Cover for friendly Trooper vs BS Attack into CC

Being the target of an attack seems consistently used throughout the rules to be decided by one simple thing - whether you're affected by an attack or not. Being the intended target doesn't actually seem to matter. I think when taken as a whole it's perfectly reasonable interpretation, and in fact highly likely it's also the intended interpretation, for the friendly trooper to apply Cover in this case. However, I'd say it's less clear whether it is cover gained from their own position or that of their opponent.

 

No, I disagree with that. Both your interpretation and that you actually checked my angle. You seem to have checked if it is possible to attack a friendly trooper and then draw an equivalence to targeting them, my angle is that the rules use the word "target" in equal measure as "being affected by". Regardless of which, here's a more complete walk through of my angle that doesn't rely on what words the rules seem to accidentally swap:

1.
A target is defined as "Game element capable of being targeted by Attacks, and effects from Skills or Equipment. "
As such, a target is not determined by whether someone is actively performing an action on the game element or not. Thus when an attack has a target, it is sufficient that the attack has an affect on something that is a target.

2.
The rules against attacking friendly or neutral troopers do not rely on the word "target", they rely on that an attack is "affecting" them and interacting with a melee combat is already puncturing a hole in that rule.

3.
Even when an effect actually does affect a friendly or neutral target, there are still examples where the effect is allowed to go through even if the target is not an enemy, such as MediKits and Smoke Grenades.

4.
And at this point I know I'm relying on MediKits a lot to provide examples, but consider also that even though the MediKit is a BS Attack targeting (bold emphasis from the rules) a friendly trooper, you still apply Partial Cover.

In conclusion.
(Adding this post script) Whether an attack is capable of affecting a target, you need to check whether the attack has a negative effect such as damage and whether there is a rule that would allow the effect to go through regardless. If it does, then the target is also a target of the attack and as such apply all conditions, protections, and consequences of being the target of that attack.
Since interacting with a melee in this case allows the effect of the attack to be passed on to a friendly trooper, that means the friendly trooper is a target affected by an attack and would gain the protections that cover would grant them.

So, I think the only real controversy is whether the friendly trooper's cover is decided by the intended target's cover status versus the shooting trooper or their own. I'm inclined to say that it is the intended target's cover which dictates the attack's DAM, (further post script edit:) but only because Cover seems determined once and I could be off on this one.

(Post script edit number 2:) I can see a small sliver of a chance that cover is denied on the grounds that the attack when passed on does not require LOF, but I think that's a very weak argument since the attack does in fact require LOF to the initial intended target.

 

That's debatable, I think.

The general rule comes from the BS Attack skill which states that it's used "to fire upon one or more enemies." No mention of either "target" or "affect," and the wording is generally vague and unhelpful here.

There is also the Attack label rule which states ""Remember that you cannot declare attacks against allies or Neutral elements." Despite the word "remember," this seems to be the clearest statement of the general rule, but again, it doesn't use either the words "target" or "affect."

The rules for "Template Weapons, and Allied and Neutral Troopers" state "Declaring Attacks against Allied or Neutral Troopers is not allowed, nor is it allowed to perform Attacks that may affect them, unless the Template lacks a Damage Attribute value and does not inflict States." This imposes a second restriction - in addition to not being allowed to declare attacks against allies, you're also not allowed to perform attacks which "may affect" allies. However, it's not clear whether the second restriction applies to all attacks, or only to attacks with template weapons. Arguably, if it applied to all attacks, it would prohibit shooting into cc entirely. (The counterargument would be that the specific rule allowing shooting into cc overrides the general rule prohibiting attacks that might affect allies).

The template weapons rules consistently refer to a Main Target and to other affected troopers. It's been consistently ruled that the other affected troopers are also targets, although the rules don't explicitly say that. It's not clear whether those rulings would also apply to an allied trooper that is hit by friendly fire due to a failed shot into cc.

I think it's an Unanswered Question.

 

Well, if the hit causes a saving roll and the saving roll fails, then "the most common consequence is the loss of one point from the target's Wounds/STR," (emphasis added). There's more places in the rules that rely on the word "target" than just Cover, and if a trooper is determined to not have Cover because they are not a target, that also can potentially have further consequences.

As such I think it's safe enough to conclude that you either have to determine that the unit hit by the attack is a target, or you need to show a rule that allows a non-target to be affected in ways that only targets are affected in.

The fact that the rules don't explicitly state that friendly or neutral units can't be intentionally targeted (except in the case of templates) is a bit of an upsetting discovery, though...

 

That's a good point. And specific ammo rules refer to what happens when the target fails its saving roll(s). Arguably this means that any time an attack causes a trooper to make a saving roll, that trooper is a target of the attack.

I think this is the best argument so far, and will adopt the provisional opinion that the cover rules do apply to the friendly in cc :-)

I think it would follow that you determine partial cover based on the friendly trooper, not the enemy who was fired at. The rule is "a target is in Partial Cover when they are in contact with a piece of scenery that partially obscures their Silhouette." If we're reasoning that the friendly trooper is a "target" then it should also be the "target" which we check whether its silhouette is partially obscured.

It does create a weird situation where the friendly could be in total cover but not partial cover. If the trooper is fully hidden behind a piece of scenery, but not in s contact with that piece of scenery. Seems a little counter-intuitive, but consistent with the wording of the rules. In fact troopers very often have total cover but not partial cover from one another - it just never matters because if you're in total cover, the enemy can't shoot at you so it doesn't matter that you don't have partial cover. The shooting-into-cc scenario is the only one I can think of where a trooper can hit an enemy who is in total cover without using a template.

 

Did you just counter-argue yourself? You were the one who brought up ammo as an argument after all...

It's a BS Attack. All MODs and rules applicable to BS Attacks are applicable to MediKits since it states that "If the user passes a BS Attack Roll, applying the corresponding MODs". From the FAQ:

Do Skills that let you perform a 'BS Attack Roll' (for example Intuitive Attack and Speculative Attack), or have the BS Attack Label, count as a BS Attack for MODs? For example if the Trooper has 'BS Attack (+1 Damage)' or 'BS Attack (AP)'. Yes.

 

Aye, I agree, but the wording for Total Cover has changed cleverly to simply disallow you from declaring that unit as a target if you use an attack that requires LOF. (At least my memory tells me it was less clever in N3 in that way)

Incidental damage like this will still be perfectly fine mechanically :)

 

Huh, interesting. Normal ammo doesn't use the "successful attack" language, but the other ammos do.

Of course, if a miss on the intended target/hit on friendly troop doesn't count as a "successful attack," then we wouldn't apply the special ammo effects at all. So if you have a Morlock locked in CC with my TAG, I can shoot at the Morlock with a missile launcher. If I hit, your Morlock takes three AP saves, but if I miss, my TAG only takes "a Saving Roll" per the BS Attack Into a Close Combat rule. The TAG won't suffer the effects of EXP ammo since those effects are only applied "after a successful attack."

Assuming the intention is in fact that the friendly trooper suffers the effects of the ammo he's hit with, I'd say we have to consider the hit to be a "successful attack" against the friendly even though I failed to hit my hoped-for target,

 

I'm sorry, but that seems to be you attempting to interpret what I write around your own interpretation. I'm simply saying that hitting* a target makes it the target of the BS Attack, and since shooting into CC attack makes you hit your own trooper you make it the target of the BS Attack - simple as that.

* I'm actually really annoyed that they use this particular word in a rare few cases as it is poorly defined what it actually means in the context of the rules rules

 

Because among other things, otherwise the saving roll you're forced to make doesn't have any effect...

 

Well, RAW you can't declare an attack "against" a friendly trooper. You explicitly can declare a template attack that "may effect" a friendly. We know that you can declare it because if you do, the attack gets cancelled. I think the only way those two provisions can be read together is: the Main Target of a template attack can't be a friendly. Additional targets (i.e. anyone else affected by the template) can be, but cancel the attack.

When shooting into cc with a non-template weapon, the cancellation clause for templates obviously doesn't apply. There's no general cancellation clause for attacks that may affect friendlies - only for templates that may affect friendlies. So you get to perform the shot even though it "may affect" a friendly in the sense that if you fail your roll, they will get hit.

I don't see any rule that would prevent the friendly trooper being considered the "target" of the Saving Roll in that scenario. You didn't declare the friendly as the target of your attack. I don't see a rule that prevents the friendly from now becoming a target when you fail your attack roll.

 

Target has already been defined, it doesn't have the meaning you say it does. When the trooper becomes a target has also been shown, you just don't want to discuss this nor the further complications of not having the trooper be a target. Simply saying "nuh huh" doesn't pass the burden of proof around, it's either in your corner at the moment or you need to communicate that you don't agree with the interpretation being possible and that we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'll jot this down in the unanswered questions as soon as I can get hold of a proper computer.