The way the game currently works creates inherent continual problems. Also suggestion 2 also breaks the current rules of being able to declare before requirements are met. Have a look at the above post if there is a bait or other problem please tell me in detail.
#3 is my idea which is why I ask. But thanks for the rudeness. Nothing like starting the day with a little agression.
Hey letting zoc aros hold would stop uberfall from getting normal cc rolls. I'm sure a lot of people would like that.
Right, people would most likely dodge. If they do CC ARO, then the uberfalls will get mostly normal rolls.
I still think the simpler, most elegant solution to this is "simply" to change the way aro are declared: instead of having one opportunity to aro, take it or lose it, you're only allowed to declare one but you can decide not to declare anything on the mid-order step, and if any new aro are available after the 2nd short skill you're allowed to declare one of those.
Not that simple, because it changes how the gameplay flows: giving the Active player the chance to choose its second half of the Order according to the oponent's ARO is a key component of the game.
I agree, but we have to limit Holding ARO to ZoC AROs and AROs into and through Zero Vis Zones. Otherwise the reactive turn gets too much of an upperhand. Also reqs before decs. Because its intuitive and easy to teach. These solidify the game in way we've never had.
It's a key element of how the game currently works, but it does not need to work that way. Allowing "use it or lose it" ARO still gives a similar capability to the active player, the decision making just gets more complicated. Skill two would be spent with imperfect information rather than perfect information, but advantageous information none the less. I've been advocating for this for a long time lol. It eliminates a lot of shenanigans and gives greater agency to the reactive player, while still favoring the active one.
I was playing around with furthing my idea about Hold ARO to exactly this, where you could hold ARO for every order. Diphoration pointed out that it would in fact give too much control to the reactive turn. That being said, I'm having a second thought about it. Let's say we did allow Hold ARO for every order, we could potentially just apply a universal Hesitation -3 penalty for Holding... this is actually another fox but then I'd really want those DTW changes to take place because otherwise CC will certainly be a suicide run almost every time and that's just what I can think of off the top of my head.
Active turn does not need to advantage the active player in all the ways it currently does because it already advantages them in terms of positioning and choosing what fights will happen. If it did, then a hesitation penalty would be a pretty good solution. I also don't necessarily think that "more control" necessarily equates to "too much control" for the reactive player. I played with a homebrew rule a few times that did something similar by allowing ARO stacking more easily. The games pushed the active turn advantage away from "I am stronger, blam blam blam" to needing to leverage their other advantages and I really enjoyed it.
i am stronger because of the active turn advantage in burst? Or like flanking to remove cover? But yes I'd still want that change to DTWs cause there are too many and it definitely seems to be a problem. If we were to change one or the other then I would want the other to come with it. i really wish CB created their own polling system to make changes like every 3-6 months.
It's not exactly ARO holding per se. For example, let's say you have a guy with an MSV2 walking in front of an ennemy in your active turn, covered by smoke and in ZoC. He doesn't see you, so at the mid-order step he has only one aro option available, dodge. He decides not to, expecting you to shoot. Then you shoot him. At this step, he would have 2 aro option, dodge or shoot back, but since he decided not to dodge at the mid-step, this is no longer a valid option. However, he can open fire, since this option wasn't available to him before. Bam, no more baits, and the active turn still has an upper hand but instead of forcing your opponent to pick a bad/pointless ARO you can act accordingly to the options he discarded. In my example, if your MSV2 trooper has a shotgun, you can decide to simply template the other dude knowing he won't dodge.
How does this handle sacrificial units and/or multiple unit activations? For example, a Croissers fireteam with a Black Friar activates. One Croisser and the Black Friar peeks out at a Guilang. It still seems Diaphoration's suggestion is the one which eliminates the absolutely most gotchas while also adding the least complexity.
I'd consider that being able to declare the same skill, but against different target to be a different ARO option. You don't just declare a BS attack, you declare it against a specific target. So assuming the black friar is the team leader: - Fireteam first short skill: moves in front of the guilang - Guilang mid-order ARO Options: dodge, shoot the crosier. He does neither - Fireteam 2nd short skill: the friar shoots the guilang. - Guilang end-order ARO options: Shoot the friar. Which he does. Options dodge and shoot the crosier are no longer available since he discarded them at the mid-order step. Declaring a BS attack against the crozier is not the same ARO option as declaring a BS attack against the friar, one can be discarded without discarding the other as long as they were not first available at the same step of the order.
I think on the face of it that it adds needless complexity and negatively interacts with tactical choices that CB's system doesn't. And it introduces gotcha - but for the active player. For example; Fireteam moves in an area they think is clear. A unit in hidden deployment is placed in its marker state (making the assumption that this sanity check is in place) and says "I'll hold" after the team leader has moved past, but unable to move the team any further as it might be a [Hac Tao ML, Swiss ML, Hundun HRL, or Noctifer ML wanting to off the entire team in one hit or any number of TO snipers waiting for an unprotected target]. The active player is now in a bind, unable to do a proper Discover+Shoot and with poor chance of making a Dodge sufficient to solve this, and the unit can potentially keep this slow down up for several orders. Under the current rules the Hidden Deployment unit would have to do a full reveal and pick a target with the team able to respond in an informed manner. After this the hidden shooter would either be dead or revealed and can be dealt with immediately instead of keeping the Marker protection to further sap orders. Additionally, the exact nature of the threat would be known and the active player won't have to treat e.g. a Hexa Hacker with the same dignity as if it is a Swiss ML Basically, it solves a niche problem by creating a few new ones that are less niche.
@Mahtamori Yeah your example is so far the only one I could think of where using bait is seen as an acceptable tactic, and it can make "not-dealing" with camo markers a bit tiresome I suppose since you wouldn't be able to safely just move past them with your fireteam. Is it really such a bad thing though? I'm not even sure. On one hand, making markers stronger is probably not a necessity for the game, on the other I remember that thread on the ariadna sub-forum where a few people stated that TAK was powerless against HI link because they'd simply walk through the markers and kill anything. But hell, the ability for hidden deployed trooper to simply drop in marker state out of nowhere actually sound pretty interesting. If the guy is willing to forego a potentially game-winning ARO with his swiss guard, or bluff a swiss guard with his hexa, all in order to make his opponent wastes a few more orders, I think that's fair? It's not that different from just throwing a camo marker on a roof, be it a genuine threat, a random skirmisher, a decoy or a mine, and let your opponent deal with it. Or not shooting with your camo when your opponent goes for a discover+shoot, betting on his failure. It's better because of hidden deployement, but that's why you pay the skill for. edit: the ariadna thread in question: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/ariadna-vs-hard-targets-on-reactive.39703/#post-406007
I mean, you can do this with a Tank Hunter ML once you've conditioned the other player that this is a thing, it just won't be done from a position that was completely empty. The problem with dealing with a camo marker as opposed to a trooper is the same. What's missing in the thread (well... the post really) is that the HI player is moving through the camo field "with impunity" because they are forced to do so due to what a colossal waste of orders discovering Markers is unless really lucky and because the TAK player seems unwilling to get the weapons to provide the ARO that would stop them. Most HI can't afford that kind of overextension, to boot, so beyond Teuton Zenzenbutai and maybe Asawira I can't think of many HI that can afford to do this without leaving a 140+ sized hole in their list for their next turn. But it's like... camo spam is perhaps the strongest play at the moment and I know a lot of metas see it as the only viable play for factions that can't directly compete in the Guided Pitcher spam game - I think this soft counter is an okay price to pay while you work out the units and tactics necessary to reduce the soft counter to a non counter.
I said that to point out we cant just give the option to hold an ARO for regular AROs diphoration pointed out to me a couple months ago it would make the reactive turn too powerful. I'm also not sure how I feel about these troops not being penalized at all for holding ARO, even if we don't call it that. DTWs still are a hell of an ARO
