Yes, but not by much, it is easier to guess if the enemy is 0.3" away than wondering if that distance is 8.3" away. There might be some cases were the template will need to be placed and be a hairline out, but the majority of cases were the template was placed will not be necessary.
One thing we've all been assuming (or at least I have based on what I've been told) is that you still need to say the location/position that your BS attack is sourced from, as well place direct templates, upon declaration. The FAQ still has that cryptic line that says "all details at declaration" but only gives a couple of examples (it does mention White Noise templates but that may be an accidental hold-over from before when you couldn't pre-measure ZoC and there was an actual chance of placing it illegally). I'm sort-of wondering if everything would just work better if attack position and template placement just happened at resolution... or if that is actually what was intended. Seems like it would simplify things.
I don't think this would work and still provide the functionality that is (apparently) desired. Remember, being covered by a template is one of the ways you get an ARO and 2/3 templates are longer than 8"; one of them significantly so. Unless we now desire the ability to apply uncontested chain rifle shots from behind, this will not work.
Yeah it would affect who gets to dodge if a cluster of guys gets hit with a blast template as well. Maybe if 'affected by the template of' became 'targeted by' it would sort-of help, but I'm grasping here by trying to understand the intent. Back to the drawing board, I guess.
That's a strong disagree from me. The rules literally tell you that the templates are placed on declaration to give the active player a chance to avoid over-casualties from the template (and to grant AROs). It's one of few cases where the rules give a reason for why they are as they are. Oh also, by the same token as "cryptic" all details line, the FAQ also only gives a single exception to "all" and that's the position of the target which is chosen at resolution. Unless it's a template attack.
Yeah I think I'm just flat wrong about this. Serves me right for trying to make a nice clean flow-chart :-P
@Marduck I have to say "my apologies you were right"... From the page 46: COVERThe term Cover refers to all pieces of scenery that partially or completely obstruct LoF, thus preventing the attacker from making a clean BS Attack. EFFECTS►If the target is in Total Cover, the attacker may not declare a BS Attack with Weapons, Special Skills, or Equipment, that requires LoF. ►If the target is in Partial Cover, the attacker will apply a -3 MOD to their BS Attack Roll and the target of the BS Attack reduces the Attack Damage by 3 for Saving Roll purposes, if the Roll was necessary. I was shocked when I have read it in "my rules re-reading". I think the FAQs superseeded this, but I can`t be certain because nothing in the FAQs did a reference to total covert, and this case isn't a "requisite" is a rule that clearly and simply said: you don't have allow even to declare skills which requires LoF. So, still we will have the "issue". @HellLois will we see in a "future FAQ" changes in the definition of total covert to suits with the new ARO/order sequence intention?
Personally, I think it's an oversight and the intention is to treat total cover as any other effect that would prevent requirements, checking at resolution like all the others. I still have not decided whether I like more the game pre or post faqs, but one thing for sure: at least treating total cover like all other instances would bring a much more "clean and clear" rule, easier to understand and to explain. This is one of the few rules about writing rules: the fewer the sentences that include the words "except when" the better. Being able to describe everything as "you can declare anything you want, you will check at resolution if that's legal" would really help understanding all the unclear cases.
I think it is an oversight indeed, for the same reasons you pointed out. Would be nice if we have this confirmation coming from Corvus itself though.
I'm not so sure I agree. It's a lot easier to conceptualize spraying fire through a cloud of smoke because you have a reasonable suspicion that's where you are being fired at from. Doing so through a building is a bit harder to imagine. Not to justify it solely with conceptual arguments, but it's there.
I'll have to tend torward the oversight, because ZvZ has a line that says you can't declare BS attack if you're inside, but doesn't have that restriction if you're behind. I feel like everything that says "declare" was intented to be equivalent to "perform"
Apologies, I didn't read back far enough to get the full context of the statement. That certainly does seem like an oversight. I was simply commenting on the fact that there is a reasonable justification for some difference between no LoF due to Total Cover and no LoF due to ZVZ.
So I brought this one up as sort of a joke before in another thread but now I'm going to ask seriously because I'm not certain of anything anymore. Figure A (Active) and Figure B (Reactive) are on opposite sides of a smoke template, within 8" of one another - neither has MSV. Figure A declares a BS Attack at Figure B. Figure B does not have LoF but is both in ZoC and is the Target of an attack through smoke and thus can ARO. Figure B declares a BS Attack at Figure A as its ARO. So what happens? A) Prior to declaration, Figure A needed LoF to be able to declare a BS Attack, and thus was stopped from even declaring an attack B) At declaration, LoF is checked and the BS Attack fails because it doesn't meet the requirements, and it becomes an Idle. B can ARO due to being in ZoC but if he declares a BS Attack he will also Idle as his ARO because the requirements have not been met at declaration C) Both BS Attack Declarations can occur because legality is not checked until resolution. At resolution, Figure A can BS Attack because it is technically the target of an attack through smoke by Figure B. Conversely, Figure B's can BS Attack because he is the target of an attack through smoke by Figure A. Both BS Attacks, which would fail on their own, actually validate one-another because they fulfill the requirement of being targeted through smoke at resolution. Both attacks are -6. D) Figure B would never BS Attack when it could just declare any other ARO and burn Figure A's order. Likewise, Figure A would never risk this. This is a stupid scenario E) Something else... none of the above
I depends we consider that chosing a target as part of a declaration is enough to satisfy "Any Trooper who is the target of a BS Attack". The line would need the mention of "valid BS Attack" to be clear and prevent the interaction.
…I legit don’t know how to play the game at this point. Does the model’s position matter at the time a skill is declared? Is everyone going to play that you can now conjecturally shoot, ignoring the rule about total cover blocking declarations on the basis that if somehow during that Order the target leaves total cover, the declaration was retroactively legal? If anyone needs me, I’ll be painting models and awaiting the next FAQ or some kind of community consensus, I guess.
I'm with it too and I believe we are more than a few, probably more like legion :D I bring pretty much the same question in the "spanish side of the forum", but it is a little inactive right now. I trully don't know how it should work. Maybe if we try "to be" with the "rule intention", when we check the "conditions" they exists, but then, a lot of new interactions show up and several "rules" could be rewritten to avoid confusion.
