The biggest problem with adding house rules to a interlocked system like Infinity is you'd need to cover every possible scenario and uses of that house rule or it'll become a huge mess. For example: Do you change the possible ARO declaration while in close combat? If your opponent is engaged to your trooper A with his trooper B. His trooper C idles in your ZoC, and then uses a template on you. Your only possible ARO is change facing. You create a situation where you are forever stuck in close combat and being hit by templates. If you now create an exception to this, you can see that it really quickly spirals down into a convoluted lists of corner cases. You'll then need to make sure that rule and all of its newly made corner cases are clear and accepted by your opponent before every game. Greetings new player, here is one of our house rule: You may now include friendly targets in blast that the friendly target are immune to, but only if their immunities would totally cancel it (shock immune transforms shock ammo into normal, so they can’t be in a shock blast) So this new rules only affect Total Immunity and Veteran vs EM and does not affect Shock or Bio-Immunity. This now allows you to fire on a target into melee, they normally would not be able to declare an ARO, so maybe we now create a new exception that when you are hit by a template in melee, you may declare a dodge even without LoF to your target, but only in the case of the opponent having a template weapon, otherwise you could exit combat by being triggered in ARO by anyone around you. Total immunity now potentially makes it so face to face with units that have ammo from which you are immune not create a face to face scenario anymore. Any questions? Are you ready to play a game? (And I'm sure I'm missing out a lot of interactions, do you patch them up as you feel like throughout the game? It'll most likely feel unfair for one of the party and transforms the game into Calvinball) I think house rules are more suited to things like creating a new mission, perhaps giving some new equipment to certain troops for that certain mission (like ADL in Hunting Party). Or maybe a scenario bonus that alters a value rather than a rule like the ITS rule that gives TAG +1 damage to BS attacks or the rule that gives TAG anti-material close combat for some missions I think that the rule system is already complex enough that adding unnecessary complexity that needs to be explained to every new members will hinder your play experience more than it’ll benefit from it.
I play it the same way you describe. But to be fair, the rules are not clear. It's never stated that declaring an attack on one trooper in a CC is declaring an attack all troopers in a CC. The rules force players to ask themselves a question. Is declaring an attack against an enemy in CC with an ally, that will also"affect" the ally, the same as "troopers cannot declare Attacks against their friendly troopers."? They are two different things imo. The most pertinent rule seems to be: Template weapons and friendly and Neutral troopers It is not allowed to declare Attacks against friendly or Neutral troopers. So, if the player declares an Attack with a Template weapon that affects a friendly or Neutral trooper, then that shot is considered null (But not any other shot of the same Burst with no Civilian or Neutral troopers affected by a Template). All those troops who were affected by the nullified shot can still declare ARO. In such a situation, if the Template weapon has the Expendable Trait one use is considered spent. But even then I have to pretend it's not referring to a situation where an attack is declared against an ally that also affects the ally.
http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Engaged Template Weapons that affect a trooper in Engaged state affect all troopers in that Close Combat, even if some of them are not in direct contact with the Template.
I agree, it is complex enough. But players are already creating this situation when it comes to intent. Players need to ask all the questions and go through all the corner cases as you've described. The only difference is this community has already accepted intent as being one of them. Reread that rule. The templates affect all troopers in a CC. Meaning I can place the template down only touching the enemy. But in doing so all troopers in that CC are also affected by the template. In other words, they are all hit. Edit for clarity, Declaring a BS attack against that one enemy trooper which happens to affect an ally is different than declaring a BS attack against an ally. One of those is prohibited by the rules while the other is not.
Considering you literally just quoted the rule that says "So, if the player declares an Attack with a Template weapon that affects a friendly or Neutral trooper, then that shot is considered null" I can only assume you're actively trolling now.
What does intent have to do with this house rule?!? Intent is an entirely different debate where the clarity of the rule is debatable. It's been discussed to death and there is no point in re-creating a new debate about it. The rules for the current situations are clear, and the house rule are just making things more complicated for the sake of complexity. Just because a already complex question exists that you need to talk to to new player doesn't mean you should be adding more of them.
The situation that line refers to isn't 100% clear as I've indicated already. I'm not adding it for the reasons you describe. I'm showing how both are entirely driven by the players themselves. Both are situations where players are trying to play in a way not supported by the rules. Which makes them equal. So assigning one more relevance or importance than the other is flawed.
You are trying to argue that who is the target has an impact on the attack being cancelled or not rather than if a friendly trooper ends up under a template. From the example. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Template_Weapons_and_Equipment Let's suppose, in the same case as above, the three Fusiliers are more separated, so the Hellcat decides to split his B amongst them. When placing the Teardrop Template of the first shot against the Fusilier 1, he checks the Fusilier 3 is inside the Area of Effect of the Template. However, when placing the Template of the second shot of his B, checks there is an Alguacil inside the Area of Effect of the Template. Since the Alguacil is a friendly trooper, the second shot is nullified. But the Fusilier still has the right to react with an ARO so he declares a BS Attack. This Fusilier will perform a BS Normal Roll against the Hellcat. You can see here that the shot was never declared on a friendly target, but that the template clipped a friendly trooper. You are trying to argue that this attack would not be invalid as the "attack was not declared" on a friendly trooper. - Now that we established that having a friendly trooper under a template actually cancels it let's move on to the argument that Veteran makes you unaffected by E/M (No where does it say that in the rules). All Veteran does is "The user ignores all the Isolated state effects (caused by E/M Special Ammunition, the Oblivion Hacking Program, scenario special rules, etc.)." Veteran ignores all the Isolated state effects, but there is a lot more than isolation as an effect to E/M ammo. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Electromagnetic_(E/M)_Special_Ammunition E/M Special Ammunition reduces the BTS value of its target to half of its original value, rounding up. Failing a BTS Roll against E/M Special Ammunition causes the target to enter the Isolated state, preventing it from receiving Orders from the Order Pool. In that case, place an Isolated Marker next to the affected figure. If, at the start of his following Active Turns, the trooper is still Isolated, then he is considered to be Irregular' and it does not add his Order to that Turns Order Pool. If the target fails the BTS Roll and is Heavy Infantry (HI), a TAG, a Remote (REM) or a Vehicle, then it is rendered Immobilized-2 in addition to Isolated. In that case, place an Immobilized-2 Marker (IMM-2) next to it in addition to the Isolated Marker. If the target fails the BTS and has one or more pieces of Equipment with the Comms Equipment Trait, then that equipment enters the Disabled state (in addition to the Isolated and Immobilized states, if applicable). In that case, place a Disabled Marker (DISABLED), in base to base contact with it. A trooper who receives an impact from E/M Special Ammunition and fails the BTS Roll must make the usual Guts Roll. - If Veteran said "You may ignore the effect of E/M ammunition" the argument would still be wrong, but we'd at least have some ground for lack of clarity.
First of all, I'm not saying that. I said, and I quote, "I play it the same way you describe. But to be fair, the rules are not clear". I was not arguing on how to play it. I was arguing the rules are not clear. I also pointed out the rule quoted to support his statement didn't actually cover the situation. Second, the examples do show how to play it. But this is contrary to what the rules actually say. The rules say we can't 'declare', while the examples show something else. There is also not an example of a template into CC. Again, not saying that. This is why I have such a hard time discussing things here. I get accused of not listening or trolling all the time, but I really don't think that is the case. Again... I never said the rules say that. I was discussing how the spirit of the rules support it for the situation being discussed.
Both the rule and examples are part of the ruleset. The example shows that even if you do not "declare" the attack against a friendly, it is cancelled because a friendly is affected by it. We also have this: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Engaged Template Weapons that affect a trooper in Engaged state affect all troopers in that Close Combat, even if some of them are not in direct contact with the Template. - I get that there are a lot of complex rules and some that needs to have clarification, but this one isn't one of them.
I completely understand that you find it clear. But I assure you not everyone is of the same opinion. So my statement is a valid one. To provide more than just my assurances, this poster below got it wrong: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...-and-blast-templates.33897/page-2#post-263928
