Yeah right, visualizing stuff is equal talking down to people, got it. Learning so much today, amazing. No I don't see anything in the rules that prevents the target of a Skill getting changed (you can add new ones with templates, but there isn't a single line of rules of changing one of the initial targets). Not debating that at all. I'm saying it simply doesn't happen anywhere. BS Attack requirements warrant LOF towards the target. At the point of declaration the enemy trooper is the target without a doubt. When and where in the rules does the allied trooper also become a target? After you fail the BS Attack roll? The allied trooper takes the hit that failed to hit the target. Seriously, dude, drop it. You made your point and you can tell yourself whatever you need to think you got some moral high ground out of your side of the argument.(man I miss Comic Sans) But since you feel trolled by highlighting stuff with colours (Man, so sorry, I had no idea readability is so offensive) feel...ehm attacked? I assume by my "tone"? Spoiler Oh no, not my tone. In written words. Wow I never saw that coming. And that while I've had a blast trolling for the last 20 posts. Imagine my surprise when someone tells me I was only laughing my ass off because I'm angry inside. Thanks for letting me know Dr Freud. I couldn't have never figured it out without you! and need an agree to disagree to sleep at night.... I agree the rule interaction is shite, I agree that everyone in that CC should have Cover for gameplay's sake. And I'd rule it that way in a tournament. I don't agree that's the case with the current rules and am quite disappointed in the lack of substance in counterarguments, sorry
you left out the most important part. the target of the BS Attack reduces the Attack Damage by 3 for Saving Roll purposes, if the Roll was necessary. or reworded for our scenario Trooper B reduces the Attack Damage (of Trooper A) by 3 for Saving Roll purposes, if the Roll was necessary. Trooper B reduces the attack damage from Trooper A so Trooper A is attacking with a damage 10 combi. A missed attack into CC still requires a saving roll. where is the rules does it say Trooper B is reducing the damage only for himself?.
Ohhh I see. That's an interesting angle. If the target is in Partial Cover, Got that covered, target will always be in partial cover in our scenario the attacker will apply a -3 MOD to their BS Attack Roll same here and the target of the BS Attack reduces the Attack Damage by 3 you're suggesting the Target applies the MOD to the Attack Damage of the Attack itself for Saving Roll purposes, if the Roll was necessary. and someone ends up making a Saving Roll either way (unless we are a Jotum in Cover) with the reduced DAM baked into the Attack not relying on hitting anyone specific See that's real rules talk. Thanks for that, this is what I still show up for. So instead of "the target of the BS Attack reduces the Attack Damage (against itself)" we read it as "the target of the BS Attack reduces the Attack Damage of the Attack" Dissecting the BS Attack sequence for contradictions I came up empty. I'm happy to jump on your train of thought. Doesn't break anything and handles a lot easier.
You clearly have no interest in figuring out a common ground, no interest in coming to terms with how the rules are meant to work, and no interest in keeping a civil conversation. Hell, you barely even read the posts you try to respond. I don't think we've got much to gain from posting to each other. I've shown that it's reasonable that a unit engaged in CC is allowed Partial Cover versus hits from their own troopers, and I've shown it gets absurd if we consider the target of a skill to be hard-locked throughout. With counter-arguments being something between reiterating rules references I either already addressed or brought up myself to outright abuse, that is about as much as I can reasonably achieve. Just a shame I have to put him on ignore for a while, Teslarod usually has interesting and informative posts.
I definitely hope we get some rules interaction clarifications because I am not 100% this is intended. but that is how I read it.
And with that we conclude, and I would be happy if this antagonistic behavior does not repeat itself.
