Trooper A has 6th sense lvl2. Enemy trooper B is behind the trooper A and doesn’t have partial cover. Trooper B activates, moves to touch a partial cover and then returns to his staring position. Trooper B declares BS attack while he was in partial cover. Trooper A declares a BS attack ARO. Does the trooper B benefit from partial cover in the f2f roll?
The "all at once" rule is still in effect, so the reactive model may choose to respond at any point in the active model's movement path. This is exactly the same as camouflage revealing, which is retroactive across the order.
Remember the example in the Move skill where a trooper activates, declares a move out of total cover, enters line of sight at a corner (with partial cover) and then returns to total cover. And the FAQ entry: When do you choose which point of the movement path the BS Attack (or any other similar Skill) is performed? In the Resolution step, when the players are about to measure distances. In case the order of declaration is important, the active player is the one who chooses who must declare it first. That means that if I declare my first Short Skill while in Cover, my opponents may declare their Attacks when this trooper is in Cover even if my second Short Skill is a movement that takes it out of that Cover? No. The opponents will declare the Skills that they are going to use, with all the corresponding details. But the Attacks are made at the best point of the movement for the one who declares the Attack. "Out of cover, move to cover and attack" is the same thing as "in cover, move outside of cover, attack". The answer isn't "Of course not'" simply because occasionally (usually because they want to put template down where you moved to), or they're being bribed , the other player may decide that what best suits their interests is shooting at you when you're in that position with cover. But most of the time, the best choice is when you're out of cover. In other words, when the text says "Allows the user to respond with a Face to Face Roll to Attacks (and only Attacks)..." that isn't trying to say that how the ARO works is changed. It's trying to say two things: - Being the target of an attack will generate an ARO - Facing is going to get ignored when resolving that ARO and the result will be face-to-face in the situations where it usually would be (BS Attack vs. BS Attack, etc.) I'm hoping CB chooses a better wording on their fourth try. :)
Just to clarify, this isn’t the same case as in “smoke grenade+melee vs 6th sense”, where the reactive trooper couldn’t declare a BS attack?
The smoke grenade scenario hinges on two facts: Sixth Sense is allowing an ARO ignoring facing, it doesn’t ignore the smoke CC Attacks through smoke don’t do the same thing that BS Attacks through smoke do. In other words, getting shot through smoke is what allows a trooper to react “seeing through” the smoke. Sixth Sense is just negating the associated penalty. I think you would get a different outcome from: Activate behind the sixth sense L2 trooper out of cover Declare a move that enters LoF in cover Sixth Sense trooper declares ARO Declare BS Attack from where the trooper can see you That probably wouldn’t trigger the expanded field of view clause in sixth sense.
