I had this somewhat situation come up in a game today. Did we play it correctly? The camo marker is activated by an order. The first part of the order is short skill Move. While moving, the camo marker chooses not to use Stealth and provokes AROs in Zones of Control. Enemy models A, B, C, D and E are nearby. The friends of the moving Camo marker had laid some mines near enemy models A, B, C, D and E. The mines will trigger if enemies A, B, C, D or E declare AROs. - Enemy model A has LoF to the camo marker and declares Discover ARO. - Enemy model B doesn't have LoF to the camo marker and chooses to delay its ARO. - Enemy models C and D don't have LoF to the camo marker and choose not trigger ARO. - Enemy model E doesn't have LoF to the camo marker and chooses Change Facing ARO --> Mine(s) near enemy models A and E trigger. The owner of the Mine can choose either model as a target of the attack. The second part of the order is also short skill Move. During Move, all enemy models can draw LoF to the camo marker. - Enemy models B can't trigger ARO, because camo marker didn't reveal itself. - Enemy models C and D declare Dodge ARO. --> Mine(s) near enemy models C and D trigger. The owner of the Mine can choose either model as a target of the attack. Zones of Control are measured for the 1st and 2nd part of order moves. - The camo marker was in model B and C Zone of Control during 1st part of the order - The camo marker was in model D and E Zone of Control during the 2nd part of the order ARO resulution (can be performed in any order) - Enemy model A makes a Discovery roll. - Enemy model B ARO is cancelled. - Enemy model C Dodge ARO is changed to Idle ARO, because it didn't declare ARO during 1st part of the order. - Enemy model D makes a Dodge roll. - Enemy model E Change Facing ARO is changed to Idle ARO, because the ARO was illegal during the 1st part of the order. EDIT - Updated after @colbrook @JoKeR comments.
Nope. You do not have to be attacked to execute Dodge. If you have LoF to the camo marker, your Dodge is valid. "LoF to the attacker" is misleading. Where on Earth did you get this idea? Consider the following sequence: - Model A activates and declares a Move. - Reactive Model B is outside of A's ZoC and doesn't have LoF to it, so has no ARO. - Model A declares Move and enters Model B's LoF (but is still outside of its ZoC) - Model B declares Dodge Result: Model B rolls for its Dodge and moves if successful. Why? There's no requirement that the ARO has to be valid for the skill you didn't declare it against.
Any trooper that delays their ARO against the camo marker's first skill would lose it if the marker does not reveal, in this case model B could never have declared Dodge. Triggering the mine is immediate as soon as an enemy declares something to triggers it, in this case A would have triggered it with their Discover ARO or E with their Change Facing ARO after the first skill.
The camo marker was in enemy model C ZoC during 1st part of the order. By not declaring Change Facing ARO at that point, the enemy model C loses the ability to declare any ARO against the order during the 2nd part of the order. What isn't 100% clear, if this results in an Idle ARO which can trigger a nearby mine. You are correct. The model must declare Idle ARO? Does this situation trigger mines? You are correct (again). Which player chooses the Mine attack target (A or E) in this case?
This is the choice of the mine's controller. Idle is not a valid ARO to declare. You can always choose not to ARO, this isn't a Declaration, in fact it's the absence of a Declaration and will not trigger mines. If you delay your ARO against a marker and it doesn't reveal then your ARO is just lost and nothing happens.
