Sixth Sense lvl 1 Delay vs Delay against marker states

Right, it says nothing about losing your ARO. You can choose to declare an ARO immediately, or hold off, this has nothing to do with marker ARO delays.

Yes, walking into ZoC of a Sixth Sense model can cause problems for you. Considering that a Chasseur also usually has a flame thrower, you should have lots of reasons to want to deal with them at range.

 

Sixth Sense requires you to be the target of an attack. If you're not attacked, you lose your ARO.

 

You are incorrect, SS does many things, one of those is to hold your ARO until after the declaration of your opponents second short skill within ZOC. the other is to respond to attacks from outside LOF.

They are two separate components of the same rule

 

You are incorrect.
Second point, Sixth Sense only allows you to respond with face to face rolls. Using a flamethrower does not qualify for that.

Requirements are not separate components, they must all be met or you can't use the skill (unless it is stated that only some of the requirements need to be met).

 

how do you delay a reaction using a skill whose requirements have not been met?

the point on delaying therefore most be independent.

Note the example, the delay mechanic of SS is independent of being the target of an attack or not


Example of Sixth Sense L1 vs a TO Camouflage Marker
A TO Camouflaged Spektr declares the first Short Skill of his Order: Moving towards a Maakrep Tracker with her back turned. The Spektr is inside the Tracker's Zone of Control, but he has not declared an Attack so she cannot use her Sixth Sense L1 to shoot back.
The Maakrep Tracker chooses to delay her ARO declaration until after the Spektr declares his second Short Skill. The Maakrep Tracker is allowed to delay her ARO both because the active trooper is a TO Marker and because of her Sixth Sense L1. The Spektr declares a BS Attack as the second Short Skill of his Order. Now that she is the target of an Attack, the Maakrep Tracker may benefit from her Sixth Sense L1 to react as if she was facing the Spektr and ignore the handicap imposed by the Spektr's Surprise Shot L1. The Tracker chooses to declare a BS Attack so the Order is resolved with a Face to Face BS Roll between both soldiers.


The second example also follows this
Example of Sixth Sense L1 vs a rear attack
An Alguacil, in his Active Turn, declares the first Short Skill of his Order: Moving towards a Maakrep Tracker with her back turned, keeping outside her LoF. The Alguacil is now inside the Tracker's Zone of Control so she uses her Sixth Sense L1 Special Skill to delay her ARO, waiting for the Alguacil to make his move.
........
Had the Alguacil declared a further Movement instead of a BS Attack, the Maakrep Tracker would have been able to declare an ARO against an unseen active enemy inside her Zone of Control (Change Facing).

The Maakrep has not been the target of an attack but is still able to respond with a Change facing after delaying its ARO with SS1.

Therefore for SS1 the delay is a separate and independent mechanic that may be utilized regardless of if you are the target of the attack

 

What? where did you get that?

- Edit. Cancel that, I can't actually see the logic about how the requirements box is written. Its definitely not written as your example says however.

Sometimes it includes pre-requisites, sometimes it includes rules when carrying out the skill, sometimes includes multiple separate requirements, or just lumps them as one bullet point.

If you are required to be the target of an attack, when would this particular bullet point be useful?

Never, the answer to that question is never.

 

That would not be the first time I see a dysfunctional rule in a wargame though.
That said, in actual match I'd prefer to go with RAI most people seem to play this by.

 

Can you give me an example how and where the rest of the effects or requirements come into play, if you all you need is the "delay" part of the skill?

I agree the rule is written poorly, the "delay" part should not be in the effects, it should be in a special allowance section or something. The only reason the "delay" part is there, so that you're not forced to declare a Change facing or Reset when a trooper moves in your ZoC.

If the skill worked as you think it does, you could literally throw away every other part of that skill to the garbage, and simply invoke the "delay" effect every single time. I have a feeling that however was not the intention behind the skill, the other requirements and effects must have been written there for a reason.

Run it through your head a couple of times, reduce the skill only to the "delay" part and see if the skill changes from how you play it. Then, run it through again but this time only remove the "delay" part and see if it changes (with the exception of parts that ignore certain modifiers). You'll see why it's there.

Sixth Sense allowing you to respond to attacks is consistent with how Sixth Sense L2 works and the delay mechanic is consistent with how delays in general work. If you delay and the enemy declares another move, your ARO is wasted. Simple, clean, no special cases required.

It feels like the person who wrote the skill and the person who wrote the example are two different people with a different view of how the skill should work.

 

It's in Beyond Icestorm and Beyond Red Veil pdf's.

 

examples are the rules and this one expressly tells you that 1) you may delay, and 2, you can then use the skill to ARO even if you have not been attacked after said skill

 

Are examples truly rules in Infinity? I'm not saying they don't influence me in RAW vs RAI and make the RAI much clearer than if they were not there. Where has that been written to be true or is it just a community accepted thing? I am honestly asking and not trying to make a big issue out of something that never matters when we play the game but am curious if examples = rules is an Infinity thing since most other games that is not the case.

 

Examples are the rules, it need not be written because they are part of the rulebook, arguing that the examples are not the rules is like arguing that the movement skill is not part of the rules. The examples tell you quite clearly how the rules work and this one is telling you that the SS1 delay is independent of being the target of an attack

 

Examples are not rules in the sense of what are the requirements and effects of something. But the example is the rule in a hypothetical action, described as unambiguously as possible.

I can't think of an example where an example in the rulebook has been considered wrong or dismissed when determining a rule.

If the interpretation conflicts with the example, it's more likely the text isn't clear enough and the interpretation is wrong rather than the examples.

It tldr; typically the examples are better than the rules for understanding the rules

 

So the janky way that the rule is written basically breaks down to two different parts, and it was just not clearly separated.

You can choose to delay your ARO, however if no Attack comes, you don't get to then take an ARO to attack back. In order to be able to shoot back behind your facing, there has to be an attack aimed at you to trigger that function.

As we can see from the example, the delay ARO part in and of itself applies whether or not an attack is made. What this does is prevents you from being FORCED into a Change Facing ARO by a Move or Idle (inside ZoC but out of LoF) declaration prior to the attack declaration. Sixth Sense is allowing you to hold off on your ARO declaration long enough to see if the second half is an attack, thus triggering the part where you can attack back.

So we have two separate rules mashed together that make up Sixth Sense L1:

You can delay your ARO when it is triggered within your ZoC but out of LoF. This in and of itself doesn't grant you any new ARO options, just the ability to not have to declare until after the second short skill.

You can attack behind your facing when someone attacks you from behind but in your Zoc.

(And of course all the other little side-bits mixed in there. By my count Sixth Sense L1 incorporates anywhere from 3 to 6 different rule effects under one heading depending on how you categorize them.)

There is a "fun" long-standing tradition in Infinity of needing to read the examples along with the rule to actually get pieces of the RAI that aren't properly spelled out in the RAW. Just one of the joys of a translated rule system, is usually what it's blamed on.

 

Except you can delay if they are in your LOF AND in ZOC and nothing says that if they elect not to fire at you, that you can't fire at them. (Such as against markers tend to explain)

My understanding is that you can delay if they are within 8 inches of you and respond with all the usual AROs after their 2nd short skill REGARDLESS of what the 2nd short skill is.

 

That's how I've always understood it as well, but I'm willing to admit I got it wrong.

 

You havent. The examples confirm this as per my post last page

 

None of the examples address delaying with SS within LoF, that didn't also result in a f2f due to an incoming attack. Like I said, I've always played it as a delay granted if the enemy is within ZoC, that allows you to react however you like (but also allows you to react in f2f regardless of facing), but that isn't supported (nor is it unsupported) by the examples.

Breakdown in case I'm not being clear:

- Trooper A is not a marker and is within LoF and ZoC of SS trooper B.
- Trooper A activates and moves.
- Trooper B delays.
- Trooper A moves as a second short skill (or any skill that doesn't "attack" trooper B at all).
- Trooper B declares BS attack.

Valid Y/N?

 

Huh?

As per daboarder's link from the previous page of the thread: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Sixth_Sense#Example_of_Sixth_Sense_L1_vs_a_rear_attack

Specifically the last paragraph:

'Had the Alguacil declared a further Movement instead of a BS Attack, the Maakrep Tracker would have been able to declare an ARO against an unseen active enemy inside her Zone of Control (Change Facing).'