1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

FAQ 1.7 online

Discussion in 'News' started by Ben Kenobi, Jul 11, 2019.

  1. Melchior

    Melchior Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    190
    Thats what I meant hecaton. prone is cancelled as jumping is forbidden and short move is the most efficient. But you can 'forbid' them to jump or climb by deploying prone
     
  2. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    1,601
    I'm not sure I'd land that way. From that same quote of the prone rules it says, "...or where stated in the rules." Like in the Impetuous Rules, perhaps? I also don't read the Impetuous Rules as contradicting the "normal" way to cancel prone. It can certainly be read as an exception to that rule.
     
    Urobros likes this.
  3. Melchior

    Melchior Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    190
    stand up and short move cancels it. You're clearly allowed to do it so you have to
     
  4. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    But if stand up and jump would get you closer, you have to do that.
     
  5. Melchior

    Melchior Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    190
    as you only can stand up with a short move (stand up 4" move) your second skill can be idle as usual
     
  6. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,619
    Likes Received:
    1,723
    On how many topic are we discussing this?
     
  7. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,821
    Likes Received:
    4,667
    I saw it here and presented it as a rules question to bring attention to the issue.
     
  8. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    1,601
    This is what I'm questioning. The rule for canceling prone only with a short move clearly states that it can be overidden by other rules, and the Impetuous rules saying that you can must stand up at the beginning of a move, climb, or jump seem to fit that description.
     
  9. Gunmage

    Gunmage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2017
    Messages:
    269
    Likes Received:
    254
    I don't quite understand what are you saying here. My question is due to the fact that throwing smoke on a target is not the only way to get your line of sight to it disrupted by a Zero-Vis zone.

    Situation 1: I throw a smoke template down on Fusilier Angus. A Morlock walks up (staying out of smoke), and declares Intuitive Attack. This works, as per FAQ.
    Situation 2: I throw a smoke template next to Fusilier Angus(not covering him). A Morlock walks into the smoke, and declares Intuitive Attack. This doesn't work, as per FAQ (target isn't in marker state or inside the Zero-Vis zone).
    Situation 3: I throw a smoke template next to Fusilier Angus (not covering him). A Morlockt walks up, staying out of smoke, but in a way that Angus is completely obscured by smoke, and declares Intuitive Attack. This doesn't work, as per FAQ(target isn't in marker state or inside the Zero-Vis zone).

    In all three situations Morlock's line of sight is properly blocked by Zero-Vis zone, but only in one case the Intuitive Attack would be legal by the FAQ. On another hand, if instead of Angus the target was a Camo marker - in all three cases the attack would be legal. To me, that seems... weird. In a previous thread where I asked this very question the consensus seemed to be that the FAQ meant to explain that one cannot declare Intuitive Attack on an unobscured target to force a roll. Is that the correct understanding, or are the above situations the correct way to play?
     
    Ogid likes this.
  10. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    8,004
    Ugh... I don't think that's the intention of the FAQ. The original question came up because people trying to use Intuitive Attacks to use a favourably high WIP to Face to Face enemies they could clearly see*. Enemies to which LOF is blocked by smoke/ZVZ, whether they are in the ZVZ or not, should be eligible.

    * Ex: Sun Tze attempting to shoot a Myrmidon to prevent Dodge or Engage, WIP 17 Intuitive Attack > effective BS 9 at B2 BS Attack
     
    toadchild, colbrook and Ogid like this.
  11. Ogid

    Ogid Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2018
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    751
    I'd say those interactions weren't considered @Gunmage. For example, in Intuitive attack you have this:
    Which would cover the situations 2 and 3.
    That FAQ wanted to say "this ability requires having no LoF with the target" aka (you can't use this to force FtF rolls whenever you want). But with that wording messed the functionality of the ability. Good catch! We should bring this to the rules forum so this FAQ get reworded.
     
  12. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,558
    Likes Received:
    4,891
    It was brought up at the time but I don’t recall if @Arkhos94 was cataloguing open issues yet back then.

    https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/intuitive-attack-faq.28088/
     
  13. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    574
    I'm now maximal confused. I'm sorry if this is clear for the rest but does this mean if my Impetuous trooper is prone:

    a) he needs to always declare Move to stand up?
    b) If he needs to declare jump or climb (because the way is shorter) he additionally stands up in the same order? (in comparison to normal troopers who cannot do this)
     
  14. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,454
    Likes Received:
    8,004
    B)

    This is an exception to the normal rules. Just like how you're not allowed to move less than full available MOV values per order during an Impetuous order.
     
    ijw, Sabin76 and CabalTrainee like this.
  15. Jumara

    Jumara New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    4


    Forward observer Rule wiki has the label "BS Attack, Optional."
    linkteam bonus says : BS weapon

    now how does that work now? The crossing in red confuses me there.

     
  16. ThananRollice

    ThananRollice Your Friendly Neighborhood Locust

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    573
    Likes Received:
    1,314
    In my original post, I was talking about discover rolls, specifically. I'm aware of the Forward Observer change. I was mainly confused, because the FAQ that was crossed out included discover rolls.
     
  17. Jumara

    Jumara New Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2017
    Messages:
    9
    Likes Received:
    4
    I know that you talked about discover but if you read rules as raw you are not allowed to get the burst bonus for "Forward Observe" and my question is if it is given somewhere that you DO?
     
  18. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,281
    Likes Received:
    10,696
    See the first Effects bullet for Forward Observer:
    • The use of Forward Observer is a form of Attack with a BS Weapon that uses the WIP attribute, and instead of forcing the target to make an ARM Roll, forces him to enter the Targeted state.
     
    Jumara likes this.
  19. Alfy

    Alfy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2019
    Messages:
    88
    Likes Received:
    161
    I have a very basic, noob question concerning the LoF rules on the last page of the FAQ, specifically the second example: the part of the blue model that the green model could see, that is, within green's arc of fire, is behind the building. I understand the example follows the rules mentioned just above to the letter (that is, blue's model is at least partially within green's arc ignoring any scenery, AND you can trace a continuous line between the two models), but isn't that seriously counter-intuitive??
     
    emperorsaistone likes this.
  20. Abrilete

    Abrilete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,003
    Likes Received:
    2,666
    For me it is the opposite, I think it is easier that way: the troop is inside the arc and you can trace an unobstructed line between both models. Done.
    Consider that models represent active troopers scaning their surroundings, not static cameras with a fixed field of view.

    I always played that way.