Just clarifying with regards to the recent FAQ 1.1.1, is it possible to declare BS attack AROs against troopers around corners (I.e. in total cover) speculatively, noting the following: "If the target is in Total Cover, the attacker may not declare a BS Attack with Weapons, Special Skills, or Equipment, that requires LoF" (https://infinitythewiki.com/Ballistic_Skills) Obviously this would not apply to BS attacking vs smoke shooters as they don't have total cover, they're just obscured by a zero visibility zone.
No, the FAQ didn't change anything (compared to provisional answers) else except forbade Dodge AROs against repeater hacking attacks. Oddly enough, Zero Visibility Zone allows troopers to forfeit the LoF requirement when declaring BS attacks. So you can sometimes declare BS attacks without LoF. EDIT - quoted the wrong faq
Minor point of order, literally every person I have heard discussing this is ecstatic at the idea of the Ko Dali + Speculo smoke shooting combo being errata'd out of the game.
@RobertShepherd I now understand what you are doing. Agree 100% with your reasoning. Obviosly smoke stomping in ZoC no longer works. Ko-Dali goes from hero to zero.
Ain't FAQ change in regards of ZOC now being premeasured, thus distinction between LOF ARO requirements and ZOC ARO requirements became obsolete?
Not in this case, no. This isn't a question about requirements, it's a question about being able to declare the skill in the first place.
From BS Attack common skill requirements: "Be able to draw Line of Fire (LoF) to the target of the LoF." In my book this means no LoF, no way to declare. LoF is open info - it either is there, or no so you can't really guess if you have it.
Nothing in the rules specifies that you need to meet the requirement to declare a skill, they just removed the only part that did. I thought they went with pre-measuring to simplify the flow, but what do I know, there is no changelog or patchnotes!
This is old ground, but with the multiple recent FAQ changes, maybe needs a rehash. In the original N4 rules, any trooper could always declare an ARO (unless the active trooper was using Stealth), even if its Requirements weren't met. Requirements weren't checked until Resolution. So you could ARO BS Attack even if you didn't have LoF. After the active trooper's second skill, you would then check the Requirements (which might now be met, for example if the active trooper moved into LoF with its second skill). ijw then ruled that LoF Requirements were an exception to this rule - you could only declare BS Attack if you had LoF to the active trooper at the time of declaration. ijw's ruling was then confirmed in FAQ 1.0 which said that LoF Requirements are checked at declaration. Then, FAQ 1.1 changed the way that AROs are declared. You can now only declare an ARO (any ARO) if you have LoF or ZoC of the active trooper. However, the new FAQ entry doesn't change how Requirements are checked. It only limits when AROs can be declared, not which AROs can be declared. Then, FAQ 1.1.1 removed the entry from FAQ 1.0 which had said that LoF Requirements were checked at declaration. Presumably, this also cancelled ijw's ruling which had said the same thing. Consequently, ARO declaration now happens per the FAQ, but Requirements are checked per the original rules since the current version of the FAQ doesn't alter those Requirements. So, currently if you have no ZoC or LoF to the active trooper, you can't declare an ARO (FAQ), but if you have ZoC but no LoF, you can declare any ARO you want, and the Requirements aren't checked until Resolution (base rules).
I'm still amazed how unprecedented these changes are in FAQ. Normally, you would get rulings from discussions or bizarre scenarios but re-writing entire section of Order Expenditure Sequences, as well as several Short-Skills is no something I've ever seen before. I mean, we went through entire N3 without CB EVER adressing/changing ZoC/Smoke baiting and now CB just kills the concept in one update, as well as getting rid of "If My CrAzY kOaLa Is HyPoThEtIcAlLy iN rAnGe iT dEclArEs BoOsT!". I like this, this really gives me optimism regarding their promise of having a living digital ruleset that isn't riggid.
Trooper A is within 8" of Trooper B Situation 1 Trooper A Move in Total Cover Trooper B cannot pre-emptively declare BS Attack as they are in Total Cover, so they declare Dodge Trooper A Move in BtB with Trooper B Situation 2 Trooper A Move while inside of a Smoke Trooper B pre-emptively declares a BS Attack Trooper A Move into BtB (edit: exiting smoke) and gets blasted Is this interaction intended?
I think situation 2 is intended, but also avoidable by declaring dodge, as they won’t have LoF at the point of checking at the start of resolution.
https://infinitythewiki.com/Ballistic_Skills#Cover " Cover 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." Okay, cause I'm dumb... Cover gives it's Cover bonuses based upon the angles of Interaction between two or more models. If from Unit B, Unit A is in Cover cause there is a piece of physical terrain between them that A is touching... but, A is NOT in Cover to Unit C cause there is no physical piece of terrain in-between them. In order to determine what is Cover from one model to the next, I would figure you need LoF from both models. The Obstruction of the LoF is what causes the intervening terrain to gain the Cover rule/trait (whatever techno jargon). So if LoF is needed to determine this Cover clause wouldn't you also need LoF to determine who is in Total Cover from an Attack? I ask cause if that's the case, and you do not check LoF till Step 5, wouldn't that mean you can still declare a BS Attack at someone out of ZoC and LoF? The way I am reading the FAQ is that, the requirement to just Declare a Skill/ARO is not really checked till Step 5. Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Would love to know why Total Cover is checked at declaration... I legit am confused... Thanks in advance!
I highly doubt pre-emptive BS Attack were intended. Pretty sure the impact of 1.1.1 change was not really thought through and will receive another update. I suggested allowed any ARO to be pre-emptive a while back, and IJW was pretty clear that it would require a serious rewrite of the rule to be functional with the current ruleset (rewrite that isn't present in 1.1 or 1.1.1) https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/aro-rules-suggestion.39466/page-2
You don't check line of fire at step 5, you check requirements. Things like base contact or line of fire can be asked of you to check outside the order expenditure sequence.
Not that I doubt or am arguing against you but just so I can have the correct knowledge too, where is this explained? Sorry, I honestly do not know where this is at...
