Resolution states "Check that the declared Skills, Special Skills, and pieces of Equipment meet their respective Requirements, measure all distances and Zones of Control, determine MODs, and make Rolls." Does that literally mean that you are permitted to measure "all... Zones of Control"? If not, which Zones of Control are you permitted to measure? My distinct preference is that it is meant to read: "Check that the declared Skills, Special Skills, and pieces of Equipment meet their respective Requirements; measureall distances, and [the active Troopers'] Zones of Control, [and the Hacking Area of active Hackers]; determine MODs; and make Rolls."
In addition to "all zones of control", it also says "all distances". I think it's pretty clear that you can measure the ones that are relevant to the current order being resolved, not any arbitrary points on the board.
Yeah, I agree that "all relevant distances and ZOCs" is better than the original in articulating the intent of the rule. But I think from a gameplay POV restricting ZOC measurement to the active trooper is better. Measuring just the active Trooper's ZOC and Hacking Area (if a Hacker) is the minimum required to check all relevant ZOCs. Making it explicit prevents: "I declare Dodge" "But that's clearly outside ZOC" "Well we'll find out when we measure it" *uses the ZOC measurement to check a distance on the table*
I've seen people on these foums talking about trying to use that sort of thing to reveal hidden-deployed lieutenants on their opponent's last order, etc. It's not new, but is definitely worth trying to be more clear about.
Yeah: honestly I'm viewing the Code One rules as a public beta for N4. Anything that we can fix now will make N4 a tighter ruleset on release.
Next you’ll be asking for the rules to point out that it’s a good idea (or even necessary) to mark out the movement path (and clear it out after the order) so you can make all of those measurements after the fact. But I think you’re missing something more important: If you tell someone that the can “measure ZoC”, why would they take that as anything other than permission for sweeping the entire silhouette+8” cylinder volume? Warmachine/Hordes when it only had control area premeasuring had a statement that when measuring a distance, it was prohibited to measure further than that distance or past the two items being measured.
That's not what I'm suggesting: I'm asking which Trooper's ZOC are you allowed to measure at Resolution?
The fact that you’re asking that question is, I think, part of the problem. Channeling my 1st/2nd edition Warmachine/Hordes player memories, “measure ZoC” sounds like measuring control area. But trying to channel my experiences playing more relaxed games, I’m pretty sure that’s not at all what is intended. I’m pretty sure this is what was intended: It’s the end of the order. Which ZoC distances are relevant and in question? Measure those. That’s why it doesn’t specify whose ZoC to measure. Because they’re just expecting you to check the relevant distances in question, not perform the same exploratory measuring you can do for movement. (This is also where the “When measuring a range or distance, it is not permitted to measure past the maximum distance involved” comes in. You activate a model. I declare Dodge ARO from behind a building on the other side of the table. So clearly we have to measure the distance between the two models, or do you just demonstrate that it’s beyond 8”?) And the follow up answer to sportsmanship issues: Apply corrective measures in the event of sportsmanship problems. Remember that this is a game with hidden information that doesn’t specify a penalty for sportsmanship errors related to improper handling of that information. Arguments over what’s fair concerning measurements are just the start of the areas that you should be concerned about if you’re trying to get the rules “tightened up”. I think you’d be better served by writing up a set of “Fair Play Rules” to spell out the issues and how you think they should be resolved. Maybe CB agrees, and maybe they don’t, but you get the game you want. That’s a better outcome than just poking at the issues and going “What’s CB going to do about this?”
I will remind you that Alert exists and requires a trooper inside the trooper's ZoC to be attacked, so there's a whole lot of Zones of Control that needs measuring at any given time even if you avoid doing things the rules tell you to. On a personal level, it bugs me that the rules instruct you to measure the Zone of Control instead of checking whether the relevant event is inside ZoC or not. I don't think I should be entitled to finding out whether my Yan Huo is within 4" of the corner I need to reach next turn just because a Zhanshi near the Yan Huo got shot at, but as it stands I am entitled to measuring that out. TLDR: you're basically asked to measure almost all Zones of Control in most orders anyway, particularly with CodeOne's small tables, so you may as well measure all of them all at step 5 every order.
Ooph, yeah, I did forget about Alert. Good point. @solkan I don't view any of this as a sportsmanship issue if everyone understands that's how it works. At the moment I don't actually know what a hypothetical opponent will be ok with me measuring. I know what the rules permit me to measure; the issue is what the rules permit and what people expect aren't congruent. BTW, your interpretation of the rules could actually be the rules if one word was added. That seems like something that CB can fix easily; and doesn't require me to write what would essentially be a set of house rules to resolve. Edit: I think there's mostly a philosophical difference. When I first started playing N3 it was explained to me that a lot of Infinity you just had to accept on face value, because if you dug too deeply it wasn't entirely supported by the rules. I mostly learnt to accept that, it worked and it was fun. However, what became clear over the last few years was increasingly that wasn't a satisfactory answer. Forum rules debates quite often boiled down to "because that's the way it's interpreted, just believe us"; this caused acrimony with new participants to the forum feeling like they're getting ganged up on as 4-5 of the regulars all lined up to argue against them in turn. The only way I see to prevent that is to start from scratch (ie. with no assumptions from N3), and get the rules to say what they mean.
It also makes it hard to play with people outside of your local circle. And to be honest i totally understand if people do not accept forum rulings. Not everyone has the time to skim through it. That's pretty much why games usally have all changes condensed in an Errata/FAQ to make access to those fast and easy even for casual players.
100% This. It's getting harder to argue 'because it is' as a reasoning. With the game growing the less we have to do this the better.
