@HellLois Your response to a thread now locked and marked as solved doesn't actually cover the point that was causing multiple pages of discussion and actually needed clarification. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...-zoc-for-sixth-sense.23413/page-3#post-107876 In this thread, no one has any problem with the idea that an ARO that turned out to be invalid becomes an Idle. The original question was about when ZOC can be measured, not what happens when you declare a ZOC ARO that you didn't actually have. Where things got messy is with the addition of a mine into this, since we have to guess at whether a ZOC ARO is triggered, where an illegally declared ZOC ARO is invalid and yet it still triggers a mine to explode. This then results in the ridiculousness that someone can "accidentally" declare a ZOC ARO they didn't have to purposefully explode a mine.
Sorry, I misread your post and thought you were re-asking 'The original question was about when ZOC can be measured'.
You are talking about this FAQ aren't you... This is where the old "ZOC can be measured" got errata'd into the current "Guess your ZOC and find out later if you were correct" method. We all get that part, as I mentioned. That isn't what caused 2 more pages of debate. It's the ramifications of this change that are of concern in particular situations. Incidentally, the ARO being "lost" is, in itself, language that seems concerningly unclear, because that could easily mean "goes to Idle" or it could alternatively mean "doesn't exist, as if it was never declared" which would drastically alter the outcome of this question. Somewhat beyond the scope of this thread, but was it really causing so much trouble to allow ZoC checks during declarations? It seems so much cleaner to me. Edit: hopefully making the question more clear and not less clear...
The answer, as with every ZOC based interaction, is you have to apply some arbitrary measure of plausability or the game breaks.
@HellLois For your consideration. This pertains to perimeter Items as well. The old ruling was that you have to declare as soon as you think you can, however, if you turned out to be out of ZOC then the Mine or Koala was not expended. Can we get re-confirmation of that please?
It wasn't a Ruling, I'd just argued that to play it any other way incentivises deliberately 'guessing conservatively' to avoid Boosting on iffy calls. Which inevitably would result in the situation where someone has entered 8" of a Koala and the Koala hadn't Boosted. And most people seemed to buy that argument. @Spleen the game doesn't break if the outcome becomes 'you can effectively Idle in response to any of your opponent's orders, even if they don't actually generate an ARO': it just significantly changes.
You cant effectively idle as perimeter weapons and mines though. Changing that would be a major boost to them. Probably well too much of one
You still can't effectively Idle as Mines. And Idling as a Perimeter Item expends it (in Reactive): because the only way to do that is to declare an invalid Boost. The issue with mines is that you can clear them by (effectively) Idling in response to an Order declared 8-x" away (where X is a value dependant on how much you're willing to exploit ambiguous information). This doesn't break mines, it just makes them slightly less expensive to clear in situations where they've been deployed with an expendable troop inside their Trigger Area. The issue with Perimeter Items is that the owner should hold them until it's unambiguous the target is inside ZOC. Often this won't be until after measuring (ie you'll boost in the order subsequent to them entering ZOC). This only breaks Perimeter Items if you also rule that failing to declare a valid Boost also expends the Item (I don't think that is actually supported by the rules though). Instead it buffs Perimeter Items by necessarily allowing the owner a certain degree of leeway in when they declare Boost.
What part of an Idle expends the Perimeter Item? That only happens after they detonate, which doesn't occur if the Boost turns into an Idle.
The trooper is also considered to perform an Idle when he has declared a Skill not allowed by the rules. In such situation, the ammunition of Disposable weapons or pieces of Equipment is spent, too.
That's for when the trooper declared use of a Disposable item. The Perimeter Weapon is not a trooper using a Disposable item, it is the Disposable item. As far as I'm aware, Disposable applies to Perimeter Weapons only in terms of the owner of the Perimeter Item.
That's really not clear. And it's not the way it's been understood in multiple threads previously. But it does solve the problem, so I'll take it.
Player A: I want you to declare boost on this Warband trying to detonate that Koala because I think it's in range. Player B: Well I don't think it's in range, and declaring boost will waste it for no reason so I don't want to declare boost. A: It's in range, declare Boost! B: No, It's out of range! TO: I hate you both. I've always ruled it this way anyway because it's the only sane way to avoid running into that argument.
