Actually, in this case the reactive model ARO isn't provoked because the enemy model isn't in ZoC. What I'm really asking here is "Does declaring illegal "delay ARO" lead to Idle ARO the same way as declaring illegal Change Facing ARO"? If it does, a clever opponent could bait illegal delay ARO and then respond with non-dodgable speculative fire. The same trick works ofc with Change Facing ARO. Only Sixth Sense L2 models are immune to this gimmick.
I'm saying the ARO is fully lost if you declare delay erroneously. No Idle, no nothing. Your ARO declaration informs the decision of the active player and a Delay very much is something that'll inform such an action. And yes, this will mean an opponent who is good at ZoC judgements can force an opponent into getting into a position where they will have to get the distance right. However, usually it's not a big deal because the reactive player can err on the side of caution by not delaying.
Not true. If the enemy is in ZoC and Change Facing (or delay) ARO isn't declared during 1st part of the order, the ARO is lost. If the enemy isn't in ZoC and Change Facing (or delay) is declared during 1st part of the order, the ARO is also lost. Basically an opponent can bypass 50% (assuming that player eyeballing skills are equal) of dodge attempts by skirting the targets ZoC edge. If you have orders to spare, you can do it again and again. What's funny about this situation is that if the reactive player can eyeball the ZoC with 100% accuracy, the declared ARO is always Dodge, regardless weather enemy is in ZoC or not. But it isn't about declaring right ARO. It's about declaring the ARO at the right time
Okay, what you describe is a fairly unusual situation. Additionally, doing it several times gets really bloody hard because it would rely on your opponent not looking while you measure the ZoC. Thirdly, due to all at once, if you move in a way that validates, for example, Change Facing, with the second Short Skill, the ARO declaration will be valid. (Note that this is different from declaring, for example BS attack, that can be immediately invalidated on declaration because ZoC is an unknown) Now, do consider in what situations this would actually be beneficial to the active player. What would they do that would actually gain an advantage of failed declarations? BS Attack? If they have Sixth Sense then sure, I guess, but against other models they wouldn't be able to declare a response anyway. And after resolution they'll turn around if still alive. Hacking? Requires you to be in ZoC anyway, so just declare an anti-hacking response and either you won't need it or it will be a valid one.
You also can't do it with Speculative Fire because it's an Entire Order, which means that it's always declared first, and the target can always dodge due to it being a Template attack.
Yes, it wouldn't work with speculative fire because it's Entire Order skill and movement is necessary for the trick to work. Nice catch @colbrook. However, the same bypass-dodge-faceoff-by-provoking-illegal-ARO-declaration trick works* with template attacks. In fact it's super effective with auto-hitting direct template weapons, because reduces dodge probability by 50%. EDIT: Meant to write direct template, not intuitive attack
Intuitive Attack is also an Entire Order, so no. Basically this only works if you're out of your opponent's facing, but using a normal BS Attack, in which case you get the same effect just by not entering their ZoC at all and using a non-template.
