Hello, i wanted to ask what a pair of G:Synchronized troops is going to do once their impetious order kicks in and one of them is engaged. Will the other Trooper be allowed to move + **** or is he stuck doing an idle?
See Effects bullets 3-5: The Controller and the G: Synchronized trooper must declare the same Order, declaring the same Short Skills of the Order. However, it is not compulsory that they have the same target. If either trooper is not able to perform the Order (whether the Entire Order or both Short Skills of the Order), then that trooper will perform an Idle, while the other trooper will perform his complete Order normally. If either trooper is not able to perform one of either Short Skills of the Order, then that trooper will perform only the Short Skill he is able to perform, and the other Short Skill will be an Idle. While the other trooper will perform his complete Order normally. So both troopers would declare Move, but the one that's in Engaged state would end up Idling instead of Moving.
that was my Approach as well but a Player pointed out to me that Idle is not a valid skill while being engaged: For this reason, they can only declare CC Attack, Coup de Grâce, Dodge and those Skills which specify that they can be used in CC Combat or in the Engaged state, as Reset.
That's covered by the bullet points I quoted. The Skill gets declared by both troopers, and then becomes an Idle for the Engaged trooper.
Idle is not a skill per se, but what happens when you declare a non-valid order (like "I dance the Macarena on this rooftop. What's your ARO? Ok, I shoot back" XD).
...or simply a skill with requirements you have (turns out) not met, like declaring ZoC ARO, but then measuring and realizing there's no "ZoC contact". In such cases declared skills become Idle. Roughly what happens here, Move declared becomes Idle when it turns out something makes said declaration illegal.
Do note that you can only declare Move if at least one troop from the unit is not Engaged, as it's still a valid declaration for them. If all of the troops are Engaged, then Move is no longer a legal declaration.
No. That's not what happens: otherwise Hac Tao (XO) can declare Change Facing when their opponent declares an order at 48" and get placed via an idle. If an ARO wasn't generated because nothing entered ZOC then it never happened. There needs to be a difference between Invalid AROs (AROs that happened but whose requirements weren't met) and AROs that simply didn't occur at all and 'are lost'.
But isn't that already the case? If you misjudge ZoC and declare something in response to enemy movement with HD trooper, don't you have to live with the fact that HD trooper is now a marker (or even a model, depending on declaration) despite doing nothing during Order resolution, after everything is measured and accounted for? That said, this specific situation aside, I can see a difference.
No it's not what necessarily already happens, it's a YMMV thing. My metas position is that AROs that aren't generated don't happen. So in the case you declare an ARO with a HD trooper that at Resolution was revealed not to have been generated, I'd remove the HD trooper: there's nothing to have caused it to be revealed. This is also really important if you don't want to break Perimeter Weapons. But it's interpretation and a case of dealing with something literally 'outside the rules', so there's not an obvious 'correct' answer absent CB ruling on it. Also as an aside, there's no way to declare an actual ARO and leave a HD trooper as a Marker.
Lol :) I've made literally that post. Let me see if I can find it. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/hd-idling-into-a-mine-placement.1897/#post-31485 It turns out that the wording in Alert was derped and its supposed to reveal you http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...-reveal-camouflaged-state-etc/#comment-685106
Yeah, was replying from old memory and read the HD cancellation rules afterwards. There's another clause that reveals all HD's, "The Hidden Deployment state is automatically canceled whenever the trooper declares any Short Skill, Entire Order or ARO."
Yeah that cancels HD, the fact no AROs allow you to retain a Marker state cancel the Marker. Literally the only way to cancel HD and not reveal the TO Marker is to delay an ARO against your opponent's marker and then not actually ARO (but have actually had the opportunity to).
Because of this faq, there has to be a way to not declare a revealing aro from hidden deployment. N3 Frequently Asked Question Updated: 1.1 Q: When a Camouflage Marker prevents an enemy troop from reverting to the Camouflaged state, does it reveal itself? A: No. If the trooper was in Hidden Deployment you will have to place the TO Camouflage Marker.
But elsewhere you have claimed that you could delay declaration against any marker if you wanted to regardless of being able to declare an ARO. To do so you would have to place your TO marker on the table to be able to determine if you actually have it. Not trying to pick on you, just stumbled across this as I'm trying to use my Uberfall more.
Yes, I've claimed that you can declare it: because as per the FAQ you must be able to declare AROs that you don't actually have (when it subsequently turns out ZOC was never crossed) . What I'm saying is that if you do and you never get an ARO then it's retroactively 'lost', as per the FAQ. I'm defining 'lost' from the FAQ as 'has no effect on the game other than preventing you declaring alternative AROs' because otherwise madness happens. And re: being able to place a TO Marker from Delay. It happens like this: 3. Opponent moves a Marker into LOF or aparrent ZOC 4. You say that you're 'delaying the ARO of a HD troop', you place the HD troop on the table 5. Opponent declares second short skill 6. You state that the TO Marker does not ARO 7. A. You measure and determine that any ARO actually happened B. You measure and determine no ARO happened If A, TO Marker stays down. If B, ARO was lost and marker doesn't stay on the table. Remember, this is interpretation dealing with something that is only extremely loosely covered by the rules. It's just the way that makes the most coherent sense to me.
