So the scenario is such: Two enemy troopers are lined up on a building edge, Trooper A and B. A mine is peaking out from the corner ofthe building, such that Trooper A can draw LoF, but trooper B cannot due to being blocked by Trooper A. Both troopers are within the mine's trigger area. Trooper B activates and idles. Does the mine explode in Aro, hitting both troopers, or does Trooper B being out of LoF grant it total cover, meaning the mine gets no ARO?
Mines don't care about LoF, Visibility zones or intervening (enemy) troops, just Total Cover (which is always due to scenery, not troopers). In other words, yes, either trooper activating will set off the Mine, because they're in the Trigger Area.
There's not really one. The only reason mines don't work on something in total cover is that the rules for mines say they exclude anything in total cover from the mine itself.
The part that was being argued about is the second bullet in total cover: For a trooper to be in Total Cover, one of these two must be true: The pieces of scenery completely obstructs the attacking enemy's LoF. The attacking enemy does not have LoF to the trooper
There's an earlier part in that section that implies that cover (of any sort) can only be granted by scenery. Unfortunately the core rules for LoF/LoS are written in such a way that different interpretations are possible, and CB has resisted cleaning up the language.
As you say yourself, cover is only granted by scenery: 'The term Cover refers to all pieces of scenery that partially or completely obstruct LoF, thus preventing the attacker from making a clean BS Attack.'
How do you play Chain Rifles? If the enemies are in line do you hit them or not? If the answer is YES (as it should be), why would you apply it differently to a mine?
It's different because the reactive trooper with the Chain Rifle can't see trooper B to declare a BS Attack ARO.
There’s actually a very fine but important distinction, with speculative fire and guided attacks being the only ones I can think of. If what you’re saying is true, there would be nothing to prevent your defensive Six Sense link sniper from firing back at McMurrough, who’s lobbing grenades over the wall. Unless your Sniper has taken lessons from the movie Wanted. :|
Isn’t the short answer that mines don’t behave like other things (presumably BS Attacks with a Direct Template Weapons) with respect to LoF? I’m not going to attempt to explain this from the rules myself, but I’d imagine someone more qualified could quote the relevant rules and explain why they’re different?
Whenever you place a template on the table, the only thing that stop the "blast" is Scenery that grants Total Cover (i.e. the blast cannot physically reach the model). And this is true despite the kind of weapon. BTW, did you ever note that a Mine has the Direct Template (small teardrop) trait? How else would you treat the blast?
Which models are affected when the blast goes off is not in question, the question is related to triggering the blast in the first place. You can't ARO something you can't see (even if you could reach it with a blast template), so the question that was, can a mine detonate in reaction to something it can't see.
A mine explodes by a model declaring skills/AROs in the trigger area.That's the only requirement that matters to a mine in this scenario. It doesn't need an opportunity of lof to declare an ARO, it isn't a trooper.
Not quite: The Trigger Area of a Mine (whether it is a Camouflage or a Mine Marker) is the area within the radius of the Small Teardrop Template extended out from the edge of the base of the Mine. The Trigger Area excludes any areas in Total Cover from the Blast Focus of the Small Teardrop Template. Emphasis mine. This second condition makes the question as to whether a trooper provides total cover or not relevant (the answer appears to be no as troopers are not scenery and cannot provide total cover as a result).
Total cover impacts trigger area and trigger area is what blows up on people. So the statement is correct, trigger area is all that matters in this scenario.
Yes, well, that distinction has been suggested to not exist when resolving things like Sixth Sense through zero-v zones.