my oppponent is trying data scan on my zero KHD - i declare redrum as an ARO, is it an opposed roll ? - I declare bs attack as an ARO, is it an opposed roll ? My warcor says no to both (and says only reset create an opposed roll) but I think it’s yes because my ARO and data scan interract. Which one is it ?
Yes to both. "When two or more troops act at the same time to try to thwart each other's progress, Face to Face Rolls are used to determine which side acts faster and more effectively." "For actions to be resolved with a Face to Face Roll, both troops must affect each other directly. If either action does not affect the outcome of the other, use Normal Rolls instead."
I'm inclined to agree with the Warcor. Data Scan does not affect the Zero KHD and does not fulfil the requirements of being a Face to Face roll. Problem is that the rules never really specify what it means with "affects" and hints that there are actions that target a model without affecting them.
As @Mahtamori said the Datascan has no harm potential. So it is not affecting the target in terms of inflicting damage or a game state like targeted or isolated. The Warcor in question is right.
The definition of Data Scan: DATA SCAN REQUIREMENTS: Hacker. Objective: The Hacker must spend one Short Skill of the Order and succeed at one WIP Roll against any enemy model inside his Zone of Control. The target may declare a Reset ARO no matter which Type of Troop it is (LI, MI, HI...) and even if the Data Scan is performed outside his LOF. Data Scan isn’t hacking (see the periodic question about doing Data Scan through a repeater). It’s not defined as an attack. It’s not defined to actually do anything to the enemy model. Obviously, it has to be Face-to-Face vs. Reset otherwise there’d be no point in mentioning it. Where’s the petition to protest Corvus Belli’s continued use of anonymous unlabeled skills that don’t adequately describe their mechanics?
I think we are over thinking this the card says all it needs to say. You can reset... That's it. All the debate is trying to add context or make it something that fits rules in general when it is all specific to the card. Hacker can data scan Target can reset Hacker wins point given Target wins point not given Adding or debating it is just trying to get an advantage through a perceived loop hole . So not a face to face if you data scan an killer you get what you deserve. If you data scan in sight of someone be ready to die .
To me this is only here to allow you to perform reset without fullfilling the standard reset requirement (and still getting an aro) It says nothing of others aro and what they do With a few very specific exception (like berserk), in infinity if trooper A roll a dice to do anything that directly affect trooper B and trooper B shoot A in the face, their is an opposed roll. If someone try to datascan me and i blow his brain out he will fails Can @HellLois come and give us his rulling ?
Datascan targets the Zero and changes the state of the game. That's pretty much as good a definition of "does X affect Y" as is likely to exist. This isn't the same as pushing a button where it can't be FTF because the target of the action is the button not the Zero: so the Zero isn't directly affected. Reset only makes sense working in this context because it's a FTF. Reset needs to be specifically called out because Datascan isn't a Hack or a Comms Attack so wouldn't normally be prevented by Reset (which doesn't effect the Datascanner).
Nah, Y is the Zero. The roll is against the Zero (WIP roll against the Enemy model). The end result is Z which is the classified is completed and points are scored. But yes, if you see it as abstractly affecting the game rather than concretely affecting the Zero then it wouldn't be FTF. Reset wouldn't have any effect either, unless the Zero was Immobilised.
Let's make it simple, is there any situation in the whole game when - A rolls for a skill that target B - B rolls for a skill that target A (so no reset, dodge... but BS attack, hacking...) - no special skill preventing face to face (like berserk) is involved and the result is not a face to face roll ? To my best knowledge, there is no such situation in the whole game. So why would Data Scan create one ?
Smoke ammo targeting an MSV2 trooper, I think Targetless does not prevent targeting troopers, though the whole point of targeting an enemy trooper is otherwise to produce an effect on that trooper - which Data Scan does not do. The interesting part, though, is that the rules clearly do not presume that there is a relationship between targeted and affected.
That's a special rule (smoke "special dodge") situation, like Berserk, that cause the non-opposed roll (not generic rules): - smoke "special dodge" can create an opposed roll only if blocking LoF - MSV2 prevent smoke from blocking LoF My question still stand. I'm pretty sure no rule says that, am I wrong ? Not sure I understand that part, could you explain ?
You didn't write you were looking for evidence of a situation that's applicable over the vast majority of situations, you wrote you were looking for any interaction where a trooper is targeted by a skill but where it doesn't result in a face to face roll. And no, the special case is that a trooper without MSV2 would result in a Face to Face roll. That is the exception that Special Dodge produces. So, new example; Nimbus shot at a trooper. (Be it because the trooper is in Targeted State or because the shooter does not see the ground due to chest-high-wall) Could you restate your question using other words? What you quoted does not reference rules, it's a meta-discussion about the rules. Do you see the words "Targeted" at all in the big red box? You must explain how Data Scan directly affects the targeted trooper for it to be a Face to Face roll. I do not see Data Scan actually producing an effect on the enemy trooper, do until we have this clarified I would not presume to take anything like that for granted. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Face_to_Face_Rolls IMPORTANT! For actions to be resolved with a Face to Face Roll, both troops must affect each other directly. If either action does not affect the outcome of the other, use Normal Rolls instead.
Actually, the REAL exception in Smoke Ammo is that a FtF is produced even if the Smoke DOES NOT TARGET THE ENEMY but just blocks LoF.
Yes I did (put in bold): I'm looking for a simple case of 2 troopers targeting each other without specific skills/rules complicating the matter and creating specific interactions (like berserk or MSV2 + smoke) MSV2 and special dodge together create an exception (that prevent F2F) inside another exception (special dodge creating an exceptionnal F2F situation). Hardly the "no special skill" situation I'm looking for. This is a good example but I don't play nimbus so I don't have a clue on the answer . Can you develop : A shoot B with a gun. B shoot A with a nimbus. Is it face to face and why ? Ok, you made an interesting point here. So it all boil down to the definition of affect (which the rules do not give) : is it "harm" or "targeting". By the way we should take the whole phrasing including : "If either action does not affect the outcome of the other, use Normal Rolls instead." Because I'm pretty sure dying (or being Imm) before starting your data scan affectthe outcome of said data scan. My point of view is : every situation when troopers target each other is considered "affect" (unless special exception or combinaison of exception like berserk or smoke vs VMS2). Every "no-special rule situation" works like that. Your point of view is (don't hesitate to correct me) : trooper only affect each other if their action result in a change of status in the other (addition of a new state, wound...) From that I think we will have to wait for @HellLois to come and give us an opinion because I don't think debate can solve this (unless the spanish version is more clear ?)
Even though it leaves an effect on A and even though it's an attack unlike Smoke, it does not produce a Face to Face roll because Nimbus does not directly affect A. ...basically. It'd be very nice if CB would step in an explain what Face to Face means with "affect", or if they could clarify this in regards to ITS (which is basically where the problem comes from). Now; I do expect the answer to be that it'd be a face to face, but for me that's more of an errata than a clarification if that makes sense.