Stealth + on stealth ARO option

Yes, you are right. I did not use the corrects words. My mistake. If we use RAW in this way stealth don't have any use, because you could declare ARO against any miniature wich are activated, no matter if have or not stealht, because it is activated. And this go against stealht and not only. If you read the Order Expediture Sequence:

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Order_Expenditure_Sequence

4.Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player checks which of her troopers can react against the activated trooper, and declares AROs for each of them. If a trooper can declare an ARO but fails to do so, the chance is lost. If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and specifies where the trooper would be at the end of its movement.

Because De Fersen have stealht (and he is using it) he couldn't be a valid target of the ORA. It is really symple: you have to choose any of the valid activateds targets.

 

Please read what I have been writing and what it is you are arguing against again.

A model that uses Stealth generates no ARO for opponents, provided the requirements for Stealth are met. This is how Stealth protects - by not allowing the opponent to declare anything at all.

If another model is also activated by the same order and generates an ARO for the opponent, then this opponent can declare skills and you need to evaluate if those skills meet their own requirement, and to my knowledge there are no skills what so ever that requires the target to generate AROs.

This is the only way I can get this particular puzzle to work, and believe me I have a vested interest in being wrong since I am one of few in my meta who regularly uses mixed Fireteams such as Hsien (Stealth, Hackable) and Zhanying (no Stealth and not Hackable).

 

Yes I have read it very carefully ;) And yes, I have used words without really care about the rule redaction at first, in order to bring an idea, nothing more, and my election of words wasn't really good because they make some conflicts again the rules redaction. So I'have read what you said and the redaction rules, in order to can argue better.

If you read ARO, they are a line:

AROs must choose the trooper activated by the Order as their target. wich it is in a really good consonance 4.Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player checks which of her troopers can react against the activated trooper, and declares AROs

It was the same if against a coordinate wich any troops in camo marker and others in normal state, you can choose shoot only the troops not in camo marker. Or wait against one camo marker. Not shoot against the camo in the first half order. But if we use the argument "activate" I could shoot against the camo marker without delay the ARO if the camo reveals itself in the second half order. Because "activate". And it ins't so.

In this scenario you can't declare ARO against the activate miniature because stealth. Stealth don't grant AROS against the troop. So you can't fullfil the requesite "choose the trooper activated by the Order as their target", so, you can't declare hack against De Fersen. You could declare ARO against the troops without stealht.

From Stealth

A trooper with Stealth that declares a Short Movement Skill or Cautious Movement within the Zone of Control of one or more enemies but outside their LoF does not grant AROs to those enemies, even if he reaches base contact with them.

Best regards.

 

@Mahtamori. You've nailed the argument. [emoji14]

@Urobos. The marker has no bearing on this. The Marker is activated by the Order and is a valid target for AROs at step 4 of the order, assuming an ARO is generated. Choosing to Delay your ARO rather than declare an ARO is a choice: it limits your later actions.

Stealth doesn't grant AROs. Everyone agrees on that point. However Stealth does not prevent a Trooper being Targetted by an ARO.

In the example.
Step 3: Carmen and Batard move into B2B with a Trooper (Victim) from outside LOF.
Step 4: Victim has an ARO (from Batard Moving into B2B with Victim), Victim declares CC Attack vs Carmen.
Step 5: Carmen declares CC attack at B2 vs Victim.

Looking at the requirements of Victim's CC Attack, the following must be true if it's a valid Declaration:
Victim must have been granted an ARO.
Carmen must have been activated by the Order.
Carmen must be in B2B with Victim.

What of those requirements have not been met?

Edit: link to my previous post summarising this issue that includes link to the original discussion.
https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...vations-with-stealth-hacker-combo.3163/page-2

 

I think it's pretty obvious that the ARO rule is stating an "order activation grants an ARO and the ARO must target the granting model." The sentence uses the article, "the" not "an," so we are talking about the same model for all parts.

I've seen/heard a number or strategies about using Stealth in a link team to force an unfavorable ARO so the stealth model can act freely. Things like hacking come to mind.

 

Pretty much all infinity ARO rules assume only a single Trooper is activated by each order: so the rules use the in the singular rather then the specific. Yes, it's confusing. It's also why we get situations where a Civilian (that doesn't normally generate AROs) does once it's in the CIVEVAC state.

And while many people agree with you that that's the intent of the rules, per ALL previous discussion of this, the only interpretation that has been actually IAW RAW is:
1. Stealth prevents an ARO being granted.
2. Once an ARO has been granted it can be declared against any active trooper that otherwise meets the requirements of the ARO.

Basically, nothing in the rules supports the proposition that "the ARO must target the granting model".

 

The rules state " can react against the activated trooper, and declares AROs ". "The granting model" is a subset of activated Troopers / things that are acting like Troopers for the purposes of being ARO'd against.

The rules are permissive. If an ARO has been generated, you can react against the active Trooper (that otherwise meets the requirements of the ARO being declared). Nothing in the rules restricts it more than that.

In the example above does Carmen meet the definition of "the activated Trooper"? If yes, then she's eligible to be ARO'd against.

Look @eciu the argument hasn't changed since last time you asked this. It's settled but could - admittedly - stand being made clearer or being brought in line with the intent.

 

I guess I’d flip your assumption. They assume that the activating model is the one granting, so they don’t need to specify a difference. Your distinction between granting and activating is unnecessarily causing this interaction.

 

It's not my distinction. It's the rules distinction.

Whether they intended that distinction is a different question.