Cartographer

Members
  • Content count

    268
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    676d 4h 53m 28s

Community Reputation

246 Excellent

1 Follower

About Cartographer

  • Rank
    Mayanaut
  • Birthday December 28

Converted

  • Location England

ITS

  • ITS PIN B1221

Recent Profile Visitors

505 profile views
  1. You need to be clear on your situation. You do not enter Loss of Lieutenant just because your Lieutenant is put unconscious/killed; Loss of Lieutenant happens at the start of your turn if your Lieutenant is, at that point, unconscious/isolated/sepsitorised/dead. (I'll just stick with unconscious from here on for simplicity) If your Lieutenant is put unconscious in your active turn, and in the same turn you revive him, then you never entered LOL, and he stays your Lieutenant. If your Lieutenant is already unconscious at the start of your turn, then you enter LOL; you appoint a new Lieutenant at the end of that turn. If you heal your Lieutenant while you are in LOL, you can appoint your original Lieutenant as the new one if you wish (you do not have to). If you appoint a new Lieutenant and then revive your original (so the turn after you've gone through LOL), then the new Lieutenant stays as your Lieutenant.
  2. I'm ambivalent, I quite like the notion of a fast specialist delivery Haris but they just look like a missed opportunity to me. If all the combis were swapped with SMGs (creating an interesting 8-16 dilemma in the process) I'd be a little more impressed. Still not sure how mimetism and 4-4 MOV is equivalent to V:courage, LFT, D-charges, +1 ARM, 4-2 MOV and 2 points though.
  3. How to resolve this specific situation is not universally agreed (nor has it been FAQ'd), however a consensus of sorts has been reached on how to play it and you can generally expect tournaments to follow this. For Smoke ammunition's special dodge property to negate an attack it requires 3 things of that attack: LOF (you can't block speculative fire or Jammers etc. with smoke) A roll (you can't block direct template weapons with smoke) For the placement of the smoke to block LOF (you can't block a shot by placing the template where it doesn't block LOF) Unfortunately, for all secondary targets of impact templates, the attack requires no LOF (from the attacker) and as a result smoke ammunition cannot protect you (blast focus LOF is only affected by scenery, not visibility conditions). If you modify your situation so that B is already stood in smoke when A is hit, does the smoke protect B? No. So logically, placing new smoke will likewise not protect B. Now, the argument has been made that you could try and block the shot to the main target with smoke and CB have ruled in a FAQ that doing so does not protect the main target. They have not specifically addressed secondary targets, so we are left with the base rules and the FAQ telling us that you can't prevent a shot against someone else with smoke from which to draw conclusions.
  4. And you're once again into a semantic argument: "as if" = "actually does"? Read the rules for idle: The trooper is also considered to perform an Idle when he has declared a Skill not allowed by the rules. Are you allowed to perform a ZOC ARO when outside of ZOC? No. So have you declared a skill not allowed by the rules? Yes. You are therefore considered to have performed idle as your ARO. Declaring two AROs and having both valid results in you having two AROs (e.g. Change Facing + BS attack), this is explicitly not allowed. Declaring two AROs and having either one invalid also results in you having two AROs (e.g. Idle + BS attack), this is explicitly not allowed. Declaring two AROs and having both invalid results in you having two AROs (e.g. Idle + Idle), this is explicitly not allowed. There are no precedence rules, nothing saying which ARO of the two declared comes into effect because you are not allowed to declare two.
  5. Last clause of the idle skill: The trooper is also considered to perform an Idle when he has declared a Skill not allowed by the rules. In such situation, the ammunition of Disposable weapons or pieces of Equipment is spent, too. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Idle You declare an ARO and find it is not allowed by the rules (i.e. not valid), it becomes idle. It doesn't vanish and as a result there is simply no case where a second declared ARO could ever be enacted. Either the first ARO is valid and is applied, or the first ARO is not valid and becomes idle (and you somehow have to sort out two AROs that you are explicitly not allowed to have).
  6. Except LOF can't not be open information, you can simply check it at any time. The reason we're told to inform the other player is so each turn isn't 4 hours of checking every conceivable LOF. What if the active player says "yes, you're in ZOC, declare your ARO" then proceeds to waltz his model across the LOF of the trooper that has declared a reset/change facing and into cover, knowing that he was probably never in range initially but now that his opponent has declared already, he can't be shot? The measuring ZOC with one model so that you know which weapon to fire with another, nearby model is equally punch-worthy. And don't even get me started on the people that measured ZOC to determine if they could use a LFT or equivalent DTW. Lists were built to exploit this, CB didn't like it and it was written out of the rules (I'm not saying I agree with their solution, but I understand why it happened). You don't lose the ARO, it downgrades to idle, likewise for a BS attack with a DTW that is found not to be in range (or just a regular BS attack that is found to either be out of range or so negatively modified that you can't hit, so even the active player might find himself facing a normal roll if he's judged badly). It all stems off not being able to "know" distances beforehand and gambling on your judgement or playing it safe and paying the order price; the impact of range is significantly less when it comes to LOF skills compared with ZOC skills, granted.
  7. Yes, you quoted the wiki and it contradicted what you had written immediately before the quote. There is simply no case for declaring two AROs and getting one, from ARO (emphasis mine): "If, by declaring the second Short Skill of its Order, the active trooper gives ARO to enemy troopers that did not have ARO against the first Short Skill, then those enemy troopers can declare their AROs." A trooper can declare an ARO against the second short skill if they didn't have an ARO against the first. Therefore, if they had an ARO against the first short skill they may not even declare against the second; you have no permission to declare an ARO with troopers who have already done so. Now, you might argue that declaring an ARO and having and ARO are different, but, an invalid ARO doesn't vanish. From Order Expenditure sequence: "If the Player declares a Skill and, when he applies its Effects, he realizes the Requirements are not met, then the Skill is considered null. However, the trooper who declared it still generates ARO, as if he has declared an Idle, and loses the ammunition or equipment used, if he declared the use of a Disposable weapon or piece of Equipment." It downgrades to idle and you lose disposable equipment; so by declaring two AROs, you will always have both come into play, even if one was invalid and it became an idle. This is against the rules, because you can only ever have one ARO, you only ever get to declare one ARO.
  8. You are contradicting your own assertion right here: One ARO per order, regardless of the number of skills the active player declares. No ambiguity, one. Not two, not 10 million. Please indicate where in the rules it tells us which of your two AROs takes precedence when both are measured and found to be valid?
  9. And you have no way of determining that you didn't have a ZOC ARO until the resolution step, after you have already missed the ARO declaration to the second short skill. The rules do not allow you to retroactively declare an ARO because you found your first wasn't valid, you've lost your ARO. The rules only allow you one ARO, you can't declare two.
  10. There is no precedence ruling anywhere. Your logic is what is at fault I'm afraid, you get to declare an ARO against the second skill only if you didn't against the first. The situation where you declare an ARO against the first skill "because you think you might get one" then declare an ARO against the second "when you know you do" is simply not supported anywhere in the rules. Furthermore, as I intimated, it causes the complete breakdown of the game. You can't declare two AROs, you're told you get one and are given no criteria for determining which would take precedence should you declare two.
  11. And you've missed further down the page: "Each time the Active Player activates a trooper by spending an order, each eligible enemy gets one single ARO, regardless of the number of Skills the Active Player declares during that Order." Now, you could try the semantic argument that there is a difference between declaring an ARO and getting an ARO, but that fails when we come to resolution and conceivably have both declared AROs be valid, ergo the game breaks down completely. So no, I'm afraid you don't get to declare two AROs.
  12. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/ARO:_Automatic_Reaction_Order "If, by declaring the second Short Skill of its Order, the active trooper gives ARO to enemy troopers that did not have ARO against the first Short Skill, then those enemy troopers can declare their AROs" Emphasis mine; you get to declare an ARO to the second short skill only if you didn't declare one to the first. I agree, but this is where we are because some people just had to "check" ZOC AROs from their prone trooper first (damn, I'm 14" away...), then decide to declare their BS attack from the HD trooper <1" distant, second (ooh, what a coincidence, good range for a combi)... It's clunky, but it's less open to exploitation than previously.
  13. Since Fusiliers were first introduced as Varuna Fusiliers, I doubt they'll get the MO treatment and reduced in such a drastic manner.
  14. Except, since you aren't allowed to measure ZOC, you can declare an ARO only for it to fail at resolution: N3 Frequently Asked Question Updated: 1.2 Q: In the reactive turn, when can you measure the Zone of Control? A: 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. Related Pages: Zone of Control, ARO So, you can declare an ARO, only to subsequently have it fail.
  15. Where are you reading that you are not allowed to declare a ZOC ARO when not in ZOC?