target of an attack Otherwise the delaying Trooper loses their right to declare an ARO. You could then remove the overlapping text on Camouflage, holoecho and Impersonator states regarding delay.
I dunno, the second part seems kind of clunky. Not sure of the wording, but give them the ability to declare AROs that they did not have access to before, and forfeit any that they did have. IE, if I move near you then you may normally Dodge only. If you hold, on your actual ARO declaration you cannot declare Dodge as it was available when you declared Hold, but may declare anything new you have recieved such as shoot.
This certainly feels like a better solution than pre-emptive ARO. I guess my question (as someone who hasn't played enough to have an opinion either way) is: is smoke shooting such a degenerate tactic that it needs to be fixed? The idea that being within ZoC gives the attacker the ability to force a dodge when they get uncomfortably close always felt really flavorful to me. Doubly so, someone a few feet away hidden in smoke, with thermal goggles on. The idea that the victim would be able to shoot back at all is kind-of crazy. @Diphoration it seems like from what you've been saying, you didn't find it to be a huge problem in the first place, but limiting it to Intuitive weapons at a big penalty seems as close to 'flavor' correct as one can get. The only thing that gives me pause actually is that there may be unforeseen consequences about how it will interact with the much-more-common scenario of Camouflaged troops. I can see people loading up on shotguns and flamethrowers if it turns out that spray gunfire around haphazardly is a better way to 'discover' the enemy in the reactive turn.
I am unsure if the third point Yes, the wording may be a bit off, I tried copying from how delay is worded in camouflage state. Your suggestion sounds good as well.
Which is why they get a -6 to BS. So you are ok with having different reactive possibilities depending on if the opponent is 8 or 8.1 inches away?
I find these two ideas combined favorable. The option being you can choose to ARO as currently available, or you can hold, losing the normal AROs but gaining access to the others (attacks) should the opportunity present themselves... All the while maintaining the Requirements be met before a declaration can be made.
I'm 100% in favor of change 1. It's the only way to make the game crystal clear imho. I have no opinion on change 2. I agree the Smoke + ARO bait may be a little overpowered, but it's not easy to use and doesn't break the game balance in general. At least it's not worth breaking the game to solve.
Well, I'm in favor of AROs within ZoC giving you "less time" to react (and therefore being more limited). 8.1 to 8 inches making a big difference sounds wonky on paper, but all range measurements have some form of hard cutoff between distances and could be critiqued on that basis. Saying that there should be different reactive possibilities at 24 vs 8 inches through smoke is likely not controversial but it's technically the same thing. It sounds like the argument is that the particular hard cutoff involved in smoke shooting just feels unreasonably punishing relative to others (e.g. the difference between a gun going from +3 to -3 from one range band to another is less egregious than certain ARO options being neutered at just under 8"). I DO think that there is some general weirdness with ZoC AROs - my particular bugbear is the fact that Stealth seems to work backwards in some situations (including the aforementioned smoke shooting situation). Because Stealth doesn't trigger AROs, Stealthing to under 8" and then shooting actually gives your opponent the option to shoot back, whereas turning off Stealth paradoxically is better because you can force the dodge. That feels wrong to me from a thematic standpoint. So there is something about the way all of this ZoC stuff works that is a bit off. My worry with a 'Hold' option is mainly that I think it nerfs CC in general and automatically becomes the default choice in pretty much all ZoC ARO circumstances. For example, putting smoke shooting aside, if I have a Dog Warrior hidden around the corner from an enemy and make a short move towards the corner, with the idea of using my second short move to engage. In the current rules, the enemy is essentially limited to a Dodge ARO and will hope to be able to break contact at the end of the order sequence. With the option to Hold the defender swings the momentum of the activation completely into their favor. If the Dog Warrior makes its second short move to enter silhouette contact then the defender can do whatever they want - dodge, or more likely an unopposed BS Attack or even CC Attack. If the Dog Warrior chooses to idle with their second short skill so they can move to enter Silhouette contact with their next order and then CC Attack, the defender will have the option to do a template attack or F2F it with a BS Attack (whereas if they were already tied up in melee from the previous activation they could only CC or dodge). To me that's too much flexibility considering how hard I might be working just to get my melee specialist in there. If you believe melee is overpowered, maybe you won't agree. I will say that the possibility of pre-emptive CC declarations (which I think some people would argue we have now in 1.1.1) equally puts a damper on the above sequence of events. Because if the Dog Warrior moves as its first short skill and the defender declares a CC attack while Doggo is still hidden around the corner, we have the same problem wherein the Dog Warrior's moves around the corner into silhouette contact with the second short skill, and then has to deal with a free CC Attack that becomes legal at resolution. Exciting times we're living in :-P
But if the Dog warrior chooses Dodge, the reactive trooper has lost his ARO. Then the dodge move can take the Dog warrior into silhouette contact unopposed. Basically shifting the dodge roll from the defender to the attacker. In that case I think it would still be beneficial to declare dodge as the reactive trooper to avoid the engaged state.
Fair point. Dodging into silhouette is not nearly as reliable as being able to move into it, but it seems to be what's necessary based on the 1.1.1 FAQ anyway so that's likely what I'll be doing from now on.
