TFrauline

Etiquette Question re: getting into CC by not using stealth

43 posts in this topic

Hi guys,

I have question regarding the etiquette of using this "trick" to get into close combat. I'm sure most players know how this works but a two sentence summary for those that don't: if you have a CC capable troop just around the corner from someone you want to engage, you can use a short skill move up to the corner without using stealth while remaining in total cover in order to force your opponent to burn his ARO on 'change facing'. You can then spend the next short order to move around the corner and walk into base to base contact.

This strategy is limited in that you still need to be able to get from total cover into base to base in the span on a single short order, so they typically needing to be 3" away from the corner of whatever you're moving around. It also means you don't get to make a CC attack immediately. However it does let you safely get a model into close combat without provoking attacks from the unit you're engaging, which is especially useful if they have DTW weapons.

My understanding is that this has been officially ruled by CB as how they want the rules to function, and is therefore a completely legal thing to do.

My question: despite it's legality is it something that is frowned upon?

I'm thinking particularly of using this in casual games versus in a tournament setting. I don't think anyone would fault someone for employing it in the latter, but is it still kind of a "dick move" in friendly games?

I used it recently against an opponent who had never seen it employed before to get into CC with a TO camo unit in suppression fire. This guy is the furthest thing from a sore loser, and I've always seen him take losses, bad luck, and just being outplayed gracefully and with humor. But he seemed genuinely put out by this strategy and suggested it seemed really game-y. I felt kind of bad using it and now I'm wondering if I should just not bother outside of tournament settings.

It feels like a vital part of making CC troops viable, and based on this forum it seems like one of the most frequently used ways to get into base to base with someone. Not entirely sure what to do, thoughts?

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is a tough one for sure. If i dislike a rule for any reason I never let it upset me during a game. I want my games to be standardized. I do not like playing by different rules from game to game. I certainly think some rules are ridiculous and would love to see them changed, but I do not frown upon their use. I actually think this particular rule is fine. The time to react as someone pops around a corner trying to kill you is small and the attacker is not going to make it easy.

I imagine players expect to be able to shoot targets entering an area they covered with AROs or suppression fire. So I can see how it throws someone for a loop when they do not get to use the very skill they thought punished those actions. 

I also think some of the frustration comes from the rules in general. There are more rules and exceptions in Infinity than most players can handle from my experience. Plus people can see things differently. I would suggest finding a way to deal with this issue rather than focusing on any individual rule. I doubt this will be the last rule surprise you or your opponent will encounter.

Try to find a fun way to deal with these moments. This could be within or outside the game. If someone learns a new rule or is corrected during the game everyone has a drink. Obviously a drinking game will not work for everyone or at every local store but the possibilities are endless. 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just another thing: you are not forced to declare "change facing", you can also declare "alert" to make the other models turn. If there is someone nearby, they can turn to watch the same corner, thus the enemy cannot simply walk in CC without taking an ARO.

Edit: wrong! Alert cannot be declared for ZoC aro! Sorry guys!

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is pretty much how I usually get Morlocks into B2B.

Let alone Uberfalls: where the Pups don't have Stealth but the Chimera does. And - come to think of it - Taskmasters are the same: Koalas don't have Stealth, TMs do.

But in reality it's one of those things that you have done to you once and then you just accept its part of the game.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I agree that forcing an ARO on someone with suppressive fire or DTW so you can engage without having to deal with FTF frol supress or DtW is more tactical than dicky.

Using this in any other case is totally meh, even bad CC profile have 18+ CC witch surpass most single roll you'd baciaally face. (And that's not counting any MoD). Doing this you're basically wasting an order and helping your opponent.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jujoji said:

I would suggest finding a way to deal with this issue rather than focusing on any individual rule. I doubt this will be the last rule surprise you or your opponent will encounter.

Yeah, this was my gut reaction too. That it's better to keep things consistent and play fully to the rules and just do what I can to make sure my opponent is aware of this particular rules interaction. I think when I take my JSA out against a new opponent I'll just make a habit of clarifying this rules point so they're fully in the know before the game starts. I appreciate you affirming this though, thank you!

1 hour ago, Darkvortex87 said:

Just another thing: you are not forced to declare "change facing", you can also declare "alert" to make the other models turn. If there is someone nearby, they can turn to watch the same corner, thus the enemy cannot simply walk in CC without taking an ARO.

 My bad! I poorly phrased my point there. Yes, a smart use of the 'alert' ARO could potentially result in the CC model still having to eat some ARO's if his target has some friends. I'll make sure my opponent knows about this when I use it in the future, which should help avoid any hard feelings.

22 minutes ago, Alkymedes said:

I agree that forcing an ARO on someone with suppressive fire or DTW so you can engage without having to deal with FTF frol supress or DtW is more tactical than dicky.

Using this in any other case is totally meh, even bad CC profile have 18+ CC witch surpass most single roll you'd baciaally face. (And that's not counting any MoD). Doing this you're basically wasting an order and helping your opponent.

That's true, the value of this little maneuver is greatly reduced when your target isn't in supressive and doesn't have a DTW. In most other cases I'd be fine with making the face-to-face roll as you say. Although I do think it's still worth considering against enemy models using shotguns, and maybe MSV2 if you're CC unit has TO camo. It's definitely an order burn but getting into CC always is, which is why I think its important we have rules interactions like this to keep it viable.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's worth noting that this doesn't work at all on models with Sixth Sense, since they can simply Delay ARO against a model within ZOC

This is really a variation on the more general class of ARO system exploits, and is functionally similar to the MSV2+Smoke trick within ZOC - force a Change Facing then blast them with impunity. 

 

While it is allowed within the rules, I would not do this to an opponent outside of a tournament atmosphere, and only if they were experienced enough to expect it and understand why it works. For casual games, I try to avoid using what I consider to be bugs in the system, even when the system clearly permits them. 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a few rules in the game, that seems odd or a bit wonky in a few instances. What is important is, that these instances are few and far between, and although they might seem exploitable, unfair or gamey, the system as a whole is the best I've ever played.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can also reliably tie up a model that only has AROs capable of causing 1 W. Just take a Warband, Auxbot or even Palbot and MOV-MOV in btb. Even unconscious troops still cause Engaged and thus block LOF of the other guy. Which in turn allows you to blast him to bits with Triangulated Fire (ignoring the -6 BS Penalty for being Engaged to a friendly trooper), safely closing the distance into CC without getting shot with someone else or walk straight past him because he can't gain LOF to anything that isn't in BTB while Engaged.

I'd probably teach the people I'm playing with in a club about that stuff so everyone is on the same page.

There are so many individual rules that some combinations will inevitably cause a gotcha moment, not quite optimal but it's in the game and not half as bad or gamey as what I've seen somewhere else.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, it can seem silly for a guy you hear coming around the corner to be able to avoid getting shot, but if he's being quiet you totally get to shoot his face.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Teslarod said:

You can also reliably tie up a model that only has AROs capable of causing 1 W. Just take a Warband, Auxbot or even Palbot and MOV-MOV in btb. Even unconscious troops still cause Engaged and thus block LOF of the other guy. Which in turn allows you to blast him to bits with Triangulated Fire (ignoring the -6 BS Penalty for being Engaged to a friendly trooper), safely closing the distance into CC without getting shot with someone else or walk straight past him because he can't gain LOF to anything that isn't in BTB while Engaged.

I'd probably teach the people I'm playing with in a club about that stuff so everyone is on the same page.

There are so many individual rules that some combinations will inevitably cause a gotcha moment, not quite optimal but it's in the game and not half as bad or gamey as what I've seen somewhere else.

Not exactly, if you get unconcious due to enemy ARO enemy may opt to say he is not engaged with your body anymore. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 24.6.2017 at 8:23 PM, Eciu said:

Not exactly, if you get unconcious due to enemy ARO enemy may opt to say he is not engaged with your body anymore. 

  • The Engaged state can be cancelled when all the adversaries are in a Null or Immobilized state. The remaining trooper can then declare Move (but following the structure of the Order) to separate from the adversary and to cancel the Engaged state.

No, all that allows you is to declare Move despite being Engaged. The Move then breaks Engage.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Teslarod said:

Nope, he can freely move away in his turn, but he has no way to cancel the Engaged state in your turn.

 

engage_faq.PNG

Also:

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, solkan said:

I'm confused why "Not using Stealth" is considered a bug or an exploit, given that the same behavior happens when you use a trooper that just happens to not have Stealth at all.  :huh:

Sneaking up behind a model to tie it up in melee combat is something that I make a point of explaining to the people that I introduce to Infinity. 

It's because it's not intuitive at all. You have to decide not to use stealth in order to do sneaky stuff. "Yeah my dude here will make noise so he can take your guy by surprise". You shouldn't have to discard a skill to gain a benefit, it makes no sense. Personally, i'd be way more okay with this trick if it was a stealth mechanic, but that would require to change aro declaration...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Eciu said:

engage_faq.PNG

Yes but can be cancelled =/= gets cancelled. That FAQ is only quoting the Cancellation Conditions. As long as you are in BtB to an enemy you are always Engaged (because thats the Activation condition to begin with), there is no Marker to remove or "Unengaged" State. You have to cease to be in BTB somehow to break it.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Darkvortex87 said:

Just another thing: you are not forced to declare "change facing", you can also declare "alert" to make the other models turn. If there is someone nearby, they can turn to watch the same corner, thus the enemy cannot simply walk in CC without taking an ARO.

Alert requires line of fire.  If you could alert, you could also BS Attack.  If they are triggering a ZoC ARO only, then Change Facing (Reset, Hacking, ...) are your only options.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in the same boat as the OP's friend when I first got caught by this, very nearly threw my toys out of the cot. I've since learnt not to sit within 4" of a corner without a backup plan and I've used the rule myself against others. It's that first time when you go "but I thought I'd done everything right to cover that corner." that hurts, then you learn the rule and get a feel for it and everything is all right on the tabletop again.

 

Robert 

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, TFrauline said:

if you have a CC capable troop just around the corner from someone you want to engage, you can use a short skill move up to the corner without using stealth while remaining in total cover in order to force your opponent to burn his ARO on 'change facing'. You can then spend the next short order to move around the corner and walk into base to base contact.

As Solkan said, IMO you can already do that with any non camo/martial art troop who lacks stealth. Allowing stealth user to drop stealth to do what regular guys can already do, is ethical.

Not using stealth is not "getting an advantage" it is "opting to not get the penalty that stealth gives because if the rule were working properly stealth should be a paid-for advantage not a penalty"

6 hours ago, Sedral said:

You shouldn't have to discard a skill to gain a benefit, it makes no sense.

I agree, the rule should have been better planed such that a skill you paid for should give you an advantage. Right now if you don't opt out you are penalized compared to model who don't have stealth. That is bad design. At least they made Stealth optional and not obligatory.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the Alert! trick would work even if it didn't require LoF. The models alerted wouldn't turn around until the resolution phase anyway, when you're already in CC

I've had a similar reaction from an opponent, and I understand why (it feels unintuitive and therefore gamey) but it is important to realise this interaction is confirmed as deliberate, so they need to learn it to play it properly. A good way to counter it is to deploy models spread out but so they can see each other - that way the target model may not be able to shoot but another model probably can - maybe even on a normal roll.

Personally in a casual game if an opponent was really taken back by it I would probably offer to take it back this once (because they didn't know) if they liked but make it clear that's the way the rule works and that's the way I will play with them in future. I think that shows you're not being a dick, while still emphasizing the need to generally play the game as designed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have talked about this repeatedly  before so won't hash over old points in detail but generally I always feel bad about using it yes. 

I understand the mechanics function but feel is has been very poorly implemented. I've yet to meet someone who felt ok the first time it happened, and do try to warn players ahead of time if I see them setting a position where I'll need to use this trick.

it could have been wrapped into stealth, to a- make that skill actually useful for CC rather than avoiding hacking and b- differentiate models adept at closing the distance versus the rest. 

I don't think this trick needed to be a "core" mechanic. If it is to remain so, it needs to get inline with ther other core mechanics in feeling fluid D intuitive. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Robock said:

I agree, the rule should have been better planed such that a skill you paid for should give you an advantage. Right now if you don't opt out you are penalized compared to model who don't have stealth. That is bad design. At least they made Stealth optional and not obligatory.

You'll note that there is a special exception in Stealth allowing you to move-move and end in base contact without triggering any AROs, so long as you remain out of LoF for the entire move.  That was put in specifically to address issues similar to this corner scenario.  They were not able to come up with wording for every possible situation, however.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ToadChild said:

You'll note that there is a special exception in Stealth allowing you to move-move and end in base contact without triggering any AROs, so long as you remain out of LoF for the entire move.  That was put in specifically to address issues similar to this corner scenario.  They were not able to come up with wording for every possible situation, however.

This is a pointless skill with the confirmed intended change face mechanic.

With no stealth you move within charge range. They change face. You move into btb, they have no ARO

Thanks stealth

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, alphz said:

This is a pointless skill with the confirmed intended change face mechanic.

With no stealth you move within charge range. They change face. You move into btb, they have no ARO

Thanks stealth

It is not completely useless.  For example, if you want a Domaru to sneak up on a hacker, they could do something much worse than simply change facing.  It also lets you, say, position a camo marker without the opponent getting any chance to ARO at all.  It's not supremely useful at one single aspect, which is a non-marker, non-hackable model trying to get into base contact from out of LoF.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, ToadChild said:

It is not completely useless.  For example, if you want a Domaru to sneak up on a hacker, they could do something much worse than simply change facing.  It also lets you, say, position a camo marker without the opponent getting any chance to ARO at all.  It's not supremely useful at one single aspect, which is a non-marker, non-hackable model trying to get into base contact from out of LoF.

Yes against hackers stealth is very useful for about 1/4 of all stealth owners. Why stealth provides this benefit is anyone's guess.

Camo is irrelevant here. But yes, models that are already out of LoF that somehow would not want someone to change face gets a benefit. That is an incredibly niche situation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites