1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

What happens when a Trooper declares an ARO they are found to be ineligible for?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by inane.imp, May 9, 2020.

  1. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    The rules on Page 22 for AROs state:

    What does it mean that a Trooper loses their ARO?

    Is the ARO considered not to have been declared at all? (ie. Mines are not triggered)

    Or does it become an Idle? (ie. Mines are triggered)

    -----

    Related: what happens when a Trooper declares an ARO and, at Resolution, is found to be ineligible for an ARO?

    Does it become an Idle or does it just not happen?
     
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,810
    Likes Received:
    13,474
    Main question: Since losing their ARO means they can't activate that order, mines won't be triggered.

    I think what you're asking is about when someone declares and invalidly declared ARO because they misjudged distances. Strictly speaking that shouldn't trigger mines (as that would validate the ARO on resolution now that Dodge can be declared in ZoC) and the players should do their best to revert the game to a state where it's not declared, IMO.
     
  3. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    Yes, my basic question is: what happens when a Trooper declares an ARO they are found to be ineligible for?

    I agree that they shouldn't be activated by the declaration, so Mines wouldn't trigger* but I'm not certain (mainly because it took an FAQ to resolve this one way or another in N3, and that FAQ doesn't appear to have been incorporated into Code One's rules). So I'm asking.

    * which gets us back to "when do you remove Mines?" and my opinion, "I really hope it's during Step 5.2".

    Edit: so it wasn't an FAQ that resolved this issue for N3. Hmm.
     
    #3 inane.imp, May 9, 2020
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
  4. Hisey

    Hisey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    130
    So question #1 is about whether or not you declare an ARO when given the opportunity to do so. If you are given the opportunity to declare an ARO and opt not to, then you cannot do so later in that order. This is the same as it has always been and is unchanged from N3.

    To your related question, if you declare an ARO and it is determined to be invalid during the resolution phase, the ARO is considered an idle. The ARO was still declared, and will trigger mines. Essentially there's a difference between declaring "Idle" as your ARO (triggers mines) and not declaring an ARO at all (does not trigger mines).
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  5. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    Your two statements contradict each other. :(

    Consider:

    1. Alice does something
    2. Bob gets the opportunity to ARO, does not to so and his ARO is lost
    3. Alice does something else that does give Bob a valid ARO
    4. Bob declares an ARO that fulfils all its Requirements

    Your first statement indicates that nothing happens, you second statement indicates that Bob's ARO becomes an Idle.

    It gets better if Bob's ARO is Dodge. The relevant Requirement for Dodge is "In the Reactive Turn, they have a valid ARO."

    Idle (page 64) states:
    And the Order Expenditure Sequence (page 23) says:
    So, does Bob do nothing or does Bob perform an Idle?

    Here's a degenerate example of my related question:

    1. Alice declares Jump outside of LOF and over 16" away from Bob
    2. Bob declares Dodge, this triggers a Mine
    5. Alice's ZOC is measured and, surprising neither player, Bob did not receive a valid ARO

    What happens?

    What happens if instead Bob had declared Spotlight? In this situation Bob would have fulfilled the Requirements of his ARO (Spotlight essentially has no Requirements).
     
    #5 inane.imp, May 11, 2020
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
  6. Vocenoctum

    Vocenoctum Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2019
    Messages:
    535
    Likes Received:
    527
    Dodge doesn't trigger mines.

    Guess it does, there's even an example!
     
    #6 Vocenoctum, May 12, 2020
    Last edited: May 12, 2020
  7. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    7,466
    Dodge triggers mines if you start in their trigger area. Dodge movement doesn't trigger a mine if you use it to come into the trigger area of a mine you were not previously exposed to.

    Mines:

    ► Once on the game table, Mines must trigger when an enemy Model or Marker declares or executes a Skill or ARO inside their Trigger Area. When this is the case, if, by placing the Small Teardrop Template, it is determined that the Model or Marker is not within the Trigger Area, the Mine will neither detonate nor be revealed.

    Dodge movement:

    A successful Normal or Face to Face Dodge Roll allows the user to move up to 2 inches. This movement:
    ► Is measured, declared, and the Trooper moved, during the Effects step of the Order Expenditure Sequence. If both players have Troopers that successfully Dodged, the Active Player will move their Troopers first, then the Reactive Player will move theirs.
    ► Does not generate AROs or trigger Deployable Weapons or Equipment. Must follow the General Movement Rules as well as the Moving and Measuring sidebar, both of which are explained in the Movement Module.
     
  8. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    7,466
    This is indeed quite degenerate, and is one of the fundamental problems of the range-guessing mechanic. Per the rules, charges of limited-use weapons are still spent if your ARO ended up invalid, so I guess you would still set the mine off.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  9. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,195
    Likes Received:
    1,801
    Remember that the N3 FAQ did NOT say "The ARO becomes Idle." It says, instead:
    In the reactive turn, when can you measure the Zone of Control?

    Following the steps of the Order Expenditure Sequence: you declare a ZoC ARO, and in the step of resolution, is when the players take measurements. So, is troop is in the ZoC, resolve his ARO, but if not, the ARO is lost.
    The results are a lot more reasonable if you take "the ARO is lost" to mean "No ARO (not even Idle) is resolved for that declaration."
     
    Mahtamori likes this.
  10. Berjiz

    Berjiz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2018
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    47
    The only times this can happen is because of zoc aros right? Allowing measuring of zoc would be the simplest solution and solve a few problems.
     
  11. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,810
    Likes Received:
    13,474
    So that, at anytime, people can pre-measure a large number of things such as the exact distance when they should be using the Light Shotgun instead of the Rifle, remove any doubt of when you can use or avoid Jammers and hacking, perfectly estimate Assault moves, etc? By extension, you also get to mostly pre-measure the 16" between two troopers as well, which also is significant for any weapon with a difference between the 16" and 24" range band such as all Rifle class weapons and all HMG rangeband weapons.

    At that point you may as well allow full pre-measuring. I'm not saying it's a bad idea, but I'm arguing that 8" is, by far, the most significant distance to judge in Infinity and allowing that measurement should be the difference between full pre-measure and no pre-measure
     
    inane.imp and toadchild like this.
  12. Hisey

    Hisey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    130
    It seems like you're misunderstanding the way the game is played, and I can no longer tell if that's intentional or not.

    In your first scenario under step 2, you use the words "opportunity to ARO", but this doesn't clarify if Bob had a valid ARO at step 2 or not.

    If Bob had a valid ARO at step 2, and chose not to take it, then he does not get the chance to do so at step 4. You even said in your description that his ARO is lost. In this scenario, nothing happens if Bob had the opportunity to declare a valid ARO and chose not to, he cannot do so in step 4 so Bob does not declare or execute anything.

    The requirements for a valid ARO are on page 22.
    ► An enemy Trooper activates within its Line of Fire (LoF).
    ► An enemy Trooper activates within its Zone of Control (ZoC).
    ► It has a Special Skill, weapon, or piece of Equipment allowing it to react to enemy actions without LoF.
    ► It is affected by a Template Weapon, or is the target of a Hacking Program or other Comms Attack.

    In your second example, I understand what you're getting at, and this has been brought up before with regards to Hidden Deployment, and if I could "attempt" a ZoC ARO from across the entire table in order to reveal myself before my turn. I honestly can't recall if it was ever solved, but some amount of common sense might prevail in that case and you'd likely just have a harder and harder time finding opponents who would give you the time of day.

    As far as RAW it may be possible to declare a ZoC ARO when the active model is blatantly not in your ZoC only to have it fail and turn into an idle and I would say this would definitely set off a mine. With regards to C1 since there's no Hidden Deployment it seems like it's only use would be to intentionally set off a mine with a declaration that would obviously turn into an idle, so I guess my answer to someone attempting that would be feel free?

    But at this point, why are we bothering to ask questions about a rules interaction that would never occur because it benefits the player in no way?
     
  13. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    @Hisey re: your question about whether this is solved for N3, yes it is (for standards of solved that includes Solved by HellLois). In both situations the ARO becomes an Idle.

    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/index.php?threads/23413/

    //

    And it's not that I'm misunderstanding how the game is played it's that I'm applying a strict RAW interpretation.

    1. Alice does something that generates an ARO
    2. Bob receives a valid ARO but does not declare an ARO
    3. Alice does something else that generates an ARO
    4. Bob declares Dodge

    At Step 5, does Bob "have a valid ARO"?

    A. Yes, he received a valid ARO at Step 2.
    B. No, while he received a valid ARO at Step 2, because he did not declare an ARO at that time, he lost it.

    If during Resolution, Bob does not have a valid ARO then he fails to meet the requirements of Dodge. So answer B results in Bob performing an Idle.

    Now, I freely admit that that logic is counter-intuitive compared to a plain English understanding of "the ARO is lost" (which one would expect to result in nothing happening). But, it's intuitive to me that "the ARO is lost" performs the same way as "no ARO was generated at all" (which, as we've all basically agreed, results in an Idle). Hence why I say, I don't know what the answer is: both are plausible.

    //

    Aside, I have no issues with my degenerate example being legal. It's not a massive gameplay issue provided that it's understood and expected.

    //

    And just because you don't see the value in clearing out a Mine with no order expenditure, not to mention any other possible considerations in N4, doesn't mean that there is no benefit to it.
     
    toadchild likes this.
  14. Hisey

    Hisey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2018
    Messages:
    51
    Likes Received:
    130
    This seems to be the part you're misunderstanding. In step 4 Bob doesn't even get the option to ARO because he gave up his opportunity to do so during step 2.

    When Bob declares Dodge during step 4, you don't wait until step 5 to see if the requirements are met, instead you say "Sorry Bob, you declined to ARO during step 2 when you had the chance, so you cannot declare an ARO now in step 4."

    If you're trying to push this into the territory of not knowing if he had a valid ARO during step 2 because we can't measure ZoC, Bob would still have to declare his ARO during step 2 and then check requirements to see if it was a legal declaration at step 5.

    Bob doesn't get access to a faux SSL1 by pretending he isn't sure if the active model is in his ZoC or not.

    I think I understand what you may be trying to get at eventually though, at what point do we decide a ZoC ARO is or isn't valid without being able to measure it? If you're pushing for the ability to declare other AROs without having met their requirements at the time of declaration because you can find edge cases where the alternative kind of falls apart, you might not be technically wrong, but that doesn't exactly mean you're right either. I admit I may be wrong about this though.

    Without the ability to pre-measure, this loophole might be extremely difficult to shore up, so you could make your declarations based on what's reasonable or you might find yourself with fewer opponents.
     
  15. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    3,931
    Likes Received:
    7,466
    The problem is that ZoC AROs are not measured during step 2. Both players have to make a best guess as to whether they were generated or not, and then find out later if they were correct or not.

    1. Active model activates 7.9" away from reactive model out of LoF
    2. Reactive player incorrectly guesses range wrong and doesn't ARO, because they don't think they have one
    3. Active player enters LoF with second skill
    4. On the false assumption made in step 2, player declares an ARO based off of LoF
     
    Berjiz, Vanderbane and inane.imp like this.
  16. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    Exactly.

    So Bob's absolutely entitled to declare the ARO at Step 4. It's just found to be an invalid declaration at Step 5. The question is how is that invalid declaration: resolved: does nothing happen? Or does a null-action (Idle) happen?

    @Hisey I don't know what you mean by faux SSL1? Being forced to Idle if you declare an invalid ARO is not at all like SSL1.
     
  17. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    10,810
    Likes Received:
    13,474
    Is the underline addition accurate to the problem you are trying to describe?

    I'm of the opinion that an ARO can become validated during measuring. E.g.
    1. Alice activates and moves closer.
    2. Bob doesn't know that Alice is outside ZoC and declares Change Facing.
    3. Alice moves even closer and is now in ZoC.
    Res: Alice is found to be inside ZoC at some point during the order even though she was not when Bob declared the ARO.

    Arguably I don't think such validation should be done in any other order because the game is made to give the active player the advantage of knowing ARO (or knowing that an ARO is delayed) during the second short skill. Declaring a perceivably valid ARO too early should not be punished if it becomes valid through the choice of the active player. (However, this viewpoint is not valid for CodeOne because of how Dodge works - you shouldn't be allowed to declare a clearly-outside-ZOC Dodge to defuse a Mine and have the Mine's template validate the Dodge is what I mean.)

    So in the situation you described I would say that Bob most likely violated the rules and definitely violated the spirit of the rules and should lose his ARO.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  18. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    Yes, the edit makes it clearer.

    So it makes sense for doing that when Step 4 it's outside ZOC and Step 4 it's in; but Step 2 as a ZOC ARO and Step 4 as LOF makes it clear that the declaration at Step 2 was invalid. That's certainly how I understand N3 to work.

    Honestly my preference would be either an FAQ / errata that applies the HellLois ruling to C1/N4 or text making it clear that the Trooper is not activated by an invalid declaration.

    Worst case, IMO, would be treating the two scenarios differently.

    I disagree that Bob did anything wrong: the rules need to treat an invalid ZOC ARO declared at 8.1" the same as an invalid ZOC ARO declared at 24", anything else is subjective. Is "diffusing" a Mine in this way actually an issue? Realistically it's at most an 1 order advantage. Useful enough to be relevant, but hardly enough to be revolutionary.
     
    #18 inane.imp, May 13, 2020
    Last edited: May 13, 2020
  19. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,703
    Likes Received:
    7,385
    So the entire question is "can I check ZoC before declaring ARO"?
     
  20. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    5,996
    Likes Received:
    7,087
    No.
     
  • 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