Where does it say you aren't allowed to check LOF (aka look at the table)? The rules literally requires you to evaluate LOF for certain things to work and it would be really absurd if a unit doesn't stop being Engaged until after step 5 in the order after they killed their target.
Original N4 rules said: 1. The ARO declaration is valid in following sutuations: - Avtive trooper activates withinn LoF - Avtive trooper activates withinn ZoC 2. Order Execution Sequence - p.2 Drclaration of ARO: The Reactive player checks LoF to the active trooper.... For me it looks like you always had to check LoF before you could declare any ARO. Am I wrong?
First of all, the question was exactly about original n4 rules. And I rechecked faqs, in fact nothing major changed in way you check if you are allowed to declare aro at all. In 1.1.1 it just stated more clearly.
After the last FAQs , you can declare ARO BS attack Without LOF. It also changed the ZC ARO, you must be in ZC of the active trooper to be able to Declare ZC ARO. The way of declaring ARO's has changed a lot since the release of N4.
I think maybe this kind of questions or discussions scalate because we fail to read or understand what is writted. Of course it is good to bring this kind of "discrepancies" to the atention of CB, because of course, it could happens this was intentional or nothing at all. The thing, right now is sadly no matter when you have to check the "requisites" to use BS attack if your target is in Total Cover from you, because the Total Cover rule say, cristal clear, you can not to even declare the BS attack. The FAQs don't say a thing about Total Cover so the discussion about if the BS attack can or can't be declared is pointless. Right now you can't declare BS attack if you are in total cover (from the perspective of your target), because is what the rules said. If you still do it will be "an illegal declaration", even when you have LoF later because you couldn't declare it, what it will be resolve as "idle".
How? In fact, you don't get aro if you don't have LoF to active trooper. This thing didn't change. If you get aro for ZoC you still need LoF to declare a BS Attack as it said in total cover rule.
Is not the same to be able to Declare ARO and execute the ARO. You declare it and In the step 5 Resolution of the order expenditure you check if it's valid or not. If not valid you execute inaction instead.
The thing is that because the FAQ you can now declare BS without LoF, for example if the enemy moves behind smoke, is not exactly the same case as "in total cover". And not, that thing with total cover is the same from the very first day of N4, but until the FAQ it didn't look like an explanation would be needed.
Just one clarification, you cannot declare BS attack if the target is in total cover, maybe this is the misunderstanding we are having, @Qwerinaga
Smoke or another ZVZ is the only exeption caused by special equipment and explained by its rules. It doesn't affect common rules I think.
"FAQ 1.1.1 A Reactive Trooper are allowed to declare ARO in the following situations: • An enemy Trooper activates within its Line of Fire (LoF)." At step 2 you check if you can have an ARO. To have an ARO there must be LoF. So you have to check LoF at this point. No LoF = you are not allowed to declare ARO.
@Qwerinaga , If the active trooper is in ZC of the reactive trooper you can declare BS attack because of the second condition.
The FAQ intends to move LOF confirmation from Step 2 to step 5 - we got unofficial confirmation from HellLois in another rules thread. The problem is that the wording for Total Cover (and other places) did not get updated and still says "Declaration", while the FAQ (by removing the first entry) intends to move the confirmation if you have LOF or not to Resolution. RAW we have a problem with Total Cover thanks to that and CB will have to address that somehow. Either to confirm RAW as correct or to follow up on their stated intent for the FAQ change, clean up all mentions of Declaration in LOF rules and replace them with Resolution (or something along those lines).
