Unsolved question list

The problem with this is that it says "because it is a Special Dodge and not an Attack" but there's nowhere else that says that it's not an Attack. So it looks like they might have decided against making throwing Smoke Grenades not an attack but this reference made it through editing. Worth getting clarification on.

 

I think those are the main points, though I think the consensus reached in that thread regarding the smoke attack label is that the game breaks down if it counts as an attack and the rules support it but it's not made very clear. I am more interested in the second one:

A reactive turn trooper with Sixth Sense is in a zero visibility zone caused by smoke. The active turn player spends an order to activate a trooper with move as the first short skill, then they move into base to base with the reactive trooper. The reactive player delays their ARO. The active player then declares CC Attack as their second short skill. Can the reactive player declare BS Shoot as their ARO?

 

@Arkhos94 here is the thread about Guts/Warning direct link to @HellLois response.

https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/guts-rule-discrepancy-spanish-v-english.26397/#post-198577

 

The first bullet point of Sixth Sense level 1 strongly suggests yes, however the community has been confused/there have been conflicting answers on this one so it's worth getting confirmation.

 

We might as well just post that... other FAQ here and go through it rule by rule.

Anyway how about we add my personal bugbear to the list.
If a model engages my trooper, can I stick him on a wall forcing him to climb and effectively making him helpless.
RAW the answer is a clear "yes" but considering no one I have ever talked to allows it, and a few people even argue that it is not clear, I just can't help but hope for a different answer.

 

This is one of those things that needs to be errataed. Honestly just have the reactive player choose the positioning of their model.

 

That works, I still think that the RAW doesn't actually support doing it in the first place since you have to follow the regular movement rules, but having the reactive player place their own model is more consistent with those rules anyway and eliminates the "what-ifs" around climbing plus, laders etc...

 

RAW + FAQs/forum rulings are the problem. IIRC: Palanka ruled that someone engaging a C+ trooper (who used the second short skill to move up a wall) had to follow the trooper up the wall with it. This meant that engaging onto walls is possible. Then, another ruling stated that "base-to-base" meant any part of a silly touching another silly (I think this was to get around not being able to get in B2B from different elevations, or something). Since engage allows the engaged model to choose where the engaging model goes as long as it's in B2B, and walls are expressly allowed by the C+ ruling above, it's technically possible to place an engaging model on a wall as long as you are, at maximum, one silly height away from it (so that when they "stand" on the wall, their silly is on constant with yours).

 

I 100% want you to be correct, if only we had some form of official clarification., or failing that an unofficial easy to reference consensus a TO could use. Little more annoying then getting to a tournament and realizing the TO is not going to let your AI beacons work like they should have in the Biotech mission.

 

What happens in this situation:
3. Move
4. Delay with SSL1
5. Move
6. ?????

My understanding is that the Trooper with SSL1 can declare any valid skill at step 6 or the order. But RAW no attack has occured to trigger Sixth Sense. My memory is that @Palanka has ruled that it's the former situation I'll see if I can find it. but my google-foo is deserting me. This is the best I can find:

http://www.infinitytheforums.com/forum/index.php?/topic/47391-Delaying-with-sixth-sense

 

See the examples for Sixth Sense. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Sixth_Sense#Example_of_Sixth_Sense_L1_vs_a_rear_attack

'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).'

 

I knew there was a reason for it (which, now that you've reminded me I can remember explaining at least once in the past). Saw it on FB today and couldn't remember the exact reasoning, left it alone there but thought of it in this context. Cheers.

 

The way I see it the normal movement rules refered to in engage include C+ since C+ makes it as though the trooper is moving over a horizontal surface, and if they move over a horizontal surface they can be followed...

The model is on the wall and can't attack as part of the game, but if you want to think of it more like the C+ trooper did a kick flip to get behind their opponent, or lured them in and strung them up with their climbing gear like batman or the predator then it's easier to visualise what's going on through the abstraction of the rules.

If neither of the models has C+ then they're just fighting beside a wall, and trying to make someone climb for no reason is frankly a bit silly...

 

You can do anything you want at step 6 according to this ruling.

https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/solved-sixth-sense-b-llsh-t-again.23424/page-5#post-107829

 

Thanks @Arkhos94 , the question is about he opposite situations. In the Spanish rules, it looks like a normal trooper that passes guts, or a religious trooper that fails guts, can then turn to face the attacker after the roll.

I suppose the question you have listed is also worth clarifying as well.

 

Would a humble suggestion to take a look at a certain document compiled by certain now-banned individuals solely for the purpose of scanning it for possible amendments to the list of unsolved rules questions be considered a blasphemy?

 

While I agree on principle, you could make up fluff arguments for pretty much any position if you try hard enough. I actually appreciate that when CB makes these rulings, they try to make them as blanket as possible to fit within the structure they have. This is important so that a correct reading of the rules brings you to the correct solution to a problem. The alternative is for CB to say: "In the case of C+ units, the engaging model is dragged up the wall with it." with no basis in the rules as written and no explanation, which leads to a fractured ruleset where you need to look at a long list of exceptions in order to get an interaction correct.

The obvious downside here is unintended consequences, and I'm sure there is a portion of the population that would side one way over the other.

 

@Sabin76 CB is infamous for making rulings that break other aspects of their game though.