So, you are in your active turn, walk into smoke cloud and someone (with MSV2) is shooting at you as an ARO. You yourself have no visor at all. Can you shoot back at enemy (who is AROing you) with usual modifier (-6) ? It's kinda reversed situation when active MSV2 guy shoots enemy through smoke (and victim can shoot back with -6 or dodge with no penalty).
From Zero Visibility Zone rules: Any trooper who is the target of a BS Attack into or out of a Zero Visibility Zone, or whose LoF traverses a Zero Visibility Zone, may respond to the attacker even without LoF, provided the trooper is facing the attacker. However, without a clear LoF to his target, the trooper's ARO (or second Short Skill of his Order in Active Turn) options are reduced to BS Attack with a -6 MOD or Dodgewithout the MOD. So yes, because it is "ARO (or second Short Skill of his Order in Active Turn)"
A question I wanted to ask for a while, seems like a good place to do it. So here in Infinity we don't distinguish between LoS and LoF. I'm reading a rule above and it seems I can come up with an example where it matters. 1. So we have a Ghazi that stands behind a wall in a smoke cloud, using his jammer which is a BS attack that doesn't require LoF. Can you shoot him back through the wall if you face him, using the rule above as an explicit permission? 2. What if scenario is the same, but nobody stands in a cloud, but there is still smoke between Ghazi and another trooper (let's assume it still blocks any straight line between them)? 3. What if the smoke is only on Ghazi's side, but not touching him? Can we say that another trooper's LoF still "traverses ZVZ", or is it stopped by the wall before that in this scenario? 4. Assuming you can make such a trick shot: Same situation, but smoke only covers some lines between troopers, can you choose to draw this pseudo-LoF through smoke to be able to shoot back? And does Ghazi get cover if he gets shot like that?
Differentiating between line of sight and line of fire would make the rules much neater, though. It would be nice not to have to go through the rather complex logical reasoning thats required to handle f.ex. sixth sense vs speculative fire.
I remember that recent (more or less) thread on that. Some people may have developed PTSD over that, I guess. Would be neat if those special cases mentioned Total Cover outright.
