Post FAQ 1.1.1 it seems like there’s a split between players on how they see this rule implemented. RAW you can’t even declare vs. targets in Total Cover per the Cover rules, which isn’t a skill Requirement and therefore doesn’t get to wait until Resolution to be checked and validated. However, it seems like the design intent was “declare whatever you want and check at Resolution.” BS Attack is unique in that it’s the only Skill blocked entirely from declaration due to the core rules (as opposed to being blocked by equipment like hidden deployment, impersonation, or camouflage). There’s also some variance in whether or not visibility zones (mainly from smoke) count as terrain features—viz zones are in the terrain rules after all—for the purposes of granting Total Cover. I’ve heard it both ways. So how are you playing it in actual games for the time being?
I'm not sure if quoted statement is correct. It seems to me like the design intent is to not allow ZOC aro declaration with requirements not being met, preventing camo and HD from dropping out of the state by Idling from afar.
IIRC @HellLois said something very similar to that phrase when he posted a Facebook survey about it some months ago, but my memory's notoriously dodgy so I may be mistaken. That said, I've definitely seen/heard arguments made online from that perspective, whether it's correct or not. I'm kind of agnostic about it, I just want some clarity, and so far it seems like reactions to how to implement FAQ 1.1.1 have been decisively indecisive.
e) squeezing my eyes shut and hoping it doesn't come up until @ijw returns from whatever alternate dimension he's trapped in and saves the day.
I remember this and it shouldn't even be difficult to find via search option at WGC Infinity. Worth noting is that the poll was presented in a joke'ish manner even though it touched a very important topic. Anyhow - I'm eager to see how it all resolves.
True! And also! I'd take his post less seriously except "just for fun"* at the time, and then months later "but also maybe for real"* makes it more of a stretch. (*not actual quotes, just my impression of the tone involved)
Until somebody from CB tells us how to play I will stick with RAW, that is cannot even declare against Total Cver. AFAIK vis zones do not grant real Total Cover, only block LoF so RAW you could declare shoot in ZoC and wait for second skill to validate it.
I was thinking a lot lately about the "problem here". We use to think sometimes too much about the "rule intention" instead of what is really in the rulebook, or how it was redacted. And this is in some point the "sources of all evil" (some wording and redaction helps to that too). In this case I think we should take what is in the FAQ, without forget the "exception in Total Covert", because it could be something forget or simplier, something nobody in design team wants to change. And are all we who are made a lot of "overthinking" with that. The true is none of us can really know what is the pourpuse behind the FAQs, ¿include the Total Covert or not? It would not matter, because the FAQ don't say anything about that. So, for the moment, no AROs with LdT behind a wall, sadly :) A lot of people will be happy with that because they don't like the pretemptive ARO :) Best regards! @Amusedbymuse was faster than me :D
To me, "declare whatever you want" is (sort-of) the intent, but you can't even get to the point where you "declare" if you don't have a valid ARO - so ZoC pre-measuring alone prevents a distant HD unit from idling to appear, regardless of where the actual skill checks land. I answered "Checked at declaration AND viz zones don’t grant Total Cover at all" with the caveat that I assume 'checked at declaration' actually means what you said @wes-o-matic about the fact that you can't even declare, so nothing is actually being checked.
I'm going to be honest - I don't really understand the options on the poll. If you're not checking until resolution, why does it matter if zero viz gives total cover (or equivalent effect)? Can you maybe create a simple scenario and then spell out how each option would affect the outcome?
An enemy activates in your ZoC and out of LoF behind Total Cover: 1 - You can’t declare a BS Attack because Total Cover prevents declaration. This applies even if the enemy is in/behind a smoke ZVZ rather than a solid object like a wall, because you think smoke/ZVZ grants Total Cover. This sets up a conflict between the Total Cover rule blocking BS Attack declaration and the rule allowing you to fire back when shot through smoke. Effect: Active player can CC bait from inside smoke safely, smoke granting Total Cover allows it. Depending on how you resolve the rules conflict, you may be able to BS Attack bait from smoke if you have MSV, but that is suuper sketchy rules lawyering IMO. 2 - As above, but you think smoke/ZVZ doesn’t grant Total Cover so if the enemy is in smoke but not behind a building/wall/etc. then you can declare BS Attack in case they move out of smoke or shoot you with their second short skill. Effect: You can CC bait from behind a solid barrier, but not from inside/through smoke. BS Attack baiting from inside/through smoke doesn’t work at all. This appears to be the current RAW. 3 - Your reading of the FAQ is that you should be able to declare BS Attack even when the target is in Total Cover, and check at Resolution to see if the enemy has moved out of Total Cover and validated your attack (basically an enemy must remain in Total Cover for the whole Order to prevent BS Attack declarations entirely). You believe smoke/ZVZ counts as Total Cover, so as long as the enemy stays in smoke it doesn’t have to be behind a wall to prevent your attack from validating. This has the same rules conflict as option 1. Effect: Either baiting is impossible, or it only exists for BS Attacks by making return fire through smoke impossible, depending on which way the rules conflict is resolved. Template weapons have a weird interaction that requires either altering their rules or treating them as an exception to the concept of checking everything at resolution. I don’t expect anyone to actually vote for this reading but it’s in there for completeness. 4 - As 3, but you don’t think smoke/ZVZ grant Total Cover so there’s no conflict with the rule for shooting back through smoke in case the enemy declares a BS Attack at you (say, with MSV). Effect: Baiting is more or less impossible, although it may permit you to prevent template ARO declaration from around corners. Personally I think the correct reading is 2, but I’m not sure how other people view it. I think the main use case for reading 4 is to prevent CC baiting from around a nearby corner, because it allows you to declare what amounts to “If you come around the corner I will shoot you” ARO attacks, which are still illegal under options 1 and 2. Whether that would permit a declaration with a template weapon is a matter of conjecture about future FAQs.
If I got your options right, until new clarifications I'm playing option 3 as I believe total cover preventing declaration is an oversight. Actually, the point that convinces me more of this is: if total cover was an expection to the general rule of checking at resolution, the faqs would have repeated that instance on them as well, instead of letting the interaction be resolved through an indirect patching of old rules and new faqs.
Hm. How do you resolve the rules conflict that happens if smoke provides Total Cover? Say an MSV trooper is inside smoke, Idles, and shoots out at a non-MSV trooper that had declared BS Attack ARO. To the trooper outside smoke, the enemy has remained in Total Cover so the BS Attack ARO can’t be validated at resolution due to Total Cover banning BS Attacks. This means the MSV trooper is making a normal roll BS Attack while the trooper outside smoke idles—unless the rule permitting you to fire back at targets in smoke at -6 is treated as a specific exception to the general rule blocking BS Attacks against targets in Total Cover.
That was me writing the wrong number :P. So 4, as I do think zvz and total cover to be different game situations, the former allowing shooting back at -6. Still I would play both with check at resolution. Actually, if one applies RAI as explained @HellLois on the only clarifying post we had, I think most situations can be addressed quite well. The only big issue I see is templates and the option to place them starting from a position not yet occupied.
