1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra PolĂ­tica de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Sixth Sense (Delay) vs Marker State

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Diphoration, Jan 14, 2020 at 4:10 PM.

  1. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    349
    Greetings,

    The question came up recently and I would like to have a clarification on it. As always, please refrain from gut replying and support claims with links to the wiki or rules. <3

    "What ARO can you declare after delaying to a Marker and does it matter if you have the Sixth Sense Lv1 skill when you declare that you will delay?"

    Let me start off by posting the rules in questions.

    - - - - -

    http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Camouflage_and_Hiding_(CH)

    AROs against CH Markers
    • The only AROs available against a CH: Camouflage Marker (CAMO) or a CH: TO Camouflage Marker (TO CAMO) are Discover, Change Facing, and Dodge.
    • Bear in mind that when reacting to a CH: Camouflage or CH: TO Camouflage Marker, you may delay your ARO declaration until after the Marker declares its second Short Skill.
    • However, if you choose to delay your ARO, you may only declare it if the Camouflage Marker revealed itself with its second Short Skill. If the Marker does not reveal itself, the reactive trooper loses his right to ARO.
    - - - - -

    http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Sixth_Sense

    In the Reactive Turn, Sixth Sense L1 allows its user to delay his ARO declaration until after the declaration of the second Short Skill of the enemy inside his Zone of Control.

    Example of Sixth Sense L1 vs a TO Camouflage Marker

    A TO Camouflaged Spektr declares the first Short Skill of his Order: Moving towards a Maakrep Tracker with her back turned. The Spektr is inside the Tracker's Zone of Control, but he has not declared an Attack so she cannot use her Sixth Sense L1 to shoot back.

    The Maakrep Tracker chooses to delay her ARO declaration until after the Spektr declares his second Short Skill. The Maakrep Tracker is allowed to delay her ARO both because the active trooper is a TO Marker and because of her Sixth Sense L1. The Spektr declares a BS Attack as the second Short Skill of his Order. Now that she is the target of an Attack, the Maakrep Tracker may benefit from her Sixth Sense L1 to react as if she was facing the Spektr and ignore the handicap imposed by the Spektr's Surprise Shot L1. The Tracker chooses to declare a BS Attack so the Order is resolved with a Face to Face BS Roll between both soldiers.

    Example of Sixth Sense L1 vs a rear attack

    An Alguacil, in his Active Turn, declares the first Short Skill of his Order: Moving towards a Maakrep Tracker with her back turned, keeping outside her LoF. The Alguacil is now inside the Tracker's Zone of Control so she uses her Sixth Sense L1 Special Skill to delay her ARO, waiting for the Alguacil to make his move.

    The Alguacil declares a BS Attack as the second Short Skill of his Order. Now that she is the target of an Attack, the Maakrep Tracker uses her Sixth Sense L1 to react as if she was facing towards the Alguacil. The Tracker chooses to declare a BS Attack so the Order is resolved with a Face to Face BS Roll between both soldiers.

    Had the Alguacil declared a further Movement instead of a BS Attack, the Maakrep Tracker would have been able to declare an ARO against an unseen active enemy inside her Zone of Control (Change Facing).

    - - - - -

    Delaying allows you to push your ARO declaration after the declaration of the second Short Skill.

    We know (from the second example, third paragraph) that you can declare any skill you want if you delayed versus a non-marker trooper.

    There is no clarification of that interaction in the first example versus a marker.

    The first example states that "The Maakrep Tracker is allowed to delay her ARO both because the active trooper is a TO Marker and because of her Sixth Sense L1.", but makes no distinction on them behaving differently or having to choose which one lets them delay. It does not say something like "either".

    We also have the bullet points of "AROs against CH Markers" dictating how we can do our ARO. The first bullet point obviously applies to any ARO, even with Sixth Sense. The second bullet point add a trigger for us to be able to declare delay. And the third bullet point tells us the ARO that we are allowed to do if we declared a delay.

    Does the third bullet point also affect any form of delay? Is that third bullet point linked to the second bullet point?

    - - - - -

    From my reading, you cannot declare any ARO against a marker after delaying, regardless of the trigger used to delay versus.

    I've heard things like "Sixth Sense lets you do any ARO after they declared their short skill", but nowhere in the rule does it say anything of the sort. The example shows that you can declare any ARO versus a non-marker, as there is no restriction here. But nothing in Sixth Sense lifts the restriction given on how delay works as defined when used versus markers.

    - - - - -

    Is my reading correct? Did I miss anything? Is anything wrong in my reasoning? Thank you for your input! :)
     
  2. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    10,748
    I think the confusion may be from your initial summary:

    You're simply using Sixth Sense L1 to delay against a Trooper. Marker states aren't involved, so any restrictions for Marker states don't apply.
     
    AdmiralJCJF and chromedog like this.
  3. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    349
    Does the rule for AROs against CH Markers not apply? There is nothing saying that those rules can be ignored.

    AROs against CH Markers
    • The only AROs available against a CH: Camouflage Marker (CAMO) or a CH: TO Camouflage Marker (TO CAMO) are Discover, Change Facing, and Dodge.
    • Bear in mind that when reacting to a CH: Camouflage or CH: TO Camouflage Marker, you may delay your ARO declaration until after the Marker declares its second Short Skill.
    • However, if you choose to delay your ARO, you may only declare it if the Camouflage Marker revealed itself with its second Short Skill. If the Marker does not reveal itself, the reactive trooper loses his right to ARO.

    The first bullet point still obviously apply, so why would the third bullet point get ignored?

    If the intent was to have delay work differently against a marker, would the line that explains how you behave to a ARO against a marker after delaying not have been worded differently?
     
  4. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,896
    Likes Received:
    8,865
    I think the gist of it is that you're not delaying vs a Camo marker, you're using 6th Sense to delay against a trooper in your ZoC (who happens to be a Camo marker).
     
    chromedog likes this.
  5. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    10,748
    Why would it? You're using Sixth Sense to delay, not the active Trooper being a Marker.
     
    AdmiralJCJF and chromedog like this.
  6. daszul

    daszul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2018
    Messages:
    707
    Likes Received:
    855
    There are (at least) two triggers that allow you to delay your ARO:
    Having Sixth Sense or the ARO being triggered by a Camo Marker.
    Each of those rules explain independently how that delaying works.
    There is no "general rule for delaying AROs".

    The third bullet point refers to the second bullet point,
    and with Sixth Sense L1 you already ignore the second bullet point,
    because you delay because of SSL1,
    not because of the active trooper being a camo marker.
    Thus you may declare any ARO you want.

    edit: damn, so many ninjas (in Camo?)...
     
  7. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    349
    @ijw, @daszul I understand your reasonings.

    I think the inclusion of a explicit example of being able to ARO in delaying vs a non-marker and the lack of explicit example of being able to delay in ARO vs a marker is pretty poor at expressing this intention.

    And that the part of the sentence "The Maakrep Tracker is allowed to delay her ARO both because the active trooper is a TO Marker and because of her Sixth Sense L1." Makes it sound to me like it does not matter which of these 2 is triggering the delay and that "delaying" is a generic thing.
     
  8. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    10,748
    Except that it can't be, because the two situations have explicitly different rules.
     
    AdmiralJCJF and chromedog like this.
  9. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    349
    I understand what you're saying. I'm just saying that it's not as clear as it should be.

    You could ask yourself "Now that I am delaying, what do I have the right to do as ARO?". Then you go to the examples and it only covers the scenario where you were not facing a camo. So you would go to the rules for camo and it explains what you do in case of delaying.

    All I am saying is that a clearer explanation of how to use delay would be a really good addition to the ruleset. I've been asked this question multiple times and it would not have come up as often if it was clearer.

    Adding "If you delayed in that way" to the camo example, and adding a line similar to the delay vs a non-camo on the Sixth Sense delay example would greatly improve the clarity of the intent.
     
  10. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    349
    And also the fact that regardless of Sixth Sense, the player is still ARO'ing versus a Marker. and that the Camo page has a title named "AROs against CH Markers" that should partially be ignored.

    Here's to hoping N4 makes things a lot clearer.
     
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,629
    Likes Received:
    8,206
    Oh right. I think I get you.

    Since delaying is an informal action, it doesn't automatically equate to a skill being used, though a skill might make it available. As such being able to delay a declaration because of Sixth Sense doesn't logically mean that you can avoid the restrictions that troopers have when they delay against a Camouflaged trooper.

    I.e. the Sixth Sense trooper might not be using Camouflaged State to delay, but "using" Sixth Sense doesn't stop the Camouflaged trooper from using the state and imposing restrictions on the Sixth Sense trooper that Sixth Sense doesn't explicitly remove.

    It is an interesting thought and does legitimately make a case. Not least does Delay need to be formalized in N4!
     
    Diphoration likes this.
  12. Dev

    Dev New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2019
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    1
    While I can accept the answer, that you can discover after delaying (because you delayed of SSL1 and not because of marker state), I don't understand how come marker states aren't involved if the question is exactly about marker state. Markers involved, that's a fact :)
     
  13. colbrook

    colbrook Black Fryer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,896
    Likes Received:
    8,865
    Because you're not delaying against the Marker, you're delaying using 6th Sense which doesn't care if the Active trooper is a marker or not.
     
    chromedog likes this.
  14. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    349
    Also, when you are to delay, do you announce "I delay due to Sixth Sense" or "I delay due to Camo". The example that explains the trooper being able to delay simply states that they are "allowed to delay her ARO both because the active trooper is a TO Marker and because of her Sixth Sense L1", which is misleading at best since the kind of delay has a massive impact on the course of the game.

    Saying "I delay because you're a marker and because I have Sixth Sense" is not an acceptable sentence in a scenario where the 2 delay clauses have different application, so the example is misleading if the intent is that they function differently.
     
  15. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,629
    Likes Received:
    8,206
    A primary reason why I think your way of looking at it holds water. Delaying has no set nomenclature and is fairly undefined.
     
    Diphoration likes this.
  16. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    772
    Likes Received:
    1,298
    I counter that there are numerous times where a person is told that they, for instance, qualify for a program under two different sets of circumstances, each with its own set of requirements and rules. :-/

    If the example were continued to cover the case where the TO Marker did not make an attack, then it would have said:
    * Because the marker did not reveal itself, the right to ARO granted by the camo marker rules is lost.
    * Because the model has Sixth Sense, it has the right to ARO due to the Sixth Sense rules.

    A rule exists which allows the model to declare its ARO, so it gets to declare its ARO.
     
  17. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    349
    Then why was it explicitely stated in the example vs a non-camo trooper? When it is much more obvious in that example.
     
  18. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    262
    Likes Received:
    349
    I do not understand what you mean by that or how it applies to the current situation. Do you have any example?
     
  19. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,315
    Likes Received:
    10,748
    An example would be:
    If you have an undergraduate degree, you can apply for program X. You will need three letters of recommendation, and would receive a grant of Y.
    If you have a postgraduate degree, you can apply for program X. You will need one letter of recommendation and would receive a grant of Z.

    Two ways to qualify for the program, each with it's own requirements and results.
     
  20. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,629
    Likes Received:
    8,206
    This isn't what's happening, though. The "undergraduate degree" is the Marker state, not the grant, which makes a complete mess of this analogy, for the simple fact that in one of the cases the relevant attribute is owned and used by the target while in the other case the relevant attribute is owned by the aggressor.

    Here is an analogy for how @Diphoration implies it can be read:
    The spouse of a diplomat has diplomatic immunity and if the host government want to indict the spouse for a crime they need to apply to the diplomat's nation to lift the immunity.
    The federal police may indict anyone regardless of jurisdiction for a federal crime, without first consulting the local government or going through local law enforcement.
    Can the federal police indict the spouse of a diplomat for a federal crime without first applying to the diplomat's nation to lift the diplomatic immunity? Arguably, no, because the diplomatic immunity states that the spouse may not be prosecuted for offences because the protections afforded by the Vienna Convention strongly restricts which crimes the host nation may charge a diplomat or their immediate family with.

    Or possibly;
    The police is allowed to exercise violence in order to protect another person from serious and direct physical harm.
    A boxer in a boxing ring is allowed to within the confines of the boxing match inflict harm on the other party, including blows to the head which are notoriously dangerous.
    Is a police officer allowed to intervene during a match, using their service revolver, in order to stop the boxers from beating each other up? Not really, provided the boxers follow the rules of the competition and directions of the judge they are not breaking the law by inflicting harm on each other and should thus be protected from violent intervention of a third party.

    So, looking at it through the lens of permissive rule set, Sixth Sense allows you to delay while Camouflage allows someone else to delay with restrictions. Arguably, if someone with Sixth Sense delays against a Camouflage Marker, Sixth Sense does not explicitly permit that person to ignore restrictions that Camouflage state stipulates. But where is the retraction on the limitations set by Camouflage State on delays?
    Unfortunately neither the rules nor the example of Sixth Sense vs TO Camouflage actually offers any guidance to how this would be resolved if the Spektr hadn't declared BS Attack

    The rules for camouflage say "However, if you choose to delay your ARO, you may only declare it if the Camouflage Marker revealed itself with its second Short Skill. If the Marker does not reveal itself, the reactive trooper loses his right to ARO." without specifying how the delay is achieved.