And I argue that "passing a WIP roll against an enemy model" is a change of the game state of said model. I don't know how "against an enemy model" can be read in any other way than as affecting the enemy model.
Ah, you interpret it to mean specifically defined states al la Targetted? I mean it far more generally than that: Datascan WIP roll passed and Datascan WIP roll not-passed are two game states. Data Scan says that you 'target' the enemy model and that you roll 'against the enemy model' which applies that game state to the enemy model. Compare it to activating buttons: console hacked and console not-hacked are two game states that may be applied to a console, but are not defined as states. If consoles could ARO I'd certainly apply them as a FTF. Also compare HVT: Innoculation. This lacks the wording "against the enemy [HVT] model" so does not ascribe the state (check passed / not-passed) to the HVT in the same way. My belief is that the distinction is (when the first of the HVT classifieds were written) HVTs could not ARO so a FTF wasn't an issue. This makes sense given that a Designated Target cannot avoid HVT: Espionage with Reset (HVT: Espionage is not Hacking or a Comms Attack).* * Personally I think this is an oversight and I think it's more coherent to play all of these game state changes in the same way (ie as always FTFs when opposed by an ARO or never as FTFs even when Reseting in response to Datascan). But, at present, we 'know' that Datascan and HVT:Espionage work differently.
Exactly. And thats why I would not agree with you on that matter, because there is no state like Innoculated or Data Scanned. But of course we can not know who is right, because there is to much space for interpretation.
I think the easy answer is: "When in doubt, it's Face to Face." But in terms of interpreting the ambiguous language of the Face to Face rules, I think it make sense for the phrase "directly affect" to mean that a game effect (Damage, MOD, gaining/losing a State, etc.) specific to the Trooper involved in the resolution of the Order is a possible outcome of that resolution. If you go beyond that, it seems to me that the word "directly" loses meaning. The word "directly" is in the rule, and so barring an errata or FAQ clarifying the intended meaning of the rule as a whole, it is reasonable to give preference to interpretations that give all words their plain and ordinary meaning. If you interpret the rule to mean that it includes any effect on the state of the game for which the Trooper is in some way a reference point, then the word "direct" has to be referring to the Trooper being involved in the declaration or resolution of the Order in some way. But this is already a given, because barring a few very specific circumstances rolls are only ever made in the resolution of an Order. In this context, the word "direct" is at best redundant or self-evident. In other words, what is a relevant "indirect" effect in that context, necessitating a distinction from a direct effect? However, if you consider the rule to mean a game state specific to the Trooper itself, then the word "direct" distinguishes from an "indirect" effect on the trooper, of which there are myriad possibilities, thus making the inclusion of the word "direct" both a necessary and highly relevant distinction. But again, the easier answer is to call it Face to Face and move on with the game.
Is there something that is NOT labelled as Attack that goes FtF? Data Scan allows a Reset ARO. As per it is written now, it has no other FtF allowed...
Smoke and eclipse special dodge (as we have been told, by @ijw if I remember, smoke/eclipse remove the attack label of the bs attack). It can work both way : Is there anything that target an ennemy trooper that is not an attack (except smoke/eclipse/nimbus) ? Nope. It has to say you can answer with reset ARO because data scan doesn't fullfill reset requirement. It doesn't says anywhere that other ARO does not work.
@Arkhos94 Smoke and Eclipse are clearly stated exception. They go FtF because the rules say so. Any ARO declared apart from Reset, result in Normal Rolls.
@tox you didn’t answer my question about all skills targeting ennemy trooper being attack. Does that mean you agree ? Regarding reset being the only ARO resulting in face to face : you are lacking a ground to stand on : - data scan does not say that (see my previous post) - face to face rules are a grey area on the subject because « affect » is not clearly defined (as discussed above)
Again. The rules say what you are allowed to do. If it is not written, you are not supposed to do. That is why there are rules and exceptions. Whatever affects the enemy is either an Attack or a stated exception. Data Scan is nor the former or the latter.
Interesting argument. There is just one problem with it : data scan does not say reset create face to face roll, only that it is a legal ARO (despite not fullfilling reset requirement). So data scan rule says nothing about one ARO creating face to face So base on your argument : there are no face to face aro to data scan. If a rule somewhere says that, it would solve the argument on « affect » meaning. Is there a rule that says it and can you link it ?
@tox. Shield programs (other than Exorcism) are FTF but not attacks. I'd hardly say that they're stated exceptions. @emperoraistone what about Jammer vs a BS Attack with LSG from a Bolt. Is that FTF? Jammer cannot apply a specific state (because the Bolt is immune) but can cause a game state change (Guts). So since it can't apply a state it's not FTF, right? How do you all explain the "WIP against an enemy model" language? That's what convinces me it's a FTF.
Datascan allows the enemy to Reset to avoid ARO. This is a FtF. Any other ARO are not FtF because Datascan is not an attack. Maybe i was not clear before. @inane.imp those programs are designed to work that way. This line "Allows the user to make a WIP-3 Roll against the attacking Hacker." is what generate a FtF.
Datascan says : The target may declare a Reset ARO no matter which Type of Troop it is (LI, MI, HI...) and even if the Data Scan is performed outside his LOF. Nowhere does it says it make it a face to face. For me this line is only an "exception" to standard reset rules : you can reset against datascan and have face to face even if you don't fullfill the requirement (hacking or comm attack). Nowhere does it says it prevent the standard rule of face to face to work : when 2 troopers affect each other it results in face to face. You say datascan doesn't "affect" its target but you don't bring rules to support that only this phrase : If this come from a rule or a ruling, please quote it. If not, then it's not a valid argument. Same here.
No. Datascan allows the enemy to Reset. Nowhere does Datascan say Reset allows it to avoid the effects of Datascan. Reset only works to avoid the effects of Datascan if the target of Datascan is affected by Datascan. If the target of Datascan is affected by Datascan then any action the target takes that also affects the Datascanner would also provoke a FTF. Edit: missed it on first pass. So you are saying that the line "perform X against Y" is what allows Shields to trigger FTFs but when that same line appears in Datascan it's irrelevant?
Datascan is a skill that has to be declared in ZoC of an Enemy. Reset is NORMALLY usable when an enemy act within ZoC. The line is of no use, as you read it because Reset already covers it. What is the effect of Reset? It is the "Virtual-Dodge", it's purpose is to avoid a cyber-attack. Why is it quoted in the text of the skill? Because Datascan IS NOR an Hacking Attack OR a Comms Attack. In order to work against it, there need to be an exception. But i understand that it is not so clearly stated, so... @HellLois Is Datascan vs Reset a FtF roll? If Reset model won, would he avoid the effects of Datascan? Is Datascan vs any-attack a FtF roll?
Lately in this thread, there have been arguments to a level of accuracy that the rules are not written to. The important thing is whether Face to Face happens whenever a unit is targeted and any effect occurs or if Face to Face requires the effect to directly affect the target. So; Create a consensus in your meta and chill while hoping @HellLois will answer this.
Someone on Facebook found another similar (but not exactly the same) situation : in extremis recovery vs NWI/Dogged trooper (NWI/dogged doesn't replace unconscious, it modify its effect so in extremis recovery is possible) Like data scan, in extremis recovery is not defined as an attack, it target the reactive trooper and doesn't cause a change of state. Unlike data scan, it directly affect the reactive trooper : it remove him from the table. So, in this situation, what is the opinion ? If the active trooper use "in extremis recovery" and the reactive trooper use CC attack/BS attack/dodge/hacking (if the active is hackable), does it ends up in an opposed roll or not ? Follow up question : does this situation change your opinion on the data scan question ?
