It is said "The user may ignore the negative MOD to BS imposed by the target's Partial Cover." So target still gets -3 Damage mod? The wording...
Thanks again! P.S. I really like this game, but sometimes it confuses me.
You understood the problem very well. It's still hard for us to stop thinking that way. But we are working on it. A new question has arisen...
It affects because it cancels... but it cancels because it affets... its a circle. If we consider that it not afects, it won't cancel. Strange...
Please read the question carefully. My opponent in our local community invokes this very rule and says that "e/m does not affect the outcome of BS...
Probably not a new question, but a quick search on the forum turned up nothing. Trooper A atacks trooper B with his combi rifle. Trooper B reacts...
And again, I totaly agree... but that doesn't make our situation easier. On the table, the specialist revived in this way was able to fulfill...
I agree. But we don't have clear definition at all. Also the context in this case doesn't give as a clue... Which brings us back to the beginning...
:thinking_face: Term "Survivers" mentioned in rule book for about 40 times. And each time it means "non-null"(exept one we are talking about)....
Victory Points The combined Cost of the player's Troopers who are in a non-Null state. Unconscious - Null So rules clearly say that Unconscious...
Yes. But from this quote, one can single out the definition of "survivor" as a trooper not in a null state. And the rules don't give us any other...
I want to agree with you. But each time I see "survivers" in rules - unconscious models don't count. [ATTACH] I have same duscussion in our local...
I see your logic. But if we look at Reteat conditions, we see that they also operate term "surviving", and unconscious models don't count. "At...
Does trooper in unconscious get "Retreat!" token at the beginning of a player's Active Turn when his army enters a state of "Retreat!"? Or if he...
But it cold be avoided by a dodge. So mine effect applies at the end of an order. Deactivator does not have the ability to avoid an attack. And...
https://downloads.corvusbelli.com/infinity/rules/rule.. page 7. [IMG] I think this should end the dispute.
Was it about silhouette and laser pointer?
Well. I can see a noticeable difference between looking down from my height and aiming a laser pointer through a silhouette....
Isn't it a "LOF check" which is forbiden a this step?
Looking at Order Expenditure Sequence I don't see any "LOF check" before step 2... isn't that an argument? Unfortunately, I can’t find what...
