So, given that in N4 requirements aren't checked until later in the order expenditure sequence, and taking into account this answer from IJW, I'm trying to see if my understanding is correct. Situation 1: Active Model A, who does not have Stealth, moves within the ZoC of Reactive Model B in the first short skill of their order. Model B declares CC Attack. If Model A moves into base contact with Model B, Model B will be able to carry out a CC Attack, otherwise it will idle. Situation 2: Active Model A and Active Model B are part of a fireteam. Active Model A has MSV and is standing inside a smoke grenade could, while Active Model B is outside of it. A and B are activated in an order, and move for their first short skill. Model B moves in the LoF of Reactive model C, which does not have MSV. Because LoF is checked at declaration, Model C *cannot* declare BS Attack against Model A (and get a shot if model A shoots them), only effectively attack Model B or dodge.
Situation 1: CC Attack is not a ZoC declaration and you need to distribute burst as part of your declaration, such burst may only be distributed to enemies that are in base contact with the model. Note how this is different from the formal requirements as the requirements do not actually require you to target an active model in base contact with your burst. Situation 2: Correct, and as has been the case for a few years now - only difference being that this no works within ZoC against 6S as well. I've been meaning to use this against a Kamau with Lei Gong for a while now, using a Pangguling FTO as bait (considering that it's very difficult to actually kill the Pangguling outright), but the opportunity hasn't presented itself yet.
It's not, but my understanding is that non-LoF requirements aren't checked until after the second short skill is declared (and movement occurs), so you could allocate your burst to a model that isn't in base contact, and then if they *do* move into base contact you get to commence the stabbening. If not, where does it say that you can't? Yup, just wanted to make sure this was still the case in N4. I can do this in Onyx with White Noise and a Unidron fireteam.
You are still confusing "requirement" and "detail". Here's the requirements: Be using a Melee Weapon, a Skill, or piece of Equipment that allows for a Silhouette contact with an enemy Model or Target. Be in Silhouette contact with an enemy Model or Target. Note how allocating burst is not part of requirements. That's a detail.
Sure, but there's nothing that says that the burst has to be allocated to troopers that are currently in base contact, as far as I can see.
In order to be consistent with the interim ruling on BS Attack by IJW, I think that we should assume the same approach for CC - you need to be in a state where you could actually execute a CC attack in order to declare it.
I think we're still waiting for a FAQ or other CB clarification on scenario 1. If I recall, this is what's happened so far, in order: 1. ijw confirmed that you can declare an ARO when you don't have a valid ARO, and it will become valid if, later in the order, you get a valid ARO. 2. ijw said that (1) doesn't apply to BS Attack, for the reason that BS Attack requires that burst be allocated to valid targets at declaration. 3. ijw said that any further clarification regarding anticipatory ARO declaration would have to come from CB, otherwise he would be in danger of being overruled. 4. ijw issued a formal interim ruling that any skill which requires LoF cannot be declared before you have LoF. No reason given in the interim ruling. So, it seems likely that (2) is still correct, and that it's the reason for the ruling in (4). If so, then the restriction likely also applies to CC Attack since that skill also requires that you allocate burst upon declaration. But, we don't know for sure whether (2) is still the reason for (4), given the intervening (3). It's entirely possible that, after ijw gave us (2), CB considered further and decided on a different approach. Also, the reasoning in (2) wouldn't apply to Discover since it doesn't have burst, but the ruling in (4) does include Discover. I agree with @toadchild that the likely answer is the best way to play it, but I think we're still waiting on the broader clarification from CB on how anticipatory ARO declaration works before we know for sure. (The other big piece of the needed clarification is the scenario where a Hidden Deployment model deliberately declares an invalid ARO in order to reveal itself.)
But if you can't declare a valid BS skill because you need to allocate burst. What about a hacking programn that has burst?
Why do I have to validly assign burst? That's not the logic behind why you can't pre-emptively declare BS Attacks to things that you don't have LOF to. The logic behind that is "because IJW provisionally ruled it was so".
Where did he say 2? This is what he said and it makes no mention of burst: "Q: When are Line of Fire Requirements checked? A: LoF-based Requirements are checked immediately after declaring Skills. Other Requirements are checked in the Resolution step, as usual." As @Kumatake81 points out, tying the requirement to declare a valid ARO to "you must allocate valid burst" breaks declaring a Hack at Step 2 that becomes between then and when it's checked at Step 5.
It was quite a while ago, shortly after N4 came out. I could dig up the post, but I think it would be more trouble than it's worth given the subsequent (3) and (4). You've quoted him at step (4). My own view is that we've come as far as we're able trying to muddle through this one, and we won't have an answer until the CB clarification. Except for skills that require LoF, where we have the clear step (4) answer from ijw.
I think I could win a bet if I bet money on “Without measuring distances, is it possible that the ARO you declared is valid?” as the criteria for declaring an ARO. That’s ignoring the fact that ARO CC if you’re not in base contact should be an idea with such heavily negative outcomes for whoever would want to declare it as to render it a “coffee table” argument.
Yeah: it'll require clarification. But, honestly I think we can hammer out a "play it like this until then" answer. I haven't seen where IJW says "you need to validly allocate Burst" and given how it directly contradicts statements I have seen him make about how to deal with Hacking AROs that weren't valid when declared, I think we can reject it. The reason I focussed on point 2 is that's the basis of @Mahtamori argument. If you can assign invalid burst for Hacking, I see no reason why you can't assign invalid burst for CC. What's the issue with doing this from a gameplay POV? As far as I can tell there isn't one. The most obvious interactions are with Guard and Stealth. With Guard, declaring "CC Attack" without S2S and prior to your opponent declaring Guard seems to me to be a niche tactic: you trade a better FTF vs Guard for giving your opponent normal roles if they instead decide to shoot. For Stealth - in so far as Stealth works at all - in the situation where a trooper Move-Moves into S2S with another trooper who declared CC at Step 2, then the rules of Stealth make it clear that that CC declaration was invalid. In neither case is there an issue with declaring an invalid CC Attack in the expectation that it will become valid before its checked at Step 5. I see LOF AROs as explicitly exceptional due to IJW's provisional ruling: they're the only AROs which have a validity requirement that must be checked at declaration. For everything else: "declare what you wilt, if it's valid a Step 5 resolve it, else Idle".
Vs Guard where you have decent defensive CC and the damage likely from the enemy CC Attack strongly outweighs the damage from a normal roll BS Attack. But that's *very* niche. And honestly, I don't think there IS any criteria for declaring an ARO there is just criteria as to whether an ARO is valid. I personally think it's just a case of BS Attack is missing text from its requirements: "[At declaration], be able to draw Line of Fire (LoF) to the target of the BS Attack, unless the BS Weapon, Skill or piece of Equipment used doesn't require LoF."
I hope this is how it all shakes out. Let the people have their AROs, and Step 5 will weed them out. So say we all.
The current BS Attack provisional ruling only restricts based on LoF, and does not talk about burst specifically. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...-are-line-of-fire-requirements-checked.38309/ Burst allocation was talked about before that ruling in various threads, but I a quick search suggests it was never directly put forward by @ijw. In any case, the above ruling is more formal and should be treated as carrying more weight. I think what we’re dealing with here is the inevitable fallout of making speculative ZoC AROs only be checked for legality at resolution time. What we probably need is a stronger statement that only non-LoF AROs (hacking, reset, dodge, ...) get their requirements checked late, and all others, such as BS or CC Attack, deployables, etc. all have to be legal at declaration time.
Because otherwise you end up in madness. E.g. Fireteam activates, Adil moves closer, enemy reacts by CC Attack distributing one burst to Tai Sheng, Adil Moves into CC but Tai Sheng does not. CC Attack versus Tai Sheng is now valid because nothing in the requirements of CC Attack requires you to target troopers in melee, Tai Sheng is activated by the order, and there is an enemy in base contact. You've basically completely skipped a whole section of the rules' validation check. I would argue that is disputed as well; the part where a hacking ARO can be validated by the enemy moving closer, that is. Hacking, just like BS Attack, requires you to distribute burst and specify from what point you commit the hack, arguably the target's location should also be part of the details that fall under "etc"
Fair. Missed the point about CC Attack not specifically calling out S2S with the target as opposed to simply "Be in Silhouette contact with an enemy Model or Target." But really, you're claiming that there's no reason this is not valid right now. Musashi is the active Trooper. 1.2 He Moves into B2B with an Alguicil and nothing else . 2. Alg Dodges. 3. He allocates 1B vs the Alg and 1B vs an Interventor. 4. The Interventor is clearly outside of ZOC and LOF, so the Nomad player doesn't bother declaring an ARO. 5. Algs ARO is valid, Interventor did not in fact have any valid AROs 6. The Requirements of Musashi's declaration were valid. Anything that prevents the above would also prevent the madness regarding targeting Tai Sheng in ARO with a pre-emptive CC Attack.
Not saying it couldn't be less convoluted, but the Effects of CC Attack calls out the rules for Close Combat ( https://infinitythewiki.com/index.php?title=Close_Combat ) and in those we find that CC versus several targets specify each target to have to be in close combat which is defined as S2S. Any such validation would be part of the effects of the skill in question and would be part of the skill details that you specify on declaration. The checking requirements step Hecaton referred to is checking the requirements which has none of the checks or balances that any of the skill details are correct. It is essentially having the player take the initiative to move text from the Effects of a skill and place it in Requirements because they think this makes more sense. N4 has basically turned "requirements" on its head, it is no longer specific metrics you have to fulfil in order to declare a skill, but instead a specific set of circumstances that are checked after everything has been declared. If we compare it to a train system, N4 has removed the automatic gates that would check your requirements before entering and replaced it with guards on the carriages that'll throw you off after boarding the train if your "requirements" ticket is invalid for the line and destination (that is the "details") you've chosen to board (but the train has to exist and the line has to go past your current location for you to even get to the train)
