Trooper A and B get AROs against camouflage marker C. Trooper A declares Dodge ARO and trooper B declares Discover ARO. Camouflage marker C declares move has its 2nd skill. Dodge and Discover succeed. Can trooper A move into silhouette contact with (now revealed) trooper C using Dodge movement?
Sure. The main reason for this (in spite of the fact that there's no real sequencing specified for how the effects step should be resolved) is that the Camouflaged state's rule says: Cancellation of the Camouflaged State is applied to the entirety of the declared Order, even if the Skill revealing the Camouflaged Trooper is performed at the end of the Order. In other words, the Camouflaged state being canceled by the successful Discover roll has effectively already happened when you try to resolve your Dodge movement.
Interesting. I read that line of the Camouflaged rule as saying that if the active trooper Moves with its first short skill and reveals itself with itself with its second short skill, it's revealed for the entirety of its movement (and so can be shot at by AROs that only see its original position, if they Delayed). I don't read it as saying that a successful Discover will retroactively reveal them, though I can see how it could be read that way. This thread discussed the question in a lot of depth, but didn't consider the argument that Discover cancellation is retroactive: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/order-of-resolution-in-step-6-1-effects.39177/
Technically this does not say anything about who is performing said skill. With this in mind: DIscover is a skill, and it is revealing Camouflaged Trooper at the end of the order. A little bit unintuitive, but this does look like RAW to me.
That thread is a good example of why there’s no comprehensive timing sequence for anything—exceptions are written in an ad hoc manner and scattered through the rules. And if you’re not willing to accept that an expansionist reading of some text solves this particular rules issues, I don’t know what to tell you. :)
No no, I'm intrigued - I think it might be a good solution. It's too bad it doesn't solve the other timing issues from the previous thread, which makes it somewhat less appealing as a solution to the dodge/discover question - if we already need the other threads' kind of convoluted reasoning to solve these Resolution timing problems generally, then there's some appeal to using the same reasoning to solve Dodge/Discover. But I take your point. And right now we're stuck applying some unintuitive RAW readings to solve a whole lot of problems - this one isn't nearly as bad as preemptive bs attack through smoke vs. inside smoke, for example. I'm at least willing to give it a "that might be right," which is the most I give the solution from the other thread anyway :-)
