Would players prefer a unified system if given the opportunity?

Why is sarcasm your go to. If you want me banned, then support my efforts to get a ban policy in place. I know who I am and that I can control my actions. If you feel the same way about your self then go ahead and support a push for bans. But then the eye looks everyone the same way. If you're ready for that, let go...

 

Please describe to me an example regarding holoechoes using my suggested method that gives a baited effect instead of the intended effect of holoechoes?

As for premeasuring, CB had to give it 1 or 2 FAQs ago, and keeping premeasurkng to ZoC is reasonable considering all the things you can do once in ZoC. Plus, holding ARO for ZoC AROs helps this.

But I really am serious, please give me examples, if I'm wrong, show me how I'm wrong, dont tell me, I can't read your mind. And who knows, you might teach me that my logic on this is wrong, all I ask is that you be open to the same...

 

What I've been implying is the current system of Declaration without requirements is flawed in it's very nature. That's why it needs so many FAQs, that's why it keeps resulting in some sort of baiting. The incidental Idle is just a bandaid. This system seems to support game play of trying to trick your opponent, and some units that have more than 1 kind of good attack have an advantage in this gaming of others. My point is, I like there to be an option for an FAQ, but not this incredible demand for one so damned often. I say scrap this system of turning things into idle and not meeting Reqs before Decs. I dont mean to hurt peoples feeling if this does hurt peoples feelings but the desired goal is foreseeably unachievable with this system due to the nature of order expenditure because everytime CB ever wants to make something new, it seems like it will have to get an FAQ which will cause the need for another FAQ. Get rid of what doesnt work and keep what does.

My suggestion of keeping Reqs before Decs and playing ZoC AROs like AROs against camo, as far as I can tell is the cleanest I've seen. Maybe I'm wrong, show me examples how I'm wrong is all I'm asking.

 

This is a good response. But like I said, as far as I can tell, my suggestion falls on the original rules before N4 and then treating ZoC AROs the same as against the markers state works because ZoC is the most problematic area on the board. Allowing people to wait till the end of the order to declare an attack if they dont have LoF in the middle of the order cleans up alot if not eberything, this ensures that no one gets baited into being attacked for free or at some huge disadvantage, this also allows for the introduction of any new skills with the liklihood of not needing an FAQ for them. If someone decides to to just walk in front of a troop who declared hold ARO, they get shot. I would really like for anyone to give me an example using the system I suggested where it fails, where it provides a bait or some unfairness, anywhere where it would seem the reactive player or even the active player is getting cheated.

Oh and sorry, to answer your example which didnt seem like a real example because why would rules for place deployable change? You still need a valid ARO, LOf is a valid ARO, then place deployable either in sil contact or in ZoC if it is a perimeter weapon. What's the problem.

I think you're mistaking what I'm saying to scrap. I'm saying scrap the you can declare whatever skill or aro and we'll see if its valid later, that's it. That is the system. The skills them selves arent wrong, I dont know where you got that from but that is not what I said.

 

Oh and I like a living rule book too but I'd like it for new rules not change others when a new rule is implemented with unforeseen consequences, not saying get rid of FAQs either, sometimes errors to pop up, and they need help but being honest this system is error prone and through and through. I dont think anyone should look down on CB if they backtracked on this declare skill you hope you get to do, nobody enjoys getting getting baited. For instance, seems like peripherals in this new FAQ got a buff. My suggestion prevents the reactive troop from being tricked into choosing not only the wrong ARO but the wrong target. Sorry not sorry. I like fairness far more than novelty.

 

And think about it this way. If a CC guy with Stealth nears a corner, when he declares dodge for second skill, he Grant's an ARO for you to dodge. If they dont have Stealth, you had at least 8 inches of orders to declare dodge before he even gets near the corner. Same for a Stealth hacker or pherowear or whatever vs non stealth for granting AROs. My suggestion works.

 

Lol, I'll try.

Originally I didnt give a suggestion, I left it open to be broad and just talk about system approaches because let's be honest, this forum has turned to shit and yet i was still trying to get people to try to make the game better by leaving the poll as a general question. I failed that it seems but I tried in subsequent post to clean it up, the point was to find out how willing people are to want to stay with a heavily flawed system or willing to scrap it for an inherently sound one. But wit told me to give a suggestion cause no one here can be please with anything, so I gave the one I've concluded several weeks back. Iirc, you once also said you prefer meeting reqs before decs too. The problem was that still leaves the ZoC issue, of which as far as I can tell, treating ZoC AROs like AROs against camo markers solves all the problems.

 

Since the poll is apparently poorly worded, forget about it.

Remember that meeting requirements before making declarations had the fewest problems but still had some ZoC issues?

 

And you say you're not being sarcastic yet you keep poking and prodding. I think it's because you know nothing will happen to you...

 

Right now youre literally saying the same thing I did like 10 posts ago and you were continually being sarcastic the last two even though I brought it up to you all the way in the beginning. That's on you not me.

 

Thata really what focused on, and that deserves red print, that this is in the wrong channel. Despite the reporting... see why I said favoritism. And that's why people act like shit here...