I wouldn't be surprised if it got changed to "active trooper" rather than "main target", that would seem the most reasonable at first glance.
Guys please this is an update, don't fight between yourselves, remember this is a multicultural and multilingual forum, our posters are from all over the world and expressions and humor may, and usually do not, match. I advice unless specifically stated by the poster to not assume ill intent.
I had two users directly tell me to either fuck off or that I have no brain today. Are you going to start banning people or is the red text all of the "moderation" we will ever see and this Forum is a free for all where we can freely insult people as we wish?
This, I would hope this becomes permanent again, not just "hey IJW I'm sick, can you post a reply for me" from HellLois.
Welcome back @ijw , and thanks for the interim fixes and update. Your help is appreciated, never mind the fools. Best wishes for good health to HellLois!
It's been my experience that Hellois is one of the more reasonable minds regarding rules and rules transitions.
Thanks a million IJW! Get well soon Hellois. Never forget that thousands of players happily play Infinity all the time thanks to CB! Love you lots!
Also keep in mind this interaction, (BS Attack, then move going around the template), which will also still exist with Interim. Really scared about the latest FAQ and Interim decision, the direction of the game seems to be fostering a convoluted mess around declaration order to try to render stuff useless, seems like a step in the wrong direction imo.
Does that mean that MSV Snipers in Core can't negate the -6 from being shot by an Albedo trooper or through WN ?
I assume 6S still trumps everything else when it comes to reacting against being shot through ZVZ zones. The point of specifically calling out MSV vs White Noise Zones I believe is just because there's no special version of a "Poor Visibility White Noise Zone". Originally people who were closely reading the FAQ concluded that treating a ZVZ as a PVZ when being shot through it ONLY applied to the ability to determine LoF (per the RAW in the FAQ). This would mean that if you got shot through smoke and were shooting back with MSV1, you would still be shooting back at -6 for shooting into a ZVZ rather than -3 for shooting into a PVZ. Some people, myself included, had assumed that the ZVZ functionally turned into a PVZ for all rules purposes if you were being targeted through it, though... which would have meant that an MSV1 trooper would be shooting back at -3 (since MSV1 reduces the -6 penalty for shooting through a PVZ to -3)... but that's technically not RAW. If we follow the logic of the rulings here, though, I think the intention of the rule is in fact that a ZVZ completely becomes a PVZ for the target of a BS attack through/from it, meaning that MSV1 gets a slight buff (rather than no improvement at all over a non-MSV trooper) when returning fire into/through a (smoke) ZVZ or when their target chooses to shoot back at them if they initiated the attack. But this would also create a weird circumstance where MSV2, for example, can shoot back at an Albedo trooper with no penalty when they become the target of an attack (even without having 6S), because there's no way currently to distinguish different types of PVZs and exclude MSV bonuses from one of them. IJW's ruling here closes that loophole specifically (or else the MSV2 trooper could just say "you're shooting from a PVZ and I ignore the MOD penalty from that)", but a trooper with 6th Sense can shoot back with no mod regardless (in the same way a previous FAQ clarified that an MSV1 trooper with 6S gets the full benefit of 6S). At least that's how I read it. Would love some clarification as well.
This is the reason I have been playing C1 for the past few months. As a long time (7+yrs) "casual" player/community leader, I've always stayed up on rules but was never driven to "master" the game. As of the previous FAQ and this one, I do not understand anything going on in the game anymore. Like, legit... I honestly don't even understand what the issue was to get to what the issue is now (and no one even bother to explain. I really don't care. I appreciate it though!). I miss just playing the game...
Super stoked to see good resolution to all of the touchy areas of the FAQ, and equally stoked to see IJW back. Nuada et al, can you guys please at least give it a week before you drive him away again? Cheers
Thanks for the response to these questions @ijw - it's really helpful and I'm glad to have you back! I have some concerns. Is it appropriate to post them here or to start a new thread for them? What would be best? I guess I'll post here and if I'm directed to take them elsewhere I'll do so? Honestly not sure what to do and don't want to be disrespectful. 1). The minelayer rules in Spanish say you MAY or CAN measure. In English they say you MUST measure. Which is correct? If you must measure then how do we protect the sanctity of hidden information, particularly with regards to minelayers in hidden deployment? Is it absolutely mandatory to measure? Is this an error? Are you supposed to measure privately? Or are we slowly rolling back hidden information? 2). The current template rules have a few significant issues that really upset the game. Regarding an attacker in ZoC but not LoF of a reactive template user. If the attacker chooses their firing position at resolution, but you have to place your ARO template immediately then what stops the attacker simply walking around your template and shooting you with no consequences? If the attacker has to pick the firing position at declaration then you'll at least know that they're going to be out of range and you can declare something else. But right now, due to position being declared at resolution, we're in a situation where the attacker can fake out a template and then use a longer angle to get an unopposed shot. Secondly with templates you still need to declare a main target. Again imagine a template user reacting in ZoC but not LoF. If I'm reacting in ZoC but not LoF vs a fireteam then I'll need to pick member 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5 as the main target when I place my pre-emptive template. Let's imagine i pick 1. If my opponent then moves members 2, 3, 4, and 5 through the template but NOT member 1, then the template is cancelled despite valid enemies walking right through it. This can happen with any pre-emptive BS Attack actually, not just templates. It also happens with peripherals. For example an uberfallkommando. I declare a reaction against one pupnik, and the opponent moves the other two into silhouette contact - I lose my ARO. Thanks for all the work so far. I really appreciate it. However the above questions I have are seriously concerning me at the moment, so would appreciate some clarification or errata. Thank you!
This. Excellently queried @HeadChime. The first question is a pressing issue but the second is what I think everyone is truly concerned with. We’d all appreciate any clarification that can be given here as it’s quite worrying.
I've added some further clarifications to the original post. The default is that you choose the position of the Short Skill in the Resolution step, but Template Weapons are still an exception to this. As per the FAQ, you must have LoF for Impact Templates when declaring the Skill. This means that they cannot be used as a pre-emptive declaration. It's too easy for an Active Trooper target to walk 'around' the centre of the template and therefore negate it. Yes. Direct Templates are not the optimal choice in all situations. Sixth Sense allows them to negate the -6 MOD. You must measure. Yes, it's an issue against Coordinated Orders and against Peripheral (Servant) and (Synchronized), and the rare times that a Peripheral (Control) controller joins in. For Fireteams it's a smaller issue, as only one of them can attack.
