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

[Solved] When do I check ZoC for sixth sense?

Discussion in 'Solved Rule Questions' started by k104agi, Jun 8, 2018.

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

    nazroth 'well known Nomad agitator'

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    A hypothetical situation.
    Enemy Trooper declares Move in enemy Deployment Zone.
    Across the table (My Deployment Zone) there is an enemy mine near one of my Troopers.
    Let's say I want to get rid of the mine and I am really bad at eye guessing distances - for me there seem to be 8" between active Enemy Trooper and my Trooper. Judging that there clearly is ZOC between the Troopers I declare Change Facing.
    Mine is triggered (?!)
    In resolution we measure and it seem like I totally overguessed that 8" ZOC, cause there's like over 30" between the miniatures... well - my bad. As a result my Change Facing ARO becomes Ide. This doesn't stop the Mine going off.
    Thank you ZondBot for taking out enemy mine.

    Is this correct?
     
    Robock likes this.
  2. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Honestly I thought HD was execution not Declaration. My bad.

    I still maintain that there is and there needs to be a distinction between those two steps (Declaration and execution/resolution).

    @nazroth seems legit.

    Edit: the reason it's different to@IJWs explanation is I'm saying it doesn't become an Idle, it's just lost.

    Mainly I'm arguing this because otherwise Perimeter Weapons become unplayable. It dissentivises declaring them: so you hold your ARO until you know. You can't rule on people's guesses. Which means that you will occasionally not Boost (legally) when you had the opportunity to do so.

    I'd honestly be OK with whatever way it's resolved so long as it's clear and either you don't expend Perimeter Weapons when you Declare boost at 8.x" or it's legal to not declare Boost if it's ambiguous whether or not the Active Trooper is inside ZOC.
     
    #22 inane.imp, Jun 10, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2018
  3. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    But that is what an Idle is.

    • A trooper that declares Idle performs no action.
    • The trooper is also considered to perform an Idle when he has declared a Skill not allowed by the rules.

    And @nazroth is very clearly pointing out my problem with how this is being discussed. It basically makes mines completely useless. "Woops, guess I wasn't really where I thought I was, hahaha! Oh well, your mine blows up on nothing because I declared a thing! hahaha!" /proceed to using rulebooks as a blunt instrument/
     
  4. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,085
    Likes Received:
    7,624
    @macfergusson : nazroth outlines a situation where he uses a sacrificial model to face-tank a mine, the mine doesn't whiff. It's impossible for mines to whiff.

    @ijw is it not true that if the declaration becomes legal due to the second short skill, the declaration is still valid even if it was invalid when declared on following the first short skill, when it comes to ZoC declarations - i.e. if you declare Change Facing after enemy Moves first short skill, but the Move stops 10" out, but second short skill Move ends up with the enemy model 6" away, meaning the Change Facing is still valid and gets rolled?

    @nazroth in the outlined situation, I'd say that I'd hold it to my discretion whether to simply deny you your declaration or not. There is being bad at guessing and there is feigning incompetence for your own benefit.
     
  5. nazroth

    nazroth 'well known Nomad agitator'

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    1,806


    Could you please provide basis in the rules allowing you to deny someone an ARO in this situation?
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,085
    Likes Received:
    7,624
    I wouldn't call on the rules, I'd call you stupid. Intentionally stupid. Don't be stupid.
     
  7. nazroth

    nazroth 'well known Nomad agitator'

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    Calling me stupid wouldn't resolve the rules loophole bruh. You would still loose this situation and I would still gain on it. Rules should not allow this to happen in the first place.
     
    Robock likes this.
  8. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    How is this relevant to what I'm saying?
     
  9. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Because it makes @nazroth's concern relatively moot. Ultimately from what nazroth describes to happen someone needs to have deployed a mine with a Zondbot in it's trigger area and be unable to place the template such that it hits nothing important. That scenario does not make Mines unplayable: it makes them slightly easier to clear if you're already inside the trigger area.

    @mac you're increasingly convincing me that all Declarations are resolved even those that weren't generated. This significantly changes how HD and Perimeter Items work (I'd argue for the worse).

    I fundamentally think that the game should make a distinction between Declarations you resolve and those that are just lost. But you can make the game work without it: with liberal interpretation for Perimeter Items.

    I don't really care which side Mines fall, but I think it would be easier if they triggered on Declarations because that's when the template goes down.

    @Mahtamori you can absolutely declare a ZOC ARO at 8.5" and nothing in the rules prevents you declaring them at 48". So the only thing that prevents you is DBAD, the response to someone deliberately 'guessing wrong' isn't to make up a new rule (that 8.5" it works like X but at 48" it works like y), it's just not to play them or to accept that 'guessing wrong' is legitimate.

    Edit: deliberately 'guessing wrong' when information is actually ambiguous changes the game but I don't think it breaks it.

    A lot of the time the information is not actually ambiguous: for instance at deployment with a troop inside your opponent's DZ and a troop inside your own there is no ambiguity, you can't claim it's provable without measuring that a ZOC ARO has not been generated.
     
    #29 inane.imp, Jun 11, 2018
    Last edited: Jun 11, 2018
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,085
    Likes Received:
    7,624
    Yeah, I'm not claiming there's rules against it, but I'd either TO that hard or ask TO to clamp down on it. Needless to say, being an asshole against such a player isn't uncalled for either.
     
    DukeofEarl and inane.imp like this.
  11. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,222
    Yeah, that basically opens the gate for all the other dick moves. I'd be pie- slicing hard to only see the rear arcs of Troopers after that.

    The conversation would probably go 'Do you really want to play like that?... ok."

    That being said I think there's a way to make it work without playing 'who can be the biggest dick' by disallowing Declarations when it's unambiguous that there's no ARO and not forcing Boost unless it's unambiguous there is an ARO. For instance in situations where the distances have already been measured and they have not changed (whichever is appropriate).

    It's still slightly abusable but significantly less so.
     
  12. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,692
    Likes Received:
    4,559
    This goes into the "gentlemen's game" ground, I'd say. Being purposedly obtuse to abuse the rules is not really sportmanship.

    The way we always played perimetral weapons (always Koalas, I never faced YJ's glue ones) is that they don't really declare an ARO... you just check, as many times as needed, if the activated enemy troop is in the Zone of Control of the toy. If it is... bum. If it's not, nothing happens.
    Sure, we treat them like mines ("there is no decision, it just happens when conditions are met"), but it speeds things up and are easy and intuitive enough (they are "moving mines against single targets").
     
    Ginrei and nazroth like this.
  13. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,222
    That's not a bad solution. But it strips me of my childish glee at goings 'That Koala Boosts' when my opponent misjudgeds 8".
     
  14. nazroth

    nazroth 'well known Nomad agitator'

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    So we're all clear here - I am not advocating against gentlemen's game. I see a loophole and point it out. Where I'm from this kind of thing is obvious exploit. It is not about my personal preferences :)
     
    DukeofEarl, Ginrei and xagroth like this.
  15. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,692
    Likes Received:
    4,559
    You can certainly do so, it's just that koalas work like heartbeats: they act automatically (aside from moving, which is like when you jog XD).

    Sorry if it looks like I was calling on you, I was just trying to translate both you and Mahtamori's posture to something else ^^U.

    My personal rule is "I will discuss anything out of the game, once in the game, I go with the flow, we can discuss later". The wiki sees heavy use, however, sometimes XD
     
  16. nazroth

    nazroth 'well known Nomad agitator'

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    856
    Likes Received:
    1,806
    No need for sorry @xagroth - It just seems like I'm defending tabletop dickishery which I'm not so I pointed this out for future record :)
     
    xagroth likes this.
  17. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    And you're correct, it needs to be pointed out.

    I do not think the answer lies in this idea of being a gentlemen. Because the line between obvious, questionable, and dick is subjective. You simply can't/shouldn't have rules that rely on subjective interpretation. Very few people are going to agree on where that line is.

    What is obviously beyond 8"? 9, 10,11, 12... 16? When is a player being a dick? How many times will a player have to flirt with that line until it becomes an issue? In one major tournament, five?
     
    nazroth likes this.
  18. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,222
    That's why you make the line in the sand objective.

    Unambiguously outside ZOC you can't declare the ARO. If it's at all objectively ambiguous you can declare the ARO. Not based off estimating distances, but off the known state of the table.

    Measured ZOC last order and it was outside, well you don't get to declare an ARO this time.

    In your DZ and they're still in there's, well you don't get to declare the ARO.

    Both in the same table quadrant and haven't interacted yet, go for it.
     
  19. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    I'm going to assume that's not actually the rule, only a description.

    A ruling based on something that happened in the past relies on memory which is fallible. In other words, Did the trooper move since then? If an answer is I don't recall or different, we now have an issue.

    I don't leave lines on the table showing anything once the game starts. So what looks like a quadrant or DZ is still subjective. Troopers can be in different quadrants and still be within a questionable 8" as well.
     
    nazroth likes this.
  20. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,692
    Likes Received:
    4,559
    Shock ammo FAQ suggests that the farthest CB wants to go regarding rules is "the same Order" (for Objective points, it can go to "anytime during the game", however).
     
    nazroth and Ginrei like this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.