Just breaking out the virtual champagne. FAQ v.1.1 has rewritten the Order Expenditure Sequence to allow ZoC premeasuring after activation!
So... does this also mean that all those weapons with an 8" range band that's different from its 16" range band be increased in price? Not saying Haqq didn't quite need this buff, but Haqq kinda didn't need a direct targeted buff like this.
See, I felt that shotguns were currently a bit over-priced for what they are, so I'm not convinced a price change is really needed.
Don't think I agree. Boarding Shotguns have been quite aptly priced in N4 so far, IMO, but Rifle+Light Shotguns is a combo that's better than Combis, got easier to use now, and got cheaper than Combis in N4.
Shotguns are great for their cost, for sure. My sense is that weapons have always been costed on the assumption that players will correctly judge their rangebands. i.e. I don't think the formula includes a discount intended to take into account that the possibility of misjudging the rangeband. I mean, if CB wants to recost every unit in the game to fit the new ruleset, I don't actually have a problem with that. Either way, the new ruleset is a huge improvement rules-wise.
It could quite easily be variations in table density and play style that are causing the different perceptions. Rifle + Light Shotgun has definitely gained from this FAQ, but I'll take that as a price for the impossible Hidden Deployment ARO going away.
I may be missing something but from my reading only the reactive player can measure ZoC. I don't see where the FAQ allows the active player to do the same
2.1. ARO Check. The Reactive Player checks if they are allowed to declare AROs with their Troopers. Players can check from the Active Trooper if any Trooper or Game Element is inside the Zone of Control (ZoC) of the Active Trooper. [Emphasis added].
Both can. EDIT: Sorry people were faster than me ':D Personally this reads like one would treat a splinter in his finger by chopping off the hand. A simple sentence regarding the exact matter - in this case I'd assume it was the dumb hidden deployment interaction - would've served better.
Well that solves a whole bunch of hasty patches and weird interactions in one fell swoop. Hypothetical AROs sounded great in theory but the reality was full of weird corner cases, erratas, and oddness.
You're emphasising the wrong part the first sentence is more important. Reactive player checks, not Active Player. "Players" can be interpreted as pluralizing reactive players. The more common sense approach rather than arguing idiotic RAW is this is an ARO check. Active player doesn't check for AROs, they don't get any. It's pointless to try and argue they get to check for AROs.
Sounds terrible and copying a horrible aspect from Warmachines, where you used the Control/Command Area measure to basically premeasure. You might as well include full premeasure at this point and be done with it, rather than wasting people’s time.
Might wanna read up on how ARO's are generated old chap ;) Short version - no Your scenario would not generate an ARO vs the first Short Skill, only against the second Short Skill.
