It says you’re not allowed to even move into contact with them unless they’re detected.
Well, it seems you move first as it is written (like moving 4", trying to engage, staying at 1/2", then you roll, if you succeed, stay engaged, if not, continue 2" if you want)
I agree on that being the most logical process. It just doesn’t actually detail that anywhere in the rules as such (the stopping 1/2" away is worded as an optional bit of advice for NOT engaging, not part of a process when a model is actively attempting to engage another who happens to be hidden).
yes I know, it need to be clarified.
I use the next paragraph because it says you need to spend the move action even if you fail de roll, you cannot change the action, only spend more inches. If you fail, you can stay there unengaged (staying at 1/2" is just an advice, hidden models are never engaged, until they lost the token)
Hey @JimmyW
I think they would stop half an inch away from the model they intended to engage, test to Detect and then continue on as appropriate. I think this is due to a section in the paragraph which starts with ‘If the test is failed …’.
It talks about if the ‘original action was intended to engage the target’ and the model ‘may continue its move’ which leads me to believe the model must have already been moving prior to the test.
Thanks @Modiphius-Dom , @Modiphius-Gavin . If that’s the case then probably worth making that explicit in the rules update; the current wording around engagement (and the stopping 1/2 " away) doesn’t really interact with detection testing or the adversary rules; it’s more an advisory to stop players accidentally engaging.
Adversaries should roll to detect when they need to. They will still move towards an enemy that they tried to spot, but can’t see, but they then can’t then engage. This is the guard walking towards you as the little eye icon opens, but you haven’t been spotted yet. Usually you’d roll to detect at the first opportunity, interrupting the movement to do so. I appreciate that this isn’t stated in the rules.
We accept that the adversary chapter needs work. We’ve been working on it last week, in fact. There are a number of places where we have used game terms, such as Attack or Target to mean a general description of things a model can do - moving to Engage an Enemy Model and making a Melee Attack action is called an “attack” (note the capitalisation). This has introduced ambiguity.
We use the term “when searching for a target to Attack…” when really what we mean is when searching for a model to be the target of an Action, rather than specifically the Attack action or Attack response.
It’s also worth remembering that TES:CTA is designed for narrative play, rather than a competitive match play environment, so there are occasions when the rules require some narrative intervention - we are crafting a story and sometime you may need to throw the rules out to make that story more interesting, engaging or fun. We encourage this (and some of us, naming no name, treat all the rules more as guidelines).
1 Like
It is right, but the thing is, when you play battle mode, because there are some adversaries lurking, you need to know well where they go or how they move or attack, with refined rules, to avoid confusion or “criticism”… If I say the adversaries go to my opponent, and he does not know why after reading the rules both players… he will probably get a bad/unbalanced feeling about the game, or maybe he thinks I am trying to trick him😅.
Absolutely and I’m on board with all of that; very much conscious that one of the key areas of the update is in tightening some of that ambiguity.
Just think there’s areas like this (and they’ll inevitably crop up with Adversaries in particular) where the actual intent of the rules isn’t even especially clear in the current iteration so that narrative experience is stymied by fumbling around the rules to even fathom the ‘guidelines’. I love the sandbox approach to the ruleset; it’s very in keeping with the source material and the Adversaries do flow incredibly well when it ‘clicks’. Just some points where there could be a greater sense of clarity without it actually needing much wordcount or time to convey the process (again, I know this is very much in hand and look forward to the next update on the update).
1 Like
But how could be the Target of an Action without being an Attack Action? Do you mean when an Adversary performs a Move Action towards a model is targeting that model?
My conclusion after all is: the Adversary goes to the nearest model regardless of a hidden token or LoS, and when Attack (or move to engage), if the model has a hidden token, the Adversary rolls to detect it like a player’s model. Is it right? Is that the intention?
There are other Actions that would target an enemy but aren’t Attacks (such as Pickpocket or some Shouts) and there may well be more in future.
That’s also my understanding of the procedure now yes.
yes, but I meant from an Adversary, what Actions they could perform targeting an enemy without being an Attack?
Probably aren’t any at the minute (not that I can think of off the top of my head) but that doesn’t mean there won’t be in the future.
Well, Targeting isn’t a game term. It’s just a descriptor to say one model is doing a thing to another model.
But, I think we are getting unnecessarily tied up in the minutia. The takeaway is that Adversaries can and will move towards hidden models if they can’t see them. They will attempt to Spot a hidden model as soon as they need to and can - even if they aren’t doing an Attack Action. If they don’t remove the models hidden token they can still move towards it, but they cannot become Engaged and must stay 1/2 and inch away.
Yes
That was the question… when is considered “they need to and can”? We said this is not considered after rolling the matrix… What are all the situations they could need and can spot a hidden model?
“Even without an Attack action”:
We said this meant Melee, Ranged and Move to engage, what would be the options they have exactly to have any option to spot a hidden model?
Spotting is a free test, so can be done at any time. It doesn’t need a particular step if the enemy is able to attempt it as soon as it needs to. You are going to know as soon as you have rolled on the Matrix if you need to check to see if a model can spot a hidden enemy. The action determines if they need to spot. Move requires that you move towards a model, so you need to try and spot. Attack requires you to perform an Attack action on a model, so you will need to spot. Objective will sometimes require you to move towards a model, but you can run down the objective priority list straight away to see what the Objective is (if the Scenario Special rules or you are defaulting to the Faction reference card it could be a model). Fall back does require you to check the closest enemy model, and thus a spot check is required (if there is a spottable hidden model). Defend may require you to detect enemy model to attack if there is nothing else to defend nearby.
When you say there “the action”, do you mean “the response”?
Every M response (without being engaged) would end performing a Move Action towards some enemy (the nearest in our case), so do you mean the Adversary would roll for detect a hidden model after rolling the M response?? But you said too they would Move to the hidden model (the nearest) anyway…
So now… are we rolling for detecting hidden models after rolling the M response?
Do the adversaries continue rolling for detecting hidden models after failing the first one?
Would they go to the first one, even if it is hidden and it is the nearest, or would they go to the spotted one, even being further?
My conclusion has changed again 
I’d argue that it’s still significant precisely at which step they’d carry out the detection as it potentially makes a difference as to whether they would, say, get a bonus green die if they’re within 6" (or a variety of other examples; a change in target priority, different line of sight etc.) depending on if it was prior to their move towards the enemy or after (and I think/hope we’ve firmly worked out that it’s after now as they’d need to be attempting to attack/engage the hidden model in order to need to take the test).
I’m also hoping the caveat to this is “if they’re also going to perform an action/attack against that target” otherwise we’re back to the beginning/contradicting a lot of the above given I thought we’d got to ‘adversaries don’t need to see/spot a model to move towards them as part of their response’.
I know there’s no need to get bogged down in the minutia but this is pretty core/basic Hidden model rulings that wouldn’t take much effort to be made clearer in the update and possibly pre-emptively solve a lot of headaches for future releases (looking at you Histories of the Empire Volume 2…). Just being consistent in the Rulebooks’ wordings around Action/Response/Attack would go a long way.
1 Like
Yes, I think the same, this is pretty basic for hidden models (and very important for the DB faction), and the game always put adversaries on the table, so you need to know this basics even to play a normal game, Delve or Battle mode…
Like a Draugr with a simple movement towards there or there (nearest hidden, not hidden, LoS blocked, LoS obscured, rolling or not rolling…)
1 Like
The Response. I meant the small a version of action as in “the thing they are doing” - poor choice of words on my part.
The first thing you’d do is roll for the models Response, otherwise you don’t know what it’s doing in the first place.
In an M response if you don’t have any models that you CAN spot there’s no need to make a spotting roll anyway. The Adversary moves towards the enemies (I often move it towards the general direction of enemies, rather than a specific model, but that’s an example of narrative fiat).
If there were multiple enemies that it COULD spot you check them one by one starting with the closest until you spot one or don’t see any of them. If you spot one, then you now have a closest visible enemy to move towards and you no longer need to keep trying to see other hidden models. If you don’t see any of them, you move towards the nearest, but even if you have sufficient movement to Engage it you stop short.
As I have said before, the Adversaries knowing the general area that their enemies are in is to speed up the game and make it more challenging. We played with random movement and Adversaries that remained passive until they got line of sight and it slowed the game down as skeletons and Draugr just ambled off into the distance, or just stood about waiting to get chopped u. It also often meant that you could easily avoid the Adversaries, too. With them homing in on you the threat is increased, plus through careful hiding and staying exposed you can also bait them into traps.