If i understand correctly, and the -MOD applies to everything the target does including shots against unrelated targets... do we finally have good candidates to guard objective marker ? We are used to being allowed to make a dash to grab an objective on WIP, nothing can prevent our one shot to do it. If we die in ARO it only means we can't have a second attempt. But now we could have: A Fusilier Hacker activates and Moves. A Ghulam Hacker AROs with Oblivion and a Barid Killer Hacker AROs with Trinity(-3). The Fusilier's second short skill is to interact with the console. The Barid applies a (-3) MOD to any roll the Fusilier makes in the order (including hacking the ghulam, dodging, and interacting with the objective). Or was the discussion going off-road from the hacking initial post ? The same if we have models with BS Attack (-MOD), but I don't recall any model having a MOD penalty attached to its BS Attack, was it an hypothetical situation or an actual unit ? Cause that unit would be neat to hinder dash-and-grab on objectives. Applying an unconditional MOD to all rolls the target makes when the owner declares a BS Attack.
Looks like it. From what I can see it works mechanically like Surprise Attack MODs. And unlike Surprise Attack you can use it in ARO, so would RAW work like you described.
Yeah, but so far the number of units capable of doing it also has a rather limited pool of enemies they can do it against. Barid won't be putting a Crocman FO at -3 in ARO any time soon. I don't doubt they'll have to FAQ this, though, if they intend on bringing BS Attack (-3) back, however.
Apologies if this is a tangent, but does CC(-6) really only apply if the owner of the skill declares a CC attack? Would it not apply if the owner was targeted by a CC attack but chose to shoot instead? The example that comes to mind is: Owner of CC(-6) moves into B2B with an enemy trooper as 1st skill Enemy trooper declares CC attack Second skill is BS attack CC vs. BS is F2F, but what mods should apply?
This is where we disagree. There is a rule specifically for how Skills with MODs in parentheses work. It applies to Trinity(-X) and CC Attack(-3), and would apply to BS Attack(-X) if that skill existed. What the rule says is that those MODs apply "to their users, or to those enemy Troopers acting against them." We disagree on what "acting against them" means in that rule. I think it means "performs a f2f roll with them." You think it means "perform any skill at all in the same order." Consequently, I think the rule does in fact refer to the need for a f2f roll, and you don't think so. I get that the phrase "f2f roll" isn't in the text, but the interpretation you propose isn't in the text either. The text is badly written, so we have to figure out which interpretation is most plausible.
I'm not interpreting anything, merely pointing out the absence of the term Face to Face, which is explicitly present anywhere else where relevant and also not mentioned as a limitation in the FAQ addressing this very rule, asking about when to apply it. The FAQ specifically states that these MODs simply apply to all targets you use the Skill/Weapon mentined in the "Skill (-X)" against. Following your line of argumentation a BS Weapon (+1B) would also not get the extra Burst if the resulting roll is not FTF. And I thorroughly disagree with your logic having legs to stand on The relevant FAQ is this one:
Not at all. That's the same argument put forward by @Mahtamori regarding BS Attack (Shock), and it doesn't hold up. The rule, to quote it yet again, is this: "MODs imposed by Skills, Special Skills, or pieces of Equipment may be applied to their users, or to those enemy Troopers acting against them." A (+1B) MOD, a (Shock) MOD, or for that matter a (+X) MOD are all MODS applied to the user of the skill. The only MOD applied to an enemy trooper is a (-X) MOD, and the rule very clearly says that a MOD is only applied to an enemy trooper that is "acting against" the user of the skill. Here is the interpretation you advanced: If that's not interpreting, I don't know what is. Which isn't a criticism. The wording of the rule is unclear and requires interpretation. Your interpretation could be correct. In my opinion it's the less plausible of the two possible interpretations, but either of us could be wrong. However, claiming to be reading the rule RAW without interpretation is just incorrect. We're both doing our best to interpret the rule.
To elaborate, you interpret a not otherwise definied piece of generic language to be a direct substitute for necessary game term used in all other applicable rules doing the same thing - Face to Face. I'm saying that doing so is interpretation and not doing so and simply taking it as broadly taking acting against as a descriptive notion with no explicit rule implication works out fine and makes sense, nullifying any need or base for making an interpretation feasible or necessary. If you need that wording adjusted because of reasons, okay, could absolutely be improved. 90 something % of the rules probably could. But I don't see where the rules aren't clear cut in this case. What I will absolutely refuse is to accept your reasoning for injecting Face to Face "meaning" without precedence or rule reference.
@Mahtamori , please add this one to the Unsolved Questions list. Proposed wording: When is an enemy trooper "acting against" a trooper for the purpose of applying (-X) MODs from skills?
Added. It's somewhat related to the question of ECM against secondary targets - which is where I had nestled this question a few months ago if memory isn't too busted. I prefer to keep the phrasing to what the question is about rather than the rules technicality we get stuck on - when possible.
