So my trooper is attacked from the back and I cannot estimate if he is inside zoc or not. Can I measure the zoc of the attacking trooper and declare change facing if he is inside, and warning if he is not?
And if I then declare Change facing and is outside Zoc. Can I do warning if I survive since "no ARO was activated"?
Helllois has confirmed that Warning is always an option when the trooper themselves is attacked, provided you survive the attack, due to the very very basic rules. The actual text for the Warning rule in English is suffering from a small translation error in logic structuring.
I am confused now. Warning can always be done? So if I did declare change facing, was within zoc but missed the f2f. If I survive I can still do warning?
You are absolutely going to need to provide a direct link to support that claim, because the Requirements for Warning are: "To perform a Warning! the following conditions must be met: The trooper cannot be activated by Order or ARO in the same Order. An allied trooper inside his Zone of Control or the trooper himself must have been targeted by an Attack." "Para que una tropa pueda realizar una ¡Alarma! deben cumplirse las siguientes condiciones: La tropa no puede haber sido activada por Orden u ORA en esa misma Orden. La tropa, o una tropa aliada dentro de su Zona de Control, ha sido objetivo de un Ataque." And it is boggling my mind how that first bullet point could possibly be a "small translation error."
I don't think it was ever confirm. The quote was regarding Operation rules. Which give you warning. Full rules do not. And as far as I'm aware never confirmed otherwise.
Please note that @HellLois did not say that you can always use Warning, even though the end effect is similar. The issue is that the Guts Roll rules are slightly different between English and Spanish. In the Spanish text, a successful Guts Roll lets the trooper turn to face. If the Guts Roll is successful, the troop can stand its ground and must do nothing else. Si se supera la Tirada de Agallas, la tropa no está obligada a hacer nada y puede permanecer donde está, o puede mantener dicha posición pero girando sobre sí misma para ponerse de cara a una tropa enemiga, de modo que ésta quede dentro de su LDT. Roughly translated, the Spanish adds 'can stand it's ground, or stay in place and turn so that the enemy trooper is inside their LoF.'.
And here's the link: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/guts-rule-discrepancy-spanish-v-english.26397/#post-198577
I think a lot of people are misinterpreting Warning! here. They guy who is shoot can give warning to others in his ZoC even if he did an ARO. It's the others inside his ZoC that can only receive the warning and turn around for free if they did not ARO.
HellLois said in that link that whatever if a passed Guts allows you to turn in place or not; that you can always turn based on the N3 rulebook page 15 rule. That would also apply to Warning and Move and any skills whatsoever; the basic rule is that if you survive being attacked from outside LoF arc, you can turn around, and there is no skill that prevents that rule. That is what is confirmed. But as ijw said, that was about being able to turn at the end of an order, not about always being able to use Warning! edit: HellLois calls it Page 15, my pdf has it on Page 11/12. So YMMV.
Really? Multiple posts after are asking for confirmation as there may be some confusion. With no reply. I'd consider that unconfirmed.
ah, that kind of confirmation. To me is silly, is like receiving a FAQ or post where they state 1+1=2 and then asking confirmation if 1+1=2. Why would he need to reply ? He already said what he had to say on that subject, it is case closed. Page 15 rule is a valid rule and meant to be used when playing, his post made that very clear. Why would he need to repeat himself after a "please confirm" posts later in the thread ?
For the sake of the original poster, because the business about Guts may or may not be irrelevant to the question... In order to turn around using Warning there end up being two criteria: The model turning around wasn't activated by an Order or ARO. The model turning around was either the targeted by an Attack, or the target of the Attack is in their ZoC Suppose we've got a valiant Morat Vanguard soldier A shooting at a misguided Fusilier B. 6" away from B is another Fusilier C. Both B and C are looking away from A. Scenario 1: A is shooting at B within B's ZoC. If B declares Change Facing, B won't be able to turn around using Warning. If B decides not to declare Change Facing, B will be able to turn around using Warning. It doesn't matter to C what B does. C gets to use Warning because B was the target of the attack and C doesn't have an ARO at all. Scenario 2: A is shooting at B. B declares no ARO (either because A is too far away, or for personal reasons), so B will get to use Warning! to turn around. And C still doesn't care what B does. Scenario 3: No one is sure how far apart A and B are. A shoots at B. B declares Changing Facing, uncertain of the validity of the ARO. If B's Change Facing ARO is invalid, then the declaration gets ignored and it's resolved as Scenario 2. If B's Change Facing is valid, then B doesn't get to use Warning!. C still doesn't care what B does and is going to turn around using Warning. ------ Warning is going off of simply being declared the target of an attack. The outcome of the attack doesn't matter for Warning. (Optimists are allowed to turn unconscious models around, if they really want.) Guts is another mechanism, but it happens when you've been successfully attacked or you had to take an ARM/BTS roll for some reason. If we go back to the Morat shooting at the Fusilier, if the Morat hits the Fusilier, one of the possible results of Guts movement is turning around. If you actually change position due to the Guts Move, then the model can change its facing due to the movement rules. The rules controversy is whether it gets to change its facing if it doesn't change position. (That particular thread hasn't been moved to the solved rules threads section, or marked "solved" yet.)
a good question to ask him. if he already answered the question to the best of his knowledge, why is he not moving it and locking it away ? Maybe because he did that early on and it back fired when he was answering the wrong question (multiple question in the same thread) or when his answer provoked new questions.
