1. How can a model's state be contingent on a decision that may or may not be made in the future? And in any event that still doesn't resolve the situation where my Bandit starts the order in B2B with an Objective and does the following: 3. CC 4. Enemy declares BS Attack 5. Idle In such a situation the Enemy BS Attack would be at -12 to hit (assuming Cover and no-MSV). Which is absurd. 2. You're also saying that I need to either start or stop my Movement in B2B with a piece of scenery to CC it. So let's say I've placed my Morlock well and the shortest path to their target takes them past a door while in B2B with it (IE the Morlocks movement slides along a wall). I want to CC the door, so I consider the Door to be an enemy so that I can CC it. BUT you say I can't stop because it's not *actually* an enemy figure. That's fine, except you *also* say I can't CC it because I didn't enter the Engaged state with it. That's absurd: either it's an enemy figure for the purposes of Movement (in which case the Morlock would stop on reaching B2B) or it's not an enemy figure for the purposes of Movement (in which case the Morlock wouldn't stop, but CC would be legal). (Note, I'm not suggesting that the Morlock paths towards the door... although I see no reason other than even more patent absurdity stopping that interpretation). 3&4. The problem is that your standard isn't 'what happens in other CCs', CC only happens when an Engaged state was achieved at some point during the order: I don't disagree with that, I absolutely agree that for the purposes of CC terrain and enemy figures should be treated the same. The problem with your standard is it's inconsistent on what happens to movement that reaches B2B with terrain: it treats terrain differently for the purposes of Movement depending on whether you CC or not. The difference, for movement, isn't between terrain you want to CC and terrain you don't want to CC but rather between figures and terrain. For example: In the case of a model (Alice) with D-Charges placing a D-Charge on a IMM model (Bob): 3. Alice Moves B2B with Bob, her Movement stops 4. Bob Resets 5. Alice places her D-Charge Whereas vs an objective: 3. Alice Moves B2B with the objective and continues Moving 4. AROs as appropriate 5. Alice places her D-Charge even though she isn't B2B with the objective I'm saying that the FAQ is consistent with the interpretation that Alice's Movement with respect to Bob is the same whether she then opts to place to CC with her D-Charges. I'm also saying her Movement with regards to the objective should be the same irrespective of whether she places or CCs with her D-Charges. Movement explicitly treats enemy figures and terrain differently. Continuing to do this is simpler and I also think it's cleaner from a gameplay POV. What gameplay benefit does treating terrain as enemies for the purposes of Movement create? I can think of none. I read the sentence "Note that at the end of the Order, the Scenery Item will not cause any trooper to be in the Engaged state" as saying that "the Scenery Item will not cause any trooper to be in the Engaged state." It's a reminder ('Note that') that whatever states you were counting the trooper as for the purposes of making CC work, the trooper will not be in the Engaged state for any other purpose. It does not say, for instance, "At the conclusion of the order the trooper will cease being Engaged with the Scenery Item." The second phrasing requires the trooper to have been in the Engaged state with the Scenery Item whereas in the first it is not strictly required (although admittedly it is implied). You're literally the only person I've ever heard of arguing that troopers enter the Engaged state with terrain contingent on their intent to declare CC with said terrain. Tl;dr Movement treats figures and terrain differently. But Movement does always treat figures the same as other figures and should always trear terrain the same as other terraib. So if you can place a D-Charge on a wall en passant then you should be able to CC with a D-Charge vs a wall en passant.
1. OK, I may have misread your point 1. This would be equivalent to a trooper that starts the Order in LoF and goes Prone - the reactive troopers still get to fire at the trooper. EDIT - while outside Engaged state. 2. No, I'm saying that the whole of the Impetuous Order has to be directed towards enemy figures. A door isn't an enemy figure, so you won't be able to CC it during an Impetuous Order. In exactly the same way that Camo markers and enemy Deployables get ignored during Impetuous Orders. 3&4. Yes. Because you're treating it as an enemy trooper. I apologised, and tried to reduce the aggressive tone of the discussion. I would appreciate it if you would also try to dial down the aggressive tone.
Sorry I didn't realise I was coming off agressively. I was going for bewildered, I haven't even called you 'mate' ironically once ;) 1. How? You literally fulfill the requirements of the Engaged state prior to activation. It's a Prone model that starts the order Prone. Except for a contingent one of 'at some point during this order I'm going to CC that'. But, ok, let's take it your way. You're suggesting that the trooper only enters the Engaged state when they declare the CC Attack, right? So my Bandit declares: 3. Move out of B2B 4. AROs 5. CC How is that different to: 3. Move into and out of B2B 4. AROs 5. CC Either I treat the model as an Enemy for the entire order (in which case a Bandit who starts B2B is Engaged for the entire order) or I only need to treat it as an Enemy at the moment I declare CC Attack/apply bonuses. I honestly don't see how you have it both ways? 2. So you're saying that an Impetuous trooper can't throw Smoke at the ground? Also that gets awkward when the shortest path to the enemy is through a Door. 'Yeah, sorry I literally can't declare Activate because it's not directed at an enemy trooper, nor can I CC the door and break it down because, again, not an actual enemy trooper' 3+4. ...for the purposes of CC. Whereas you're testing it as an enemy trooper for the purposes of Movement . Nowhere in the FAQ does it tell you to do that. And it causes massive issues but provides no benefit. I really don't understand why you're arguing for your position?
Yes, you were coming across aggressively, both here and in the FB discussion. But we know that you're not in Engaged state prior to activation. It's similar to a model that starts standing, and from the wording of Prone counts as being Prone for it's whole Move - you still get to shoot them. No, I'm not. You know I'm not, because you've already complained about how I'm not. :-( I'm suggesting that, when you enter base contact, you're going to have to choose whether you're going to be treating it as just cover, or as a CC target. See above. We know that the trooper isn't in Engaged state at the start of the Order. Because I think it's the right position. Why else would i be arguing for a position? This kind of statement really doesn't help your posts come across as not being aggressive. :-( If you want to play it differently, do so. If you think it should be played differently, that's fine.
No, what I’m saying is I don’t understand why you think it’s the right position? I’m honestly asking that question. Nothing in the FAQ says to do what you’re saying whereas it literally says that you treat terrain as an enemy trooper for the purposes of CC etc. I also don’t see how the status of terrain can be contingent on an action that may or may not be taken. Literally nothing else in game works that way. For every other interaction either the object is an enemy trooper and movement stops on reaching B2B or its a piece of scenery and movement isn’t required to stop (unless another special rule applies). This in turn creates the fundamental issue we have with timing if we accept that troopers actually enter the Engaged state with terrain. You are saying that the object is treated as an enemy trooper from when? I think from when the Trooper reaches B2B, why did you choose this timing?* Whereas the two most coherent options, as I see it, are the entire order or from when CC is declared. Neither of those options are explicitly ruled out by the FAQ. The normal situation is that if a trooper is B2B with an enemy trooper for the entire order then then it is Engaged for the entire order. I see nothing in FAQ that alters that situation. The fact that the state doesn’t necessarily persist to subsequent orders is separate to that clear point: there is no point in the order where the trooper is not Engaged with the scenery. A trooper that starts its order standing and goes Prone changes its position on the table with respect to how Line of Fire is drawn: a trooper that spends the entire order B2B with an Enemy Trooper does not. Aside: how do you treat Guts? If my Bandit CC’d a piece of terrain and simultaneously takes a hit from an enemy Bs Attack (and survives) do they take a Guts check or not? * If this is the case then it causes another issue: I intend to CC the objective my Bandit is already B2B with: 1. I activate my Bandit, inform my opponent that I want to CC the objective and enter the Engaged state with the enemy trooper 2. I spend my Bandits irregular order 3. I Move away from the objective, exiting the Engaged state 4. My opponent reveals a HD model and BS Attacks my Bandit 5. I declare BS Attack with my Bandit. My opponent informs me that that’s an invalid BS Attack declaration because I was B2B with an enemy trooper during the activation phase of the order (For a trooper to declare a BS Attack in its Active Turn or Reactive Turn, it needs to: Be using a BS Weapon, or a Skill or piece of Equipment capable of making a BS Attack. Be able to draw Line of Fire (LoF) to the target of the BS Attack, unless the BS Weapon, Skill or piece of Equipment used doesn't require LoF. Not be in base to base contact with any enemies during the Activation phase of that Order.”) My response to the Impetuous issue wasn’t entirely flippant. Are you really maintaining that all of the actions taken during an Impetuous order need to be directed at (actual) Enemy Troopers?
The bit in bold. For the purposes of CC etc. involves entering Engaged state. I don't think we can do anything beyond agreeing to disagree at this point.
Yes, you need to be in the Engaged state at some point during that order. That doesn't at all imply that you need to stop your movement on reaching B2B with terrain to be able to subsequently CC it. All of the requirements of that clause (for the purposes of CC etc) can be met by treating the terrain as an Enemy trooper only once CC is declared. This resolves almost all the timing issues (you still need to handwave the being-B2B-but-not-being-Engaged-for-the-whole-order thing, but it's clearer) and the Impetuous Trooper issues. We're left with Guts being the only outstanding issue. But, honestly, that's a quirk more than it's game breaking. I don't like it (I'd prefer never actually entering the Engaged state) but it's better than treating terrain as Enemy troopers for the purposes of Movement and it is perfectly congruent with the way the FAQ is written. Basically: 1. Bandit is activated in B2B with an objective 2. Order is spent 3. Bandit declares CC, the objective is now treated as an Enemy trooper and the Bandit enters the Engaged state 4. AROs 5. Bandit declares Move and Moves away from the Objective, since the Objective isn't treated as an enemy trooper for the purposes of Movement the Bandit can freely move away. 7. Resolution 8. Effects. The terrain ceases to be an Enemy trooper and the Bandit stops being Engaged 9. Conclusion. Guts happens as normal This necessarily allows the following (which was always previously legal): 3. Bandit Moves into and out of B2B with an objective 4. AROs 5. Bandit declares CC Attack. The objective now counts as an Enemy trooper and the Bandits consequently counts as Engaged while it was B2B with the objective.
You don't need to be in Engaged state to declare CC Attack on something, you need to be in base contact with an enemy. Engaged has the activation condition that is to be in base to base contact with an enemy trooper. This wouldn't be such a big logical problem if "enemy" wasn't specified to be an "enemy trooper".
The issue isn't the CC Attack so much as CC Special Skills and ganging up bonuses. These do need the Engaged state. We've just been lazy and dropped these from our posts because, thanks to the recent FAQ, practically all of their requirements are satisfied by being B2B with terrain. But yes, enemy = enemy trooper causes a lot of issues (that mostly get ignored).
Cc Special Skills page has engaged with lower case e in the introduction, while the rules states they are required to be in Close Combat, which is explained to mean base contact with an enemy. As far as melee is concerned, simply changing enemy to mean "hostile unit with a profile capable to being attacked" would fix meleeing scenery as far as I can tell. No idea about other consequences, though.
