For the record, total cover is when LOF is blocked by terrain obscuring completely or sufficiently the targets silhouette that no LOF can be drawn, LOF is the line drawn from the 180 front arc to the targets silhouette. A sixth sense model can fire outside of its LOF but still needs to draw a line between the two models, total cover will not block its line and prevent it from firing, Jammer ignores the limitations of needing to draw the line of fire hence ignores the limitations total cover would provide.
And this is a problem of wording as both Jammer and SS2 have the same, while first one talks about "absolute" LoF, 2nd one is saying about "potential LoF if model have had or not MSV2/360 visor".
Well Jammer can shoot through friendlies and SS2 doesn't allow you to do that while both do state they ignore LoF.
@psychoticstorm That distinction you're pointing out isn't actually enumerated in the rules. Hell, for all I know Sixth Sense lets you shoot through walls.
Hecaton pretends he doesn't know. This is his point and ultimately it's valid: both Jammer and Sixth Sense need a rewrite. BUT it's playable if you use the rules clarification heirarchy most people use (FAQ>HellLois/Palanka>IJW>consensus). The best way to deal with this is go "hey this is odd, can we get it fixed" and then accept how it's actually played.
Agreed with confusion over Sixth Sense, that rule would definitely benefit from rewording. "Everybody knows" Sixth Sense doesn't let you shoot back at someone spec firing you over a building, but from what I've seen nobody can point to where in the rules it is disallowed without descending into a loop of circular logic. You have to cut the gordian knot and just play it as everyone else does. It leaves certain questions hanging, like how does smoke and SSL2 interact - if I'm in smoke and an enemy moves into base to base with me and attacks, can I shoot back with a normal roll ignoring the smoke because I don't need LoF? Or do I just hit back with a normal roll in combat? It plays well and doesn't seem to cause that many issues in games once you've got it, but it's really difficult to parse the text of the rule.
I always took it from the example in SSL1, which states "The Alguacil declares a BS Attack as the second Short Skill of his Order. Now that she is the target of an Attack, the Maakrep Tracker uses her Sixth Sense L1 to react as if she was facing towards the Alguacil. The Tracker chooses to declare a BS Attack so the Order is resolved with a Face to Face BS Roll between both soldiers." Emphasis mine. So in the spec fire over a building case, you can react as if you are facing the enemy, which does you a hill of beans worth of good. But if you are being shot in the back arc, it matters a lot.
The rules text uses "even without LoF to the attacker" as well as "regardless of the facing of the user" so we can gather these are two different things that Sixth Sense grants both of.
That is a natural deduction from reading only the text, but we forum regulars should know that the first line is what CB wrote and the last line is what IJW managed to get them to add and is actually what CB thought about when writing the first passage.
Is it? I don't know that for certain. Seriously. Sometimes I'm pretty confident about the intent of a rule, but here I'm not.
http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/51029-sixth-sense-smoke-and-range-band http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/49049-jamming-on-aro-from-inside-smoke I can't actually find the direct quote where IJW states that he tried to get them to fix Sixth Sense before printing, since this topic comes up so very often that it makes it difficult to search, but as you can see this has been discussed before.
