Interesting dodge + mine interaction

From all I can tell it looks correct. Mines trigger on skill declaration and when you check the validity of your Dodge skill declaration at step 5 and 6 your trooper has been in a situation where they would have an ARO (they're affected by a template weapon) and the Dodge skill's requirements (again, affected by a template weapon) are met.

 

Heh, that's a funny one but I think you got it right. The Symbiobeast can declare Dodge as an ARO against any activation on the table (that doesn't use Stealth). It's the declaration that triggers the mine, which renders the ARO valid.

 

+1 to it seeming correct.

It'd still be correct even if the Avatar had executed their order at say 30" away, hypothetically. [emoji14]

 

This only shows how ridiculus is this system with wildly declaring stuff wherever and whenever you want only to do idle instead.

 

You can still declare AROs vs Troopers using Stealth (as I read the new FAQ): the declaration will be invalid if Stealth hasn't been broken that order.

Which raises the question of whether the invalidity of ARO vs a Stealthed Trooper overrides the validity of ARO when hit by a Template. Hmm... I think that, effectively, it's the Stealth + Non-Stealth ARO: and the ARO will be valid due to the "Non-Stealth" source of validity. IE the Dodge opposes the template and is therefore valid in the same way that a Dodge vs a Non-Stealth trooper moving in ZOC would be valid even if a Stealthed Trooper was also in ZOC.

 

Honestly I don't think it's too much of a problem. The issue is mostly that the "check validity" system wasn't fully implemented with all of the second and third order concerns addressed.

There's a couple of ways to fix it though, if CB wants to.

Also, amusingly this doesn't work vs Perimeter Items: the Beast would just eat a Koala.

 

The FAQ says that if multiple troopers activate and one of them uses stealth, you can declare AROs against the one using stealth. (At least, that's what it says after correcting the presumed typo).

I think that's because the non-stealth troopers grant you the right to declare an ARO, and once you have that right, you can declare it against any activated trooper. The implication is that if only a Stealthy trooper activated, nobody could declare an ARO unless they had LoF or Sixth Sense.

At least, I thought that was the clear import of the FAQ entry - did you have a different reading?

 

We're interpreting it differently then.

I understand that you aren't "granted" AROs in N4 rather "Each time the Active Player activates a Trooper by spending an Order, each eligible enemy gets one single ARO, regardless of the number of Skills the Active Player declares during that Order."

So it's not that the Non-Stealth troopers activating grant an ARO but rather that Stealth prevents AROs that target the Trooper with Stealth from being valid: that is, "the ARO will only be considered valid if the Stealth user performs a Skill that allows [valid] AROs".

Basically, I think that Reactive Troopers always have an ARO and the pertinent questions are:

1. (At Declaration) Does something explicitly prevent declaring that ARO? (Some things prevent specific declarations, for instance Camo prevents Reactive Troopers from declaring a BS Attack ARO.) If yes, then you simply aren't allowed to do that.
2. (At Step 5) Is the ARO valid? If no, then they perform an Idle.
3. (At Step 6) Are the requirements of the ARO met? If no, they they perform an Idle.

The way the Stealth + Non-Stealth FAQ is phrased (allowing for the inside / outside typo) it means that Stealth deals with question 2: it prevents the ARO from being valid, it does not prevent the ARO from being declared.

I could well be wrong, but that was the crux of the "how does Stealth function in N4?" questions.

Previously (link below) @ijw had said (in a context where he wasn't specifically addressing this question) that Stealth prevents the ARO from being declared (ie it answers question 1), but - as I understand it - the FAQ says that's not the case. Now it's possible that the FAQ is an exception that only applies in the case of multiple activations: ie it should be read as "the ARO will only be considered valid if the Stealth user performs a Skill that allows AROs [to be declared at all]".

https://forum.corvusbelli.com/index.php?threads/38637/

Honestly, IDK either way.

I will admit that this is probably the best interpretation from a gameplay POV: "Stealth prevents AROs being declared against the Trooper using Stealth unless something occurs that could otherwise provide a valid ARO (ie additional troopers without Stealth being activated) in which case the Trooper using Stealth may be targeted but the ARO will only be considered valid if the Stealth user performs a Skill that allows AROs." It closes this Dodge-vs-a-Trooper-using-Stealth-clearly-outside-of-ZOC-to-gain-a-potential-ARO issue. But I'm not sure it's enough of an issue to warrant that cludge when "AROs can be declared vs a Trooper using Stealth but the ARO will only be considered valid if the Stealth user performs a Skill that allows AROs" is much simpler.

Basically, I don't actually think voluntarily declaring an Invalid ARO at any point / a valid ARO to deliberately clear a Mine is that much of an actual gameplay issue: unintended and unexpected sure, but a problem, no.

 

Hmm. The reason that I don't think this was the meaning of the FAQ entry is that, if it was, the FAQ wouldn't have needed to address a scenario with multiple trooper activating. The FAQ could just say "can a trooper declare an ARO against a trooper using Stealth? A: yes, but if the trooper does not break Stealth with its second short skill, the ARO will become an idle."

The only reason I can think for the FAQ to ask about the much more convoluted scenario of multiple activations, is that the multiple activations (some of which don't use Stealth) are what allow the reactive trooper to ARO at all.

Oh, neither do I. It's just incidental that you can't do it if the active trooper has Stealth. I mentioned it for completeness but not because I thought Stealth was important to the OP.

 

Yeah... Long experience has dissuaded me from reading into the fact that the FAQ only deals with a specific complicated question rather than providing a clear generalisable answer. It can either be indicative of a general principle or provide an example of the exception to the rule. Which is why - now that you've forced me to revisit my assumption - I'm fence sitting: it could go either way.

For instance you can - just as plausibly - explain the way they answered it by the fact that that specific scenario was the one raised with the rules team, that that specific scenario is the most common and that that specific scenario has the most need of answering because of its impact on the game. The result is they answered the specific question they were asked rather than the general case from which it springs.

Which is to say, my general contention that "Stealth doesn't prevent the declaration of AROs it prevents them being valid" is plausible and no-where categorically ruled out (@ijw answer where he stated the opposite general principle was in another context and has since, in yet another specific context, been superceded) but equally is no-where categorically ruled in (the FAQ only applied that principal to a specific case and not generally).

 

For what it's worth, I've still got that one marked as unclear or incomplete.

My most literal reading of the situation is that; yes you can declare ARO against the Stealth trooper (such as hacking or Dodging), but the Stealth trooper has to perform a skill that would validate the action (or one of the other troopers has to validate it).
For example, an Asawira Haris with Yara Hadad in it moves into ZoC of a Repeater. Enemy hacker has a currently valid choice of Reset due to Yara or Spotlight vs Yara. Enemy hacker instead decides to chance it and declares Oblivion targeting the Asawira Doctor. If the Fireteam's leader, the Asawira Spitfire, chooses;
1. Dodge - this validates the Hacking attempt because the Doctor will perform an action that breaks Stealth.
2. BS Attack - this does not validate the Hacking attempt because the Doctor will perform Idle which is a Short Movement Skill.

 

That FAQ entry is specific to multiple Active Troopers. A single Trooper using Stealth 'does not grant AROs'. It's not that any AROs declared will become invalid, but there are no AROs to declare. As a general rule, any N4 FAQs that mention a specific situation only apply to that situation. I've been trying to get any FAQs that should be universal to be rewritten as universal.

Back to the main topic, yes this looks correct. The Dodge would have become an Idle, but the Direct Template Weapon hit makes Dodge a valid ARO.

 

Does this follow on to mean that every reactive turn model on the board is "eligible" for an ARO declaration every time a non-stealth model activates? I understand it's difficult to draw a line between "we thought that might be 8 inches, so the model was eligible to make a declaration" and "that's clearly not within 8 inches, this model is not eligible for an ARO declaration" but the difference between the two is the difference between whether or not it's legal to declare clearly invalid ARO's in order to reveal HD models on the final order of a turn to get points into a quadrant for mission scoring purposes.

 

From conversations in other rules questions, yes, I believe it is legal to declare something like a dodge or reset when it is clear they are outside ZoC, which would reveal them, and then they would end up performing idle due to that aro was legal. That said, I believe all aro options would make them reveal themselves from camo state as it is the declaration that reveals you and not what actually ended up being performed.