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 Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

[SOLVED] Mine AROs Overlapping with Movement Declarations?

Discussion in 'Solved Rule Questions' started by fenren, Oct 29, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ev0k

    ev0k Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    358
    Likes Received:
    422
    Yep, and that's the weird part of my reasoning : it seems perfectly logical to me to cancel a mine in ARO, but not to prevent a successful dodge move... Maybe giving precedence to active player is the best option, regardless of possible issues like the ones stated above.
     
  2. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    737
    Likes Received:
    1,249
    I just think it’s a terrible idea for the active player to be able to invalidate the ARO declaration with no risk or downside at all.
    Walking in the way of an ARO Dodge path is one thing. That doesn’t use up anything.
    Almost all deployables are disposable, so if you can declare a Move to invalidate an ARO declaration, that’s both a wasted ARO opportunity and a lost deployable item.

    Of course, it’s even funnier if you get the situation:
    1. Active Trooper declares mine or other deployable.
    2. Model 2 inches (or 3 to 4 if it has Kinematica) declares ARO Dodge through the position declared for the mine. (Maybe the trooper was in hidden deployment, or in marker state, or holo’d to appear to be a harmless Servant model.)
    3. Active trooper declares a Move.

    Does the active trooper’s movement path (and whether it blocks the Dodge but not where it placed the mine) now determine what happens at the end of the order?
     
    Hecaton, fenren, BLOODGOD and 2 others like this.
  3. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,276
    Likes Received:
    7,827
    @solkan I've had a minelaying enemy infiltrator use a mine to block my Kanren from entering BtB. It was unintentional and I decided against pushing the issue and doing a tactical retreat with second Move skill in order to defuse the mine using the Echos, but it is possible to flip the situation to it being a terrible idea for a Mine declaration to be able to block a model from entering CC.
     
    ev0k and inane.imp like this.
  4. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    The thing is that choosing to deploy equipment in ARO always offers up a Normal roll BS Attack. So it's already a high cost play. Your Kanren had the opportunity to Chaincolt the Infiltrator, retreating just allowed you to defuse the Mine: you still had options after your opponent declares his ARO. Allowing you to invalidate the Mine deployments makes your opponent's ARO meaningless. I think it's a bad interaction to be able to use Mines to screen from CC but a horrible interaction to retroactively render a players decision meaningless.

    I think the best option is to favour whoever declares first for deployable equipment and stop the Dodge at the putative 1mm for Dodges. Primarily because it feels intuitive to me and doesn't render a player's decisions to be meaningless.
     
    daboarder, DukeofEarl, fenren and 2 others like this.
  5. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,276
    Likes Received:
    7,827
    I agree with you that the points you bring up are valid, but I do not share your evaluation of these specific points. As it stands in the specific case of a Holo2 trooper, I was able to move an Echo forward to a position where it would later trigger the mine harmlessly for the Kanren and use total cover to make sure the real Kanren wasn't picked as target by entering LOF 9-10" away in the next order.

    An SAS or Oniwaban does not have this kind of luxury in handling the Mine and I place a higher value on the active player's order and trooper than on the reactive player's disposable equipment. Already getting the reactive player to do a Move-Move instead of a Move-Shoot FTF, you have triggered a response that for most troopers this close to a minelaying trooper is not ideal.

    In short, I do not think this dramatically diminishes the value of the mines.

    Edit: a compromise would be to move the mine a minimum distance on resolution to a different legal position.
    Additionally, I do note that if a mine blocks Movement, it also means the mine is exposed to template weapons on the order it is placed.
     
  6. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    Re: your Oni. Pick better targets.

    The reason I value mines is precisely because I can stop an Oni in their tracks. Usually this is by placing a mine such that it'll explode if the Oni activates in a subsequent order. Your compromise isn't awful, but weird (although it is of a type with how I'd solve the Dodge).

    I honestly don't think active players need more tools to undermine non-core-linked reactive options.

    But we're disagreeing on gameplay priorities rather than rules as written. Which is where I think this debate should be had.

    Not necessarily. You can distinguish between deployed equipment blocking movement and being able to be triggered / affected by templates.

    Basically, you need to make it clear that the equipment is placed at Declaration but the placement is resolved in Conclusion; however, since Movement is resolved at declaration the deployed equipment also affects movement from declaration.

    I do agree that you can't really do this with the rules as written. Which is why I think invalidating a Mine by moving into where it will be resolved is RAW. I don't think CB should be constrained by RAW in answering questions (but it's worth making those decisions clear). Equally I'd be happy with an answer that goes "Play it like X, that's what the rules say. But we'll look into it and it might get changed via FAQ down the track".
     
    DukeofEarl, fenren and BLOODGOD like this.
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,276
    Likes Received:
    7,827
    I refuse!

    But I mean, it's not unique for the Oni. Take anything that wants to either get in close combat with the dude with the mine or simply wants to ignore them and move passed. Take MonkiBoi, Zero, McMurder, DeFersen, etc

    Absolutely.
    Quantum probability placements :(

    I think for simplicity's sake it should be one or the other and becoming vulnerable to DTWs or circular impacts would be a valid trade off.

    My biggest personal gripe against any deployable is that they don't cause AROs nor count as being activated by the order when used. Kind of annoying for a repeater stick to land right in front of a bunch of Samurai and them not even being able to leap for cover or try and shoot it - the source of the hack is right there! Just shoot it! But that's a completely different debate :-)

    Edit: I just realized I haven't played with Onis since Uprising. Never did take them in JSA, only in Vanilla...
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  8. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    2,614
    @HellLois you really should get back in here you've opened a can of worms accidentally.
     
    HellLois and Bobman like this.
  9. DukeofEarl

    DukeofEarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,248
    Likes Received:
    1,193
    To be fair, he answered the initial question solidly (that one the placement options are blocked by first skill Move). It is the secondary questions that are still up in the air (using second skill Move to stop placement of a declared ARO).
     
    fenren likes this.
  10. fenren

    fenren Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2018
    Messages:
    31
    Likes Received:
    35
    The first question, as posted, is solved.

    There is lots of speculation around the second scenario we came up with, and some good points all around.
    I created an image for the second scenario to help with clarity.

    What is the intended outcome in this second scenario?

    MineQuestion2.png
     
    DukeofEarl likes this.
  11. PsychoCrane

    PsychoCrane Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    28
    Isn't this conundrum similar to a trooper on the active turn with a civvie in civ:evac-state who moves the civvie into the aoe of a template weapon used in ARO with the second short skill of the order?

    If the above mentioned scenario cancells the template attack then I think that there is a solid case to be made that the mine placement should be cancelled as well.
    Not to say that this fits the narrative or fluff part of the game but I actually like it if there is a clear ruling, even if it might be unintuitive at first glance. (Example: Dodge against LoF through Poor Vis-Zone with -3 MOD and Dodge against LoF through ZeroV-Zone with no neagtive MOD; unintuitive but works within the rules framework)

    @HellLois : Thanks for responding on the forums and hopefully you can help us out on the second implications.
     
    DukeofEarl likes this.
  12. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    It's admittedly very similar to cancelling the Template the key difference is that Templates don't block Movement so everything is resolved at Resolution/Conclusion. You can't get around this without making templates not hit everything under a template or get retroactively replaced at Resolution. I don't think it's a good interaction, but it's not bad enough to justify the effort that would need to be required to stop it (well except remove Xenotechs / make them hostile rather than neutral - which solves most issues).

    Whereas because Mines have a movement-like component (gaining physical presence on the board) that component should be resolved with the same timing as Movement. Things that physical move / appear on the board should do so at declaration.

    But, as I discuss this I'm also realising how frequently that's not true (I'm fairly certain that you can put a Dogwarrior into IMM-2 by blocking it's ability to transmute).

    From my POV @HellLois has actually answered the second scenario: you can generalise his answer from the first to the second. While I would like it to be explicit so that it is clear, I'm mainly discussing it because I think it's the worse gameplay outcome. (And yes that's because it's a nerf to playstyles I favour, everything @Mahtamori doesn't like about Deployables is something that I do).

    @Mahtamori. More often than a Mine or similar has blocked Movement my opponent has bounced a template off a Mine and killed something they'd have had more difficulty with otherwise. I think Deployables are in a decent place right now and don't need nerfing.
     
    fenren and DukeofEarl like this.
  13. Icchan

    Icchan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    928
    Heh, I just noticed mines don't actually have to be deployed to trigger, they just have to be on the table and they're placed on the table as soon as the skill is declared. So technically they would be functional right away, deployment doesn't actually affect mines in any way. But since the mines don't actually appear on the table until the resolution phase (despite the skill saying you place them right after declaration), there's nothing on the table that CAN explode. It's quite common for games to have rules that contradict other rules, but for a single rule to contradict itself is just golden.
     
  14. Icchan

    Icchan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    928
    Can you place a mine in the same location an enemy troop just placed a mine? For example, 1st short skill is move, enemy declares deploy mine as an ARO and places it on the table, your 2nd short skill is to deploy a mine that overlaps the placement of the enemy mine.

    Would apply to other deployable equipment as well, such as repeaters, nullifiers, etc.

    Another example, a Custodier uses its pitcher to deploy a repeater, an enemy troop with mines has lof to the custodier and declares deploy mine ARO and places the mine on the same spot as the repeater shot from the pitcher. Is the placement of the ARO mine dependent on the success of the pitcher BS roll?
     
    Robock likes this.
  15. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,276
    Likes Received:
    7,827
    Well... placing the mine is also written under effects which is way down in the Order Sequence and after the steps where a mine could trigger...
     
    Icchan likes this.
  16. Icchan

    Icchan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    755
    Likes Received:
    928
    That sort of makes sense, but doesn't really resolve the issue of two deployables overlapping.
     
  17. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    @HellLois conversation on this topic has wrapped up. Now would be a great time to clarify your first post (so that it clearly covers both scenarios) and then lock the thread, giving 'the answer'. :Grin:

    I think this format will work because it lets the community respond in an appropriate manner before you rule. I hope you found it useful?
     
    DukeofEarl and fenren like this.
  18. HellLois

    HellLois What the Hell...Lois?
    CB Staff

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    1,953
    Well Im back!
    I talked with the crow's concilium about this.


    The deployment of the mine becomes into an Idle. Why? Because in the order expenditure sequence, the movements are positioned during the same, and not at the end, which would be when the Mine was placed on the table, during the Conclusion of the Order. So the Mine would have no physical location to be placed.
     
    PsychoCrane, ev0k, toadchild and 7 others like this.
  19. Zewrath

    Zewrath Nordic Master

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,294
    Likes Received:
    1,872
    Thank you for taking your time to actively solve rules questions! :blush:
     
    HellLois likes this.
  20. Ben Kenobi

    Ben Kenobi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    1,272
    Only to be clear, the mine is then lost too, or?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.