Ok I’m probably wrong but my understanding of the rules. You have to check if the skill is valid when declared. You cannot take an order that isn’t valid example declares jump. check range,It’s to far ,he doesn’t jump. Go to order resolution. U can declare a target that isn’t valid like hacking a none hackable model. Because you check target validation in the end step.
Unfortunately, you appear to be mistaken. You have to check before declaration whether you're allowed to declare a skill (or any skills) . You check LOF requirements at declaration to see if the requirements are met. You check whether you received a valid ARO at Step 5. You check all other requirements are met at Step 6. So in the your example of Jump. 1.1 You activate the Trooper 1.2 You spend the appropriate Order 1.3 You check to see nothing prevents you from declaring Jump, nothing does so you declare Jump, you measure yo see where you can Jump to, you choose one of the valid locations and Jump to there (this can be to the same place you started from). 2. You opponent declares their ARO 5. You check to see if your opponent's ARO was valid 6.1. You resolve your opponent's ARO, measuring distances, ZoC and make rolls. 6.2. You apply the effects (if any) of your opponents ARO. 6.3. You apply Guts if required.
No, we couldn't do worse in N3. You couldn't ARO bait to threaten a lethal Order vs a non lethal ARO without smoke or a visibility zone in play plus MSV (and even with visibility zones in play Sixth Sense models were immune to that, but that's another discussion). This situation is new in N4. I don't think it's a particularly big issue in terms of game balance, at the end of the day this is a CC thing and CC is still a relative rarity in Infinity, but I understand that pulling this stunt will probably upset more than a few people.
I think I have already replied on what constitutes as an official answer, challenging it further neither changes it, nor will go unnoticed.
If its not in the rules, no it doesnt have much value. Forums are a trash method for finding rules. I almost never come here because of the style of discussion/community. If its not aggregated into an actual rules document a new player has ready access to, its not a rule. Having to dredge the swamp of rules discussion to know a core rule, less than useless. Rulebook, wiki, or faq or its nothing more than interesting commentary, but not meant for general consumption.
There's literally a separate part of the forum, Solved Questions, with threads clearly marked as Provisional Rules Answers, explaining each interaction. They are the official rulings that will get sorted, reviewed and put into the next FAQ, just like the previous ones did. We only get them ahead of time. What else do you want?
The thing that bothers me the most about this interaction is that, fundamentally, Infinity is a game that touts itself as a game where "It's always your turn." Your opponent wants to shoot at you? You get to shoot back! Or dodge, or plant a mine, or whatever. Both players have agency in what happens. The N3 versions of ARO baiting didn't bother me as much, because they made sense. Walking up to someone from behind and stabbing them makes sense. Having a buddy distract the target so you can sneak up on them makes sense. This new version, where a soldier basically yells that he's gonna stab you, then runs around the corner? That doesn't make sense. I don't like it. I accept the ruling, but I don't like it.
I think I was pretty clear. I don't think anything else I would say on the topic would be a value add. I tried several times, and anything I will type out will simply be an attack, which isn't worth it.
In n3 if you had someone covering a corner and I had a melee trooper around that trooper I could declare idle which then would make you have to declare change facing or reset and then walk into base to base with you even if you were facing me. Then my model would stab you.
Yes, but at least there it took 2 orders. I didn't like that interaction much either, but THAT interaction got fixed somewhat (as you can now Dodge, not even at -3, to get out of CC) by N4 rolling Change Facing and Dodge into a single Skill. Plus, if other models were overwatching your model, there was a good chance that the attacker would die attempting it without being able to CC attack. That can still happen, of course, but this time your CC attack goes off and likely kills your target. It turns what used to be an risky suicide attack (Move + CC Attack into a model with a template) into something relatively risk-free, and an almost guaranteed suicide attack (If the model has other models on overwatch) into something that you might live through. I don't like it.
This doesn't amount to much when in N3 you could have an absurd amount of orders. Also, because that was the case in N3 and because the way crits worked, this play would most likely amount to a unit dead. Whereas in N4 not only you can strike back (possibly scoring a lucky crit) but with a beefier shooter you can shrug the damage of a CC striker. Because ARM is a thing now. I don't know why this is blowing out of porpotion... but I think, maybe, people are still stuck in the "multiple warbands charging forward to trade pieces" mindset. I don't think that is longer the case due to the nature of N4.
It seems like much of it is the lack of actual table time, coupled with many of us still being in an N3 frame of reference. Those two factors, plus boredom and for many parts of the world the tantalizingly close probability of getting on the table again soon, are jazzing people up.
Nah, plenty of us are playing, and this is still stupid. It's not out of wack in terms of power, but it's just dumb in that it makes Infinity less satisfying to play.
Really? You can honestly say that the games you've played since this ruling was issued have given you less satisfaction than your prior games?
Well, de gustibus non est disputandum and all that, but it does seem like folks are looking for something to use to vent their spleen. Are there folks who dislike this interaction? Yes. Are they a plurality or majority of the community? Unknown and unknowable. Is this an intentional and deliberate interaction included by CB? Yes, and it bears actually trying on the table, to see how much it truly occurs. Beyond that, considering the frequent calls for CC to be better/more efficient/more worth the points it costs, why are we now so concerned about an interaction that does exactly that, and that is available without also requiring a Marker State, or Smoke, etc.?
I mean there's plenty of people who've stated that this kind of rules chicanery turns them off the game. Fuck no it isn't. Otherwise the examples in the N4 book would cover it.
In all the games you've played, how often has this come up? How come it's only become an issue this week?
Something that makes the middle-of-the-road CC trooper more effective seems like an overall decent idea to me, hence why I and the folks in my local meta aren't to0 sussed about this particular interaction.
