This is an evolution of a previous thread and I've tried to make my point a little clearer this time. I'd like to see the current Order Expenditure Sequence improved in two ways. I don't want the reactive player forced into AROs no sane trooper would ever do on the battlefield. This can take the form of trying to dodge attacks that haven't taken place. I also want catch 22 situations to exist. Currently, these typically take the form of ZoC shenanigans or generally forcing the opponent into taking normal rolls. I feel there are two concepts that need outlining first. AROs should be about choosing a reaction in an attempt to change the state of play. Catch 22s should be about choosing the lesser evil. So why do players get forced into unwanted AROs? We will need to identify this first. I believe this happens very early in the Order Expenditure Sequence. I see two points of failure. *** Infinity sometimes demands an ARO as the first action.*** Now realistically, one player has to take the first action in any game. Does it not strike anyone as wrong that the first move can be a reactionary one? Currently, declaring a BS attack ARO when available works perfectly fine as a first move. Because even in response to a first short skill move it can potentially change the state of play. However, declaring a Dodge or Reset ARO to avoid bullets or hacking when no such attack has actually been made may change nothing. *** We must declare an ARO when available.*** There is no reason the reactive player should be forced to waste their only ARO when none of the options available can change the state of play. So when a trooper moves within ZoC and the eligible AROs can't change the state of play... there should be an alternative. *** Solutions *** I assume most alternatives to improve the reactive turn are going to eliminate ZoC shenanigans and forced AROs that do nothing. I do understand catch 22s are important but surely we can come up with an alternative way to create them or improve existing ones. We know catch 22s exist in other forms. Certain coordinated attacks can result in the reactive player facing normal rolls. The reactive player must choose the lesser evil. Why not leverage more of this type of game play instead? Where the active player can force a catch 22 on their opponent and the reactive player can make a decision that impacts their actual situation. Positioning can grant a normal roll. This is another area we could focus on improving. I know we can improve both areas of the game without taking anything away from either.
Not trying to detract from you - but have you ever watched Soccer/Football? Have you seen the attacking player move forward to line up a kick, only for the goalie to jump the wrong way? This is that. Snap decisions made in a fraction of a second... Only, our trooper's life is on the line - rather than it being a sporting match. Yes, mechanically it seems silly that they do something that "doesn't change the state of play", but it is realistic. An enemy presents itself, you have fractions of a second to make your decision and act. Remember, ARO is a reaction to an opponent acting/appearing.
This whole section also confuses me. You accept Catch22s exist, and you want to keep them, but you want to make them... Less? Consider the golden example of the catch-22 your argument is based on - the Ghazi Muttawiah. Ghazi draws LoF ARO from your model - you can; a) Dodge b) Reset c) Shoot d) other skills a) Dodge. Depending on the reactive model, this discourages the Ghazi from taking the following actions; i) Firing Chain Rifle ii) Firing e/Marat iii) Firing Pistol/Boarding Shotgun b) Reset. Reset discourages the Ghazi from committing to the Jammer. c) Shoot. This discourages the Ghazi from Jammer or from FtF shooting weapons (the example is with LoF). The Ghazi likely now commits to templating and suiciding itself (Yes, it has Dogged. But the ARO could have multiple burst, Shock, etc, and the model is still Dead at the end of the phase - pushing the Ghazi player to commit more orders to it in order to get more out of it) d) other skills. This really varies depending on what else is available. The reactive model could deploy a mine (A/P Mines are Shock, remember) that will kill the Ghazi in a subsequent order. The model could declare an Engage to utilise cc skills in a subsequent phase. The reactive model may have some other form of repeater or deployable they could utilise. In each of these cases, the action taken by the Reactive model is not without consequence - each one forces the Ghazi player to consider how the ARO affects their ability to get value from the actions available to them. As the reacting player, you also need to consider what is most worth to your opponent. Is the reacting model a scrub Cheerleader? Does it really tear down all your plans if that model was to be Isolated/killed? If you can't prevent one or the other, which is likely to be more painful to your opponent? What if my model is something different - say, a Domaru Butai. My Domaru can tank a Chain Rifle. Isolation is frustrating, but I'd still have a Domaru should I fail my save. The biggest threat is probably going to be the e/Marat as that both Isolates *AND* Immobilises me. In this case, my thought process needs to be - do I tank the shot and try to kill him or do I try and Dodge (Engage if possible) to deny the e/Marat and try to prevent further templating? Yes - my examples are not perfect. Yes, my examples here are based on a Ghazi drawing LoF. But my examples do demonstrate that the existing ARO options are not without effect. You aren't declaring a dead skill that has no impact on the game, you're merely declaring an action that diminishes your opponent's ability to get what they want out of the exchange.
What you call Catch-22 AROs are a feature, not a bug, of the system. Having to choose an ARO without knowing exactly what your opponent is going to do is how the system is designed. You might not think it’s the best, but that’s Corvus Belli has designed.
I really just want to add that I fundamentally disagree with why you think the order sequence needs to be fixed. Therefore, I disagree with your solutions. The active turn means the active unit had the advantage, the upper hand, the initiative. All of your suggestions completely delete that mechanic in search of some kind of optimised emotionless state where players are never forced into making a bad choice.
As I said in the other thread - I feel like this whole thing comes from negative experiences facing Ghazi. Yeah, Ghazi are turd. They're a pain in the butt. But they aren't the same as the "Negative Play Experiences" that have existed in the game previously - I'm talking old Camo, Impersonator, Smoke/MSV shenanigans when these things were all unopposed rolls when, as a reactive player, you literally did nothing unless you lived.
I'm surprised if that's the case, Ghazi are one of the least problematic forms of this IMO, I'd much rather a Ghazi fork me between dodge and reset (the correct answer becomes shoot inna face) than have MSV2 units prancing around in smoke to force change facing before shooting or CC units with stealth knocking really loudly on the corner before they move into base contact. Let alone the more egregious forms of this, like the ISS link that forces you to react to madtraps before a Hsien sinks 5 HMG rounds into your chest through smoke. Having said all that, I'm firmly on board with "it's part of the game, deal with it"
And the whole reason there are more options in N3 is to avoid that exact situation as much as feasible, where the Reactive player has no options. Now, does that mean they always have a good option? No, they’re the Reactive player. That’s the point, but they still have some option, sometimes more than one, and they have to do the best they can.
The initial crux of the thread had been to create a new "Evade" ARO declaration that became Dodge or Reset relative to the second short declared by the Active model - pretty explicitly aimed at Jammer shenanigans.
This bit of the argument seems to be a very different interpretation of what is happening on the battlefield to mine. I would never consider a trooper to try and dodge an attack only after the combi rifle has been fired, but rather that they would start taking to cover and evading fire lanes as soon as the enemy trooper came into view. In other words, committing to the course of action of dodging should indeed exclude waiting to see what they do - that would be the in-game equivalent of 'no ARO'. Although I think that the 'no win' ARO choice scenario is absolutely fine with regards to Dodge/Reset, I can see that there are some more frustrating scenarios with zone of control or zero-visibility zones forcing a change facing ARO when the trooper could more logically just watch a corner with a shotgun. Perhaps the declaration of a currently illegal ARO which becomes 'idle' if it cannot be fulfilled would work? So, a ninja walks up to the edge of a wall just out of LoF but just around the corner from the reactive trooper, deliberately choosing not to use Stealth. At the moment the reactive trooper just uses change facing and the ninja moves around the corner into base contact with them. If the reactive trooper could instead declare BS attack with a combi rifle, now they get a shot when the ninja moves around the corner, but obviously takes no shot if the ninja doesn't show up. The theme of a ninja creeping up in front of someone is quite weird as well, they are deliberately forsaking Stealth to make a noise so the enemy hears them coming... in order that the enemy cannot react to them coming!
This is where we differ on our views of things. When a trooper is dodging, they are doing so on the assumption an attack is coming. Not reacting to one (have you tried dodging bullets after they've been fired? they go pretty quickly) Likewise, when a trooper resets, it may be more akin to launching all the defensive software - actively checking on incoming connections and getting ready to deny the malicious ones... or just repeatedly hitting the big red button... but all as a preemptive measure, not as a reaction. Consequently, stuff can go wrong and you do the wrong thing. The catch 22 situations follow on from this where you are "forced" into always making the "wrong" choice.
Which is why I made a new thread. I haven't suggested any specific change here to improve these situations. I realized it was pointless to suggest alternatives when people are unwilling to listen because they don't see the whole picture or don't want to consider changes that might actually improve things. I've simply asked anyone to come up with their own solutions. That way, you can focus on a solution you'd be happy with, assuming you want to find one. I've made it clear both sides are important. But I'm not surprised players in favor of the catch 22 are the least willing to consider a change. They're already getting what they want and make excuses as to why it works from any perspective. They are correct that the current system creates these catch 22s. But IMO they're wrong to say the form some of these catch 22s take works thematically. I find it extremely hard to believe there is no solution to fix these ridiculous types of forced AROs @Spleen is talking about. He seems to understand the issues I'm referring to. Even if he's content in just accepting they exist and moving on. I fully expect to face extreme amounts of push back. Because the only way i see of improving the situation is to first fix these forced AROs. Which will in turn cause a ripple eliminating some catch 22s players would rather die defending. This is what i mean by seeing the whole picture. I really want people to understand it doesn't have to end there. We can add more catch 22s or improve the existing ones that work with the current system. But I certainly won't be surprised by any reactions to this thread, only sad.
Can I just go with Git Gud? Look its working as intended, there are serious in game balance and mechanical reasons for these interactions. A certain level of abstraction is required for a good game
It's not about being unwilling to listen, or not seeing the whole picture. Some of us disagree with your opinion, while fully understanding the opinion.
As an English(Chelsea/Hazard) football fan, your analogy fails. The keeper is reacting to a very specific event. The attacker is going to shoot at the net. The keeper knows exactly what the attacker is going to do. They essentially know what's going to happen, when it's going to happen, and where it's going to happen. The largest margin of error is the where. It's the size of the net. So we can forgive the keeper for guessing in that particular instance. Resetting vital systems during a battle that haven't been affected by anything isn't a very good guess considering the alternative actions that may take place. Maybe catch 22s can take the form of a feint or distraction made by the active player. Think something like tossing a stone to make a noise and draw attention away from yourself. So instead of simply acting in ZoC and forcing terrible AROs... maybe the active player declares a Feint/Distraction type skill. The reactive player must make a roll to detect the subterfuge. If unsuccessful, the catch 22 is valid. I'm just brainstorming ideas that make both sides happy. This type of idea makes both players engaged and works functionally AND thematically.
Just because something works doesn't mean it can't work better. How do you think newer and better things get created? It's certainly not because people say, meh, it's working just fine. How will the the wargamming industry continue to improve if no one tries and eventually succeeds in creating a better game? How do we even have the games we currently have? You can sit here and tell me you understand and disagree but... your words say differently. It's one thing to discuss and reject ideas based on their merits. It's another thing entirely to reject the possibility of improvement alltogether. Which is what you're doing every time to put down the possibility of improvement because you believe things are as they are intended. So my unsolicited advise to you... Either come up with ideas for improvement, discuss the ideas others have brought up, or frankly do anything other than imply things don't need to change.
That’s because you don’t fix something that is working as designed and intended by the creators. The points you raise are real, but they aren’t concerns because they are what is intended.
Also I find it incredibly unfair to dismiss all of these arguments as invalid, or to dismiss the posters as not understanding you, based on the presumption that something needs to be improved. Whether or not the rules need improvement, the burden is entirely on you to justify why anything needs to be changed and anyone may disagree if they wish to.
