As per the title. We know from the FAQ that attacks that don't need LoF (Jammers etc) don't allow the enemy to apply vision mods or cover- is this what it means?
Does the Matrix rebooted? Didn't we (general, not you and me) have this discussion before? I assume we are speaking about the first bullet of the effects (red to highlight the relevant bit) Allows the user to respond with a Face to Face Roll to Attacks (and only Attacks) directed at him by an enemy inside his Zone of Control, even without LoF to the attacker and regardless the facing of the user. This means that if the model is attacked from his rear arc (and within ZoC, as per requirement) he can shot back. Nothing less, nothing more.
@tox except the recent FAQ ruling with respect to smoke seems to indicate that this phrase doesn't apply, somehow, or it's not clear.
Could you quote that relevant part? For those of us who are not up to date with what exact part you're referring to. :)
The bit on Sixth Sense and zero-vis zones: And something on Jammers that gives a justification that might apply:
Funny part is that in case of Jammer "no-LOF" allows you to shoot through walls/friendlies. While Sixth Sense L1 wording "ignore LoF" doesn't allow you to do that xD (it gives you only "sudo 360 visor").
The answer hasn't changed since last time you asked. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/new-faq-ruling-and-sixth-sense.28123/ It means that you get to ignore your facing if attacked.
"sudo" doesn't mean what you think it means: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudo Word you are looking for is "pseudo" : https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/pseudo
And in another context, ignoring LoF means you get to ignore vision mods and cover, which is nonsensical. Of course, the most likely explanation is that whoever published that FAQ question wasn't aware of what the text of Sixth Sense said.
"in the case of an attack that does not require LoF" is not the same as "Allows the user to respond with a Face to Face Roll to Attacks (and only Attacks) directed at him by an enemy outside his LoF and regardless the facing of the user"
As always, I think the wording could have been better, but my interpretation is merely that it lifts the restriction on facing.
If only there was some way to create a set of instructions to follow that didn't rely solely on wording and interpretation to make itself understood. /sarcasm
I don't see how the new FAQ can give anything other than the interpretation that SSL1/2 gives an effective 360-visor if attacked...
