I find your reasoning highly dubious and unsportsmanlike. I’m pretty sure that most players and referees would side with our interpretation rather than yours because it’s transparent and not prone to errors. Perhaps you should ask your opponents how they see the rule?
And I think you can even fake measure between two camo markers that are not connected with, each other
How is it unspormanlike ? Minelayer and ambush camo are private information so my opponent has no right to it and I respect the rules because I deploy within ZoC 3 year playing and more than 30 tournament on my belt and I never played with anyone that wanted all ZoC being measured Nope, the case where you are allowed to measure at deployement have been answered (don't remember if it's FAQ or forum official answer). You can only measure deployement zone, distance for forward deployement/infiltration/HVT/... and zone of control for deployable equipement/minelayer/ambush camo/ghost syncro/Fireteam and equivalent.
I think that way you resolve infiltration PH rolls tells the correct way to deploy a camo marker. 1. Choose a “slot” 2. Choose a location for all slot markers and models. 3. Roll PH 4. If successful, deploy markers 5. If more than 1 marker deployed, measure ZoCs and trigger areas (no mines near camo markers) and remove marker if not legal If PH roll isn’t needed, concider step3 an automatically passed roll. Simple, transparent and error proof.
If mines are supposed to be clearly mines they would start as mines and not as camo markers. Arkhos thanks for clearing it up do you have a link to that? Whats allowed to be measured and when? Or i see what i find later
The rules for Infiltration are very clear, "You must make the Infiltration Roll after placing the user of <infiltration>" (emphasis not added) and you remove any equipment deployed along side the model if you fail. I honestly don't know what this "slot" is. Just stick down your models, making decisions for each model as you place them. There's leeway to muck around with exact placement as long as you aren't at the stage of deploying the "reserve" models, but whether or not you use Minelayer should be a decision you make irreversible by placing the mine's marker and the deploying model at the same time (meaning in close conjunction with each other) Even with a slightly stricter view on when mines are placed there should be no problem at all faking them out as real models.
It's was in an old question (something like Autumn 2017) so its an old forum question so it's dead and lost now.
Just to be precise, Ambush and Minelayer are private information because the owner of the skills is in camo state. If not, those skills are public informations. @Mahtamori: I lost a Seraph to an Irmandinho Panzerfaust ARO so... luck is luck, the only thing you can do is to make as much actions as you can with autosuccess. Everything else is suscepible to fall apart dreadly if the god of dice loves your opponent. That's why I prefer most of the time to have a Aquila HMG in at least one of my lists. This guy just wreck camo spam alone and this is one type of list PanO can really struggle to deal with when luck isn't there.
I don't get it: even if you're supposed to check the ZoC thing for minelayer, you will do so without your opponent knowing from which camo token you measure. Just like ZoC ARO: either you eyeball it, either you don't care to reveal the measure, either you ask your opponent to look somewhere else for a few seconds. Am I wrong or missing smthg?
You're falling into the "burst fallacy", which is thinking that higher burst is always better. The Tankhunter works for a couple reasons -- 1) the missile has a +3 rangeband where the HMG is -3, 2) the discover odds at that distance are awful, so the TAG has to play very carefully, 3) playing against camo spam makes it very inefficient to take on only one unit at a time as the TAG, and the odds of two big AROs getting dropped on your and forcing you to split burst are not negligible. AROs are never about having better odds (unless you're a Kamau or something), they're about making the penalties of failure too high to risk. A Missile shot can end a TAG in one order.
Making a measurement is not private information, thus if you do check distance it has to be done openly :)
I take 10-15 camo markers in Vanilla Ariadna and it can be a pain to deal with. As was said above, the sheer amount mean that they can’t be ignored easily and your opponent can’t always bring their best tool to deal with it. When just using models, your opponent can easily leverage sniper range bands to outrange an HMG or a shotgun right up close. But when they are markers, you can’t always know what to leverage. That marker might be a mine and doesn’t care about your shotgun. As far as ZoC of mines and ambush, I’ve never seen it measured out as explicitly as you are describing. The whole point of the abilities in obfuscation. Camo is also something that gets better the more your gaming group faces it. A tankhunter of McMannus is pretty decent. But after your opponent gets burned once or twice, then they get really cautious.
Oh, ok. Even for ARO from hidden deployment then? (that's what I had in mind when I wrote "have your opponent look somewhere else during ZoC ARO check", but it works for LoS check for ARO too). We usually play with open measurement/LoS for everything as expected (stated in the rules iirc) and we always eyeball distances for hidden troops here, but I though you could check those secretly...
@Stuffist In the case if hidden deployment, you don’t check ZoC or LoF before declaring ARO. The model gets revealed when you declare ARO regardless if the ARO is legal or not. It’s actually good tactic to declare Change Facing ARO with hidden deployment model during reactive turn when your opponent executes his final order. The model effectively gets revealed without spending an order. It would also be nice if someone from CB could define the correct way to deploy minelayers and ambush markers. And if the previously mentioned (IMO unsportsmanlike, and fuzzy) non-measurement deployment style is allowed, what should be the penalty if there are errors.
If it turns out your ARO was invalid, you've only just given up your position. The model doesn't stay on the table. I'm not sure if that's entirely necessary. Just place them "together" (as in one right after the other). I mean, your opponent shouldn't be watching you deploy like a hawk anyway, especially if you have a faction with any amount of TO. If they are found to be out of ZoC with each other after the fact then it's up to the TO, but I'd rule that the mine is just lost. Also remember that just because someone knows it's a mine, doesn't mean camo is worthless. That's still at least a short skill to discover it if you plan on shooting the thing.
@Sabin76 no, you are incorrect. Camo is removed when you declare an ARO, regardless if the ARO turns out to be legal or not. Declaring an intentional illegal ARO is a convenient way to get out of hidden deployment. When I play, I want to play clean. Rules can be interpreted that the procedure I wrote above is the correct way to deploy mines and ambush camos. It also the added benefit of preventing all deployment errors/cheats.
I'm almost certain this is not the case. If you declare a change facing, but it turns out that the enemy was outside of your ZoC, the skill doesn't turn into an idle (which would, indeed bring you out of HD), it is considered null. You cannot declare a skill if you do not meet the requirements unless there are other circumstances present (coordinated orders and G:servant come immediately to mind). If you declare something that it turns out you could not have (again, barring spelled out exceptions), the ARO is invalid. As in, it could not have been declared in the first place. If the ARO was invalid, then the trooper never came out of HD. If it never came out of HD, you've just given away its position because you put it on the table to "declare" your invalid ARO, but have to take it off again because that ARO never actually happened. Q: In the reactive turn, when can you measure the Zone of Control? A: Following the steps of the Order Expenditure Sequence: you declare a ZoC ARO, and in the step of resolution, is when the players take measurements. So, is troop is in the ZoC, resolve his ARO, but if not, the ARO is lost. [my emphasis]
A couple of thoughts. First, there was a whole lot of discussion last year about this strategy and the end result was that taken to an extreme it would make the game unplayable. Continuously declaring illegal AROs would be obnoxious and bog down the game. This sort of gamesmanship is much more egregious than anything with Ambush Camo or Mines during deployment. Secondly, anybody demanding that I deploy this way would make me think they are trying to suss out private information and I would seriously consider whether I wanted to play the game. If I did play a game in this situation, I would use it against them. I’d start bringing streloks and deploy them in my deployment zone so they look like spetsnaz. I would deploy minelayer scouts back so they look like medium infantry. Or otherwise jumble up the deployment that way.
