1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Order expenditure sequence question

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Kwisatz Haderach, Oct 4, 2020.

  1. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8,108
    Likes Received:
    14,693
    I'm 99% sure that step 5 refers to these requirements from the same page of the Rulebook.

    20201004_100804.jpg

    Skills with additional requirements still need to be valid upon declaration, BS Attack and Place Deployable need LoF to Declare, CC Attack needs silhouette contact to declare, etc.
     
    Daniel Darko likes this.
  2. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    I think you're right that we know step 5, "check if have valid ARO," refers to those bullet points. Step 6, "check if Requirements met," refers to the Requirements in the skill's description.

    We also know from @ijw that you can declare Dodge even if you don't have a valid ARO at time of declaration. But the Dodge skill says, in its Requirements, that the troop must have a valid ARO. So we know that we can declare Dodge even if the Requirement of having a valid ARO has not yet been met.

    Likewise, Place Deployable has a Requirement that you have to have LoF, but given that you can Dodge prematurely, it would seem to follow that you can also Place Deployable prematurely. And of course either of them potentially become Idles at step 5 or 6. But a clarification from @ijw wouldn't hurt.

    CC attack I think needs a ruling from @ijw.
     
  3. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    8,108
    Likes Received:
    14,693
    You can't Dodge prematurely, but you can Dodge if you believe you have a ZoC ARO. Unlike a LoF ARO you can't check this straight away so you have to wait until step 5.

    If I'm wrong then this is such a large change to the ARO system that I'm surprised it wasn't mentioned at all during the pre-order or press, being able to speculatively Declare AROs that might come true really changes the game on a foundational level.
     
    Daniel Darko likes this.
  4. Kwisatz Haderach

    Kwisatz Haderach Zelenograd Shasvastii
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    395
    Likes Received:
    333
    Could you please give a link to that thread or reply?


    There is no thing as Line Of Fire ARO.

    So, for you to get the whole idea - here is LoF wording.

    For a Trooper to be able to draw LoF to its target, it must meet these conditions:

    The target must be total or partially within the Trooper's front 180º arc, unless some Special Skill or piece of Equipment ignores this restriction.

    The Trooper must be able to see part of the volume of its target, with a minimum size of 3x3mm.

    LoF can be drawn from any point of the Trooper's Silhouette to any point of the target's Silhouette without being obstructed by any pieces of scenery or Models (friendly or enemy).


    There is nothing said about special skills, visibility zones, etc.
     
    Nuada Airgetlam likes this.
  5. ijw

    ijw Ian Wood aka the Wargaming Trader. Rules & Wiki
    Infinity Rules Staff Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    7,064
    Likes Received:
    14,416
    From @HellLois. At this point, I can’t clarify anything more about conditional AROs because it might get overruled.
     
  6. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,222
    Likes Received:
    1,823
    No, it won't matter. Because the "worst case" scenario is:

    - Move or Idle within ZoC, making sure to be within 2"
    - ARO CC attack to try to get a free swing
    - Dodge
    - ARO Check: Target not in base contact, so ARO negated.
    which just changes "I've successfully tied up your trooper for the turn" from being automatic if you have the distances right, to needing to succeed on a PH roll.

    That's the N4 version of the tactic, and it makes "Blind ARO CC Attack" (the answer to the N3 version) irrelevant. Because it's going to be either:
    - The active player "settles" for shooting you in the back
    - The active player walks up to within 2"
    with no unopposed CC Attack taking place.

    Which puts "I declare ARO CC Attack against a trooper I can't see" as academic outside of a forum discussion of the rules mechanics. I think most evaluations are going to come up "You should have declared ARO Dodge to break engagement" because "ARO Dodge" actually works against both the N3 and N4 versions of "Move(Idle)+Move in base contact".
     
  7. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    2,734
    What's even worse, in N4 now, with a mobile trooper, you can Dodge out of Engaged, back behind the Total Cover and ARO-bait that same miniature again if you feel like it and keep on doing the same loop. Not saying anyone would but the silly interaction exists.
     
  8. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    @solkan those are some good points. It still might be the best option if both units have low phys. If you don't think you're likely to pass your dodge roll, you might prefer to force the opponent to dodge in, hoping they'll fail their roll. But fair enough, that'll be very, very rare.
     
  9. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    2,302
  10. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    2,734
    I have no idea why he says you can declare a Hacking ARO when unsure if the enemy will come into ZoC and the ARO might turn out to be Idle, but you can't declare BS Attack ARO when you're unsure if the enemy will come into LoF. How is one different from the other?

    Not to mention that Discover + Shoot exists and is legal, which is the exact same case, where you declare a potentially illegal BS Attack that will turn to Idle if the conditions are not met.
     
  11. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,952
    Likes Received:
    7,510
    If only you were allowed to premeasure ZoC, then we would not need to have space in the rules for speculative AROs...
     
  12. Whyrocknodie

    Whyrocknodie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2017
    Messages:
    101
    Likes Received:
    94
    Is there some reason why the word 'eligible' doesn't prevent these out-of-LOF declarations? I can't see how you can be eligible and yet somehow get an invalid ARO.
     
    Nuada Airgetlam likes this.
  13. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    2,734
    That would only make it easier to ARO bait people though.
     
  14. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,708
    Likes Received:
    2,085
    I'd, personally, like to see the rules say something to the effect of:

    Skills are checked to be valid as soon as able. LoF checks are done before a skill is declared and a skill that cannot pass one of these checks cannot be declared. ZoC checks are checked when other measurements are made (step 6), and if a skill is found to be invalid at this step, it becomes an idle.

    Confusingly, Step 5 is a step devoted to checking if an ARO declaration is valid, but you've already done that for LoF (steps 2 and 4 expressly tell you to check LoF) and you can't actually do that for ZoC because measurement actually happens in step 6.
     
    SubOctavian likes this.
  15. SubOctavian

    SubOctavian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2020
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    59
    Thank you for providing the exact quote from @ijw . That's the best thing we have at the moment, but we do need a developer's clarification (and a rule fix), and that's why:

    Unfortunately the burst argument is non-direct, and as I see, it applies to the situation with "multiple targets and B value higher than one". So it normally is not the case with ARO.

    The problem is, every single wording in the rulebook that concerns BS attack declaration is not fully clear.

    For example, total cover wording is very direct ("If the target is in Total Cover, the attacker may not declare a BS Attack with Weapons, Special Skills, or Equipment, that requires LoF. ") but unfortunately it's preceded by "Before performing the BS Attack Roll (or Rolls), the player must check every MOD they must apply" so you can easily read it as the validity check at the infamous step 5, not declaration check at step 2.

    The same applies to ZoC wording "Enemies entering or acting inside the Zone of Control of a Trooper while remaining outside that Trooper’s LoF can be reacted to, but only by using the Common Skills Dodge or Reset, unless the Trooper has a Special Skill, weapon, or piece of Equipment that can be used without LoF" - it would be crystal clear, but we have the step 5, and there is no 100% clarity here.

    Even though I have my own opinion on how it should be (and I do think if LoF checking is free at any point of the game, we should not allow BS attacks ARO declaration if you don't have LoF after the 1st skill), the most important thing is to establish how exactly it is, for everyone, regardless of individual player or judge opinion. Such things should not be ambiguous, especially in N4 which is supposed to be (and it is) a huge improvement in terms of clarity and optimal volume.
     
  16. Icchan

    Icchan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    802
    Likes Received:
    964
    If you really need lof at the time of declaration, then you wouldn't be able to shoot back at someone that popped out of total cover and went back to total cover.
     
  17. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit SecUnit

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    1,650
    Likes Received:
    2,302
    Well, it's not an "argument": it came from @ijw . It's just the reason for his ruling. You don't have to agree with his reasons (as it happens, I don't think I agree with them myself in this case), but whether you agree or not doesn't matter. Even if he'd just said "you can't declare BS attack unless you have LoF to the target at time of declaration" with no reasons at all, it would still be the rules unless overruled by CB staff.

    You're absolutely right that we need a rules clarification from @HellLois , because there are still many unanswered questions regarding premature ARO declaration, and @ijw has said that he can't answer them because he might get overruled. So we'll hopefully get something thorough from @HellLois soon, and it's entirely possible that some of the answers @ijw has already given could get overruled at that point.

    Until then, if it comes up in a game all we can do is follow @ijw 's existing ruling.

    Exactly, I couldn't agree more. That's why we have @ijw .

    Once a model has declared movement, it's considered to exist at all points on its movement path for the duration of the order. That part is uncontroversial.
     
    SubOctavian likes this.
  18. Nuada Airgetlam

    Nuada Airgetlam Nazis sod off ///

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2018
    Messages:
    2,760
    Likes Received:
    2,734
    And the idea that when it declares Idle + Move (classic ARO bait) it suddenly doesn't is patently idiotic. It's RAW, but it breaks the logic like a trenchhammer.
     
  19. SubOctavian

    SubOctavian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2020
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    59
    I don't think we should dive into such argument, as "logic" here is pretty subjective. Regarding IRL logic, one can argue that "ARO bait" is normal and tactical element of special operations as shown in pop culture - endless movies and games.

    As for the rules/game flow logic one can argue that the sheer ability to declare BS attack without LoF (something that rules explicitly allow to check) is not healthy for game pacing and time, and can be abused to hell (i.e. declaring tons and tons of invalid AROs "just in case").

    Finally, balance wise, in many cases ARO bait may be a good way to keep risky moves and CC stronger in the game where it's not that easy to pull off.

    However, despite of my personal views, I understand your point and the pros of "step 5 rules it all" approach. And even if I don't like it personally from the PoV described above, I would not call them idiotic at least out of basic politeness :-)
     
  20. SubOctavian

    SubOctavian Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2020
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    59
    I am sorry, I did not realise that IJW rulings are that decisive as I'm rather new to the community. I was under the impression that IJW is a volunteer that offers clarifications from the personal PoV and his rulings are optional. If they are not optional, then at least we have a strict ruling until CB sorts this out.
     
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation