Revealing Hidden Deployment and LOF blocking

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Mahtamori, May 29, 2018.

  1. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,081
    Likes Received:
    15,389
    Does a model that previously did not block LOF due to marker state, but whose ARO causes them to leave such state, block LOF during the order in which they lost marker state?

    Example: Model A moves into LOF of Model X and Model Y (Camo Marker or Hidden Deployment), with Y's silhouette fully blocking X. Both Model X and Marker Y AROs BS Attack, Y loses Marker state for the entire order. Can A still declare BS Attack vs X? Is X' BS Attack still valid?
     
  2. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,270
    Likes Received:
    8,107
    Given the usual "all at once" resolution, and the clear intent behind the fact that moving models don't block LoF, I would say that dropping out of a marker state also does not block LoF to models until the next order.
     
    daboarder and nazroth like this.
  3. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    This seems like it probably falls into the same weird limbo as "Dodging in ARO creating new ARO opportunities due to opening up LoF" situation.
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  4. nazroth

    nazroth 'well known Nomad agitator'

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes Received:
    3,155
    Well, both revealing TO for ARO and dodging as an ARO are just declarations. They do not happen until the resolution of the actual ARO so neither revealed HD won;t block LOF nor Dodge would actually create new ARO opportunities ;)
     
  5. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,270
    Likes Received:
    8,107
    The dodge-ARO-LoF thing is a bit of a mess, and I would prefer to avoid dragging it back up as part of this thread if it can be at all avoided.
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,081
    Likes Received:
    15,389
    Exactly my thought. To my knowledge, that's the closest I could draw upon to form an answer to the question.
    Nah, in the case of losing camo, you lose it for the entire duration of the order and in case of ceasing to block LOF when declaring a movement skill, it's the act of declaring the skill - see IJW's old answer below.

    http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...d-from-line-of-sight-gain-aro/#comment-957226

    --

    Personally, I'd say both situations should have the same answer; the offending unit in between will not alter the visibility of to or from other units, regardless of which skill they declare.
     
  7. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    I'd like to put forth that this is a good case for "common sense answers, barring official corrections" in which we simply agree that the declaration of an ARO creating (edit: or altering the validity of ) another ARO is generally not a good sequence of events.
     
  8. colbrook

    colbrook Grenade Delivery Specialist

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    9,340
    Likes Received:
    17,157
    I had quite enough of retroactive shroedinger's AROs with N2 engage thankyou very much!
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  • 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