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

ZoC premeasuring!!

Discussion in 'Rules' started by QueensGambit, Jun 15, 2021.

  1. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,457
    I feel like this was discussed last time it came up, and I can't remember the details, but the conclusion must have been "yes, you can" - since the result was that ijw needed to make an interim ruling to stop it from being possible. Now that the interim ruling is almost certainly cancelled by FAQ 1.1.1, I think we have to conclude that CC Attack + Move is currently possible.
     
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,054
    Likes Received:
    15,361
    Not sure that's precisely what IJW was addressing, I don't recall that ever being clearly clarified. The follow up is of course whether that forces you to reach that position as the position you declare your skill from/at isn't part of requirements so the game doesn't really handle what happens if you declare skills with (potentially) false details.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  3. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,457
    Fair enough, as far as I know it wasn't resolved whether you have to pick a specific spot and then reach that spot, vs. just declaring the target and then moving to any point in contact with it.
     
  4. ldgif

    ldgif Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2018
    Messages:
    432
    Likes Received:
    466
    How does this fix albedo/WN baiting? Or were you talking about within ZoC?
     
  5. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    3,658
    Likes Received:
    3,653
    Outside of ZoC there is no change at all.
     
  6. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    You can declare AROs against any Active Trooper.
    So if a Dakini Link behind White Noise moves out a Combi to trigger an ARO for your MSV Sniper ARO piece, you can declare BS Attack against the Link Leader HMG Dakini sitting in White Noise.

    If the HMG Link Leader opens fire on you with the second Short Skill your BS Attack ARO will be valid at step 5 Resolution.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  7. Diphoration

    Diphoration Well-Known Member
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2018
    Messages:
    1,400
    Likes Received:
    2,541
    I highly doubt pre-emptive BS Attack were intended. Pretty sure the impact of 1.1.1 change was not really thought through and will receive another update.

    I suggested allowed any ARO to be pre-emptive a while back, and IJW was pretty clear that it would require a serious rewrite of the rule to be functional with the current ruleset (rewrite that isn't present in 1.1 or 1.1.1)

    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/aro-rules-suggestion.39466/page-2
     
    Methuselah and HANGMAN like this.
  8. Teslarod

    Teslarod when in doubt, Yeet

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,415
    Likes Received:
    4,899
    Right now preemtive BS Attack only works if you have LOF blocked by visibility conditions.
    The rules just kinda break down if you have to declare template position, position you're shooting from and position of the target BEFORE you know everything.

    The removed part of the FAQ specifically blocked this before, so I'm inclined to think CB was fully aware and okay with preemptively declaring stuff and fulfilling the requirements at Resolution.
    The Skills themselves just weren't prepared for that and still try to handle a lot of stuff at declaration before you actually know everything required.

    Worst part I can think of is an Active Trooper declaring CC Attack behind a wall granting him Total Cover, but passable on both sides to reach the reactive Trooper.
    If the reactive Trooper is supposed to be able to react with BS Attack to that with a Chainrifle that's a problem.
    Total Cover works at Declaration.
    Placing Templates checks for the initial target at declaration.
    All of those references would have to be moved to resoution to mirror the changes of the redacted FAQ entry no1.
     
    DukeofEarl likes this.
  9. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    837
    I had made a flow chart to try and help myself understand what I think the rules are for BS Attacks - not sure if it's correct or not.
    This is what I came up with - feel free to rip it apart :-P
    Trying to Understand BS Attack-2.jpg
     
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,054
    Likes Received:
    15,361
    As a small note, I'd bet you that the reason we can check just about any ZoC for ARO purposes is so that you can keep HD troopers secret or otherwise you would only be allowed to check to relevant pieces...

    @Lawson You need to check ZoC as well!
    No LOF and no ZoC -> Can't declare ZoC regardless of smoke or not.
     
    QueensGambit likes this.
  11. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,457
    His flowchart is for active turn BS Attack as well as ARO BS Attack, I think. So I assumed there's an implied first step "Trooper has been activated by an order or ARO" before we reach the start of the flowchart. If a reactive trooper isn't in LoF or ZoC, it doesn't get to ARO at all and the flowchart doesn't apply :-)
     
  12. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    837
    Yeah, that's correct - I initially had a ZoC check in there but at this point I was just trying to wrap my head around BS Attack, and, since as far as I know there are no BS Attacks that check specifically for ZoC, I left it off - if I were to make a more exhaustive chart it might include that.

    @Mahtamori with all the various 1.1.1 threads going on and a lot of topics overlapping that I've had my eye on, maybe it wasn't the best idea for me to drop this into a thread that started as a ZoC discussion, since it ultimately had little to do with ZoC.
     
  13. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,054
    Likes Received:
    15,361
    Hmm, I think I see. You can probably skip a bubble by simply go "Is LOF obscured by terrain?"

    Btw, as far as I can tell nothing is forcing you to resolve the BS Attack's requirements using the declared positions of your BS Attack, as far as I can tell nothing's preventing a unit from shooting through smoke provided they had LOF at some point in the order. Or at the very least, the LOF should be resolved the same way regardless if it is a direct template weapon or not.
     
  14. Lawson

    Lawson Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2020
    Messages:
    533
    Likes Received:
    837
    I actually made this chart initially because there was another thread where the idea that Direct Template Attacks specifically can measure LoF to anywhere based on the way they work came up (https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/1-1-1-no-lof-preemptive-direct-template.39894/), and I actually took it to mean that they functioned differently than regular BS Attacks - this was actually the inception of this chart for me, because I did find it confusing. I think the rationale is that a template BS Attack uses the template itself to essentially sort out range and terrain legality. A non-direct-template BS attack, on the other hand, needs to measure range from and to somewhere specific (from attacker to target; identifying a position also allows you to determine partial cover, etc.)

    So are you saying that it's theoretically possible for a BS Attack to measure the range to a target in such a way that gives a favorable range-band at a point along their movement that the target in full cover, but then use the fact that you had LoF at a different point in their movement fulfill that requirement separately?
     
    #74 Lawson, Jun 20, 2021
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2021
  15. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,054
    Likes Received:
    15,361
    I'm saying that I'm unable to find a section of the rules that hard-locks you to a certain line of fire. There is a line of fire that passes through the smoke, even if the unit can not draw this for "vision" purposes - but given the FAQ and the subsequent large number of pages IJW and Psychoticstorm spent explaining to me that "draw line of fire" for a trooper's vision is different from "draw line of fire" for a trooper's reciprocal line of fire, that line of fire should still exist and be useable for a range of purposes.

    So, when you declare the BS Attack skill there is a requirement that you have LOF, which if the target moves out of smoke you will have.
    Beyond that, BS Attack doesn't actually force you to use a specific LOF or use a LOF at all. What's controlling that is Total Cover, and Total Cover doesn't care about the skill declaration.

    In either case, you evaluate whether the BS Attack skill has LOF before you pick the BS Attack's target location, so the LOF you use to determine cover and so on doesn't really need to be the same.
     
  16. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    1,057
    This may be technically accurate, but it’s so counterintuitive as to be a “gotcha” when trying to apply it in practice or explain it to someone unfamiliar with the idea. Which, given how unintuitive it is, is gonna be almost everyone.

    The intuitive play is always going to be that once attacker and target positions are declared, the LoF between those two positions is used to determine range, whether an intervening visibility zone applies, who has cover, etc.
     
    Methuselah likes this.
  17. solkan

    solkan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    1,335
    Likes Received:
    1,982
    You evaluate whether any LoF exist before you’re required to actually choose one to use for the attack. (It’s a line—you’re choosing a position on the attacker, a position on the target, determining range and cover.)

    Otherwise you’re just making up game mechanics.
     
  18. HANGMAN

    HANGMAN Member

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2018
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    16
    I really hope so. If N4's purpose was to make the game easier to understand, be an upgrade from Code 1 and to increase flow, these changes are the opposite of that.

    Pre-measuring feels like it goes against how Infinity has played for years. Pre-emptive orders is complicated and counterintuitive for seasoned players, imagine how it will be for new players, especially graduating from Code 1. Why CB did this, well, maybe to fix the hidden LT thing, but they did it wrong. It could have been fixed without changing the whole order sequence of the game.

    Definitely not a fan of these changes!
     
    Diphoration likes this.
  19. Urobros

    Urobros Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,820
    Likes Received:
    1,420
    Hello,

    pre-measuring is not my favourite thing, but I belive is an step forwards to gain some "simplicity". Only in "control zone" make it easy a lot of interactions. You don't have to worry if your hacker is or isn`t inside Control Zone, you will know it for sure. Of course this come with some issues: the active player could avoid a lot of "things" easier than before, but the game should go faster, so I believe is only a "good think". A lot of "game pauses" will be remove, so we will give the chance of this "fix" to work.

    About the "requirements" in the 5. step I really don't see how this could be use to avoid to shoot from the point where you truly have the LoF. I think some players are doing an overthinking about this matter. Because you have to "fullfil" the requisites in that exactly steps it looks like the understanding were "no matter the requisites". If you declare "BSAttack from some point" you will need to have LoF in that point, not from the "other corner". It will be the same if we try to shoot behind a wall. It will be don't truly difference with smoke if we are talking about a troup without visor.

    Yes, some "interactions" will be differents, but in the end the most cases will be the same. Right now I was thinking on how "declaring BS attack inside smoke from a troup without visor against a troup with SS, if the SS ARO enemy decides to shoot back then the BS attack will be valid in step 5", funny thing.
     
  20. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,457
    See the other threads - @Mahtamori is quite right that neither he nor anyone else has been able to find a rule that says the LoF you use to declare BS is the same line used to resolve the attack, or that the resolution line can't pass through smoke (or even total cover). And we've tried, because there certainly should be one! But there isn't.

    I agree with @wes-o-matic as to how it should be played - but he, not @Mahtamori , is the one "making up game mechanics." Making up a mechanic is necessary in this case for the game to work, but let's be honest about what we're doing and not throw around weird accusations.
     
  • 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