CC attack allowed to be declared at a distance.

The reason why this is a problem is not its power level. The reason why it's a problem is that it negates a lot of defensive counterplay, and the defensive counterplay it negates is presented in the core rules as something that is normal. Why is there an example of someone declaring a Move + cc in the rulebook when it'd be entirely more effective to declare cc + Move? What this means is that the game presents itself like this trick doesn't exist, but it does, and this creates "gotcha" moments between new and experienced players that make the game hostile to learn.

 

How is adding silhouette contact to the list complicating things?

There are three things in the game you can know for a fact without measuring:
1. Do you have line of fire?
2. Do you have silhouette contact?
3. Do you have the skills, equipment, or states necessary to declare what you’re declaring?
The FAQ points out #1. #3 is taken as given. So what about #2?

For everything else, the rules assume you don’t know (because you can’t pre-measure, and holoes make even public information about the other troopers questionable) so you’re allowed to try. It sounds silly, but it makes the rules simpler because just the possibility of two players disagreeing over the requirements are known to be satisfied would be terrible. It’d be like having to post in the rules forum, and be on the winning side of the ensuing debate, in order to play the game. (Infinity, the game of action based combat that -requires- both players to take notes and present deductive reasoning proofs in order to defend their actions. )

 

This happened a lot with N3 as well. Lots of people assuming things worked just like N2, and being caught outa year in when they finally played a game against someone who had read the rules.

Edit: I was one of those people, btw

 

It depends on how close to the corner and the facing of the target, 4" is doable if its close enough 6 isnt that hard.
If your trying to cover both corners your probably screwd, if your coverig one coner more than the other you can just do it on the other corner.
And since you are alowed to measure your movement before you decide were to move its not like there's any risk of failing and ending up in a bad possition.

For me it doesn't really matter since no one in my area is going to play it that way

 

The two closest positions are about 3" apart (if on miniature were to move the shortest distance possible around a corner to where they are in a position they can't see). Since you need to angle the movement out and also get fully past the opponent, you lose so much movement that this should simply not be possible unless you're using a measuring technique that is technically cheating.

 

If it were clearly spelled out in the rulebook in a way that wasn't impermeable to new players it wouldn't be a problem.

 

Eh, reading the rules doesn't really help much because there's rules that are interpreted differently in each edition by the people making the rules calls, and there's rulings that directly contradict the N4 rules.

 

As far as I can tell this seems more like a case of the rules actually being different this edition than being "interpreted differently".

 

Nah. You can tell because in the battle report that CB put out for the MO release they don't use those tortured interpretations.

 

That video had nearly every rules interaction glossed over. I don't think you can reasonably come to that conclusion based on that video.

 

Just out of interest, would this have any impact on the ARO baiting rule.

Surely, if you declare a CC attack you would have to specify which model was the target of the attack? It feels like this should provoke an ARO (although I don't have much to back this up)

 

In N4 provoking ARO isn't so much a thing anymore. You either have a valid skill to declare as ARO or you don't, whether an ARO was provoked is immaterial.

That said, there are currently no enemy that can declare this without being in your Zone of Control (and CC Attack is incompatible with Stealth), so the chance/risk that an enemy will be declaring this without you being able to declare an ARO is very low and if you can't then your opponent is guaranteed to be out of range with their Move as well.

So yeah, you get to ARO. People want to declare BS Attack as ARO, however, which they can't since BS Attack requires LOF and LOF is checked immediately unlike all other skills that do not require LOF.

 

How do you figure? By my reckoning she stands to use this least of all CC troops since Guard requires LOF and is otherwise 4-4 MOV on a giant stonking base (which maneuvers around corners poorly).

 

Using Tactical Awareness to come out of HD springs to mind.

 

Ah, ok. I get you.

I'm sure this has been answered already but can the reactive player then declare CC attack as an ARO?

 

Yes. Absolutely, for all the reasons that the active trooper can.

 

They might be deathly afraid that using Guard would expose them to a direct template shot and possible injury.

 

We could do worse aro baiting in n3 and no one was up in arms about it. That was one of the main ways to use your melee troops if you didnt have access to things like smoke, camo, or impersonation. Back then all you could do was try and change facing at -3. At least now you can attack back or try and dodge away to create distance. This new way gives you more of a chance than in n3.