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 PolĂ­tica de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

Intuitive Attack in plain sight

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Wyrmnax, Mar 16, 2018.

  1. Reece

    Reece EI Aspect
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    410
    Likes Received:
    389
    Has this been "ruled" on somewhere? The attachment from above no longer displays. What was the comment from @ijw?
     
  2. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    5,052
    I've always played it as Intuitive Attack only being legal if the target is obscured. However, it's not written into the requirements of the rule, so I see why people are uncertain. I think that this messes with the balance of DTWs in an undesirable way, so I will continue to play it as I have, and will enforce that method in events I run.
     
    Reece and Robock like this.
  3. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    4,654
    How? It forces a FtF roll of WIP vs BS, for certain, but it takes a Complete Order (so only for Active Turn). Sure, I agree the Muttas are an extreme and obvious example with them bieng 5 points of troop with WIP 15, but even so :S

    Also take into account that only certain troops with a syncronized model can do both a Intuitive (like the Deva + Devabot, thanks to both having weapons able to do so)
     
  4. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    2,302
    Likes Received:
    3,065
    The answer IJW gave me when I asked on facebook was that nothing in the requirements or effects of "Intuitive attack" say you explicitly can attack non-marker/Z-vis troopers
     
    Reece and FatherKnowsBest like this.
  5. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    4,473
    Likes Received:
    5,328
    Agree. But the same 'yeah, nah' that prevents me co-ordinating a Surprise Shot Redrum with a BS Attack with a Panzerfaust, Boosting Koalas through the Trigger Area of any potential mines anywhere on the table, or any number of other absurd technically RAW interactions applies.
     
  6. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,256
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    The universal critical hit causes an automatic wound rule was a mistake and is unnecessary since all ammo specify what happens on crits anyway (also, for added hilarity, if you read it like a computer would one or two of the special ammo causes 2 automatic wounds on crits instead of the intended 1)
     
    xagroth, Barrogh and inane.imp like this.
  7. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,954
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Moving that passage about "state making it untouchable to regular BS Attacks" into requirements would be great.
     
  8. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    This is another example of where the words chosen and their interpretation should not be an issue. Proper structure within the rules would eliminate this discussion altogether. So my opinion that the word 'allows', is not mandatory, shouldn't matter.

    Are the "requirements" for making an intuitive attack and it's "effects" not two separate things?
    If the target of intuitive attack must be ineligible from a BS attack shouldn't that be listed under the requirements heading? Otherwise, how do we decide what effects are mandatory? Do we decide based on everyone's interpretation of words like 'allows'?
    Who's to say both conditions above shouldn't need to be met then? Is 'allows' and 'may' that different? Going to the dentist 'requires' me to pay. The appointment 'allows' me to take a lolipop on the way out. I 'may also' take a toothbrush. Yet, I can go to the dentist without taking either, they are simply 'effects' of going to the dentist. The assistant sure as heck doesn't say that by coming to the dentist I'm 'allowed' to pay them.

    Regardless of the actual ruling and game implications... it makes zero sense that a trooper can't perform a specific type of attack because they can actually see the enemy trooper. But if they kinda maybe can't see them they can make the attack.

    If two troopers are 3" apart hiding behind a building I can spec fire and hit both but if the building is not there I lose that option and can only hit one. If a trooper is hidden in marker state I can take a risk spraying the area with my template but if i see them I can't. How does that make any sense? Losing sight of a trooper should not grant me access to new forms of attack.
     
  9. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    525
    you are not allowed to make a DTW attack that hits nothing (or a BS Attack that targets nothing). You are making a WIP check similar to that of a discovery to spray an area where you think there is someone but you don't see anyone (because of hiding or because of smoke). When you do see them, of course you can attack ! you simply make an attack that doesn't require any BS roll but is auto-hit ! that is awesome !
     
    colbrook likes this.
  10. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I think you missed my point or perhaps i wasn't clear enough. It doesn't matter which attack is more effective or beneficial.

    EDIT: It's about how the rules open up the question of whether or not you can even make the attack. And to a lesser extent... how much sense it makes to allow me to perform an action only when I can't see the target. What changes once I can see them? Why can't I toss a grenade between two troopers in my LoF to potentially hit them both, but when I can't see them it's permitted?
     
    #30 Ginrei, May 24, 2018
    Last edited: May 24, 2018
  11. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    11,012
    What Effect in the Intuitive Attack rules is affecting the visible trooper?
     
    FatherKnowsBest likes this.
  12. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    4,654
    All. "Allows the user to make one single BS Attack against an enemy in a state that would normally make him ineligible as target of Attack without previous Discovery, such as Camouflaged, TO Camouflaged, etc." means "you can do something you normally could not".

    For the Intuitive Attack to not be able to be performed against non-markers, it should list "the primary target of this attack must be a model in marker state" or something to that effect (allowing to attack camoed gear like mines, but not state markers like tinbots) on the Requirements part of the box.

    I hope that the boxes get a review so all the Requirements are actually on that part of the box, with those in the Effects being additionally enablers, or something to that effect.
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  13. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,256
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    I shifted emphasis.

    Please note that the skill doesn't have anything that allows it to make an attack against an enemy that would normally be targetable.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  14. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    11,012
    See mahtamori's post.

    It gives you a specific list of targets to attack. There is no bullet that lets you use Intuitive Attack to target a visible non-marker trooper.
     
  15. Tom McTrouble

    Tom McTrouble Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2018
    Messages:
    545
    Likes Received:
    536
    So extending this further, if a visible trooper and a camo marker are lined up in front of you, and you declare an intuitive attack against the camo marker (placing the template to also hit the visible trooper), that would be a face to face against the visible trooper in that situation right?
     
  16. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,401
    Likes Received:
    11,012
  17. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    525
    That is a different question than making DTW attacks rolling WIP so that you can oppose the enemy ARO. You are always allowed* to Spec Fire a grenade even if you see the target. The blue box even says "You can use Speculative Fire to attack enemy troopers with ODD who are behind a Partial Cover. " The same would be true then, to use an Entire Order to spec fire a grenade hitting two visible models near each other.

    *Although I'm not sure why (other than the blue box rule), as the effect say "The user may make a single BS Attack against a target outside his LoF."
     
  18. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    But intuitive attack does not give you a list of the only targets you can use the action against. Such a list should be under the requirements heading for starters. Not under what happens AFTER you've met the requirements to use an action. Even if i accept that further requirements to use an action can be found under the actions effects... the vocabulary doesn't support your conclusions. Do I need to bust out the dictionary for words like "allow" and "required"? Permission to do something does not equal obliged or mandatory. I'm allowed to choose a different avatar on these forums, not required.

    SPECULATIVE FIRE ENTIRE ORDER
    Attack.
    REQUIREMENTS
    The user must employ a BS Weapon with the Speculative Fire Trait.

    EFFECTS
    • The user may make a single BS Attack against a target outside his LoF.

    Based on the conclusions being made about intuitive attack... I may only declare spec fire on targets outside my LoF. It doesn't say I may attack targets in my LoF. Sounds like the same logic to me. How does one pick and choose which effects are mandatory. The blue box doesn't actually mention LoF at all.
     
    xagroth likes this.
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,256
    Likes Received:
    9,047
    The premise of writing game rules is that you write what you're allowed to do under the rule set. Writing what you're not allowed to do is for clarification only, unless you're withdrawing a previous permission.

    Granted, it would probably have been better to put it in requirements that the target must be either in a state where it can't be normally attacked or obscured by a zero visibility zone.
     
  20. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    793
    Likes Received:
    525
    What part of "Partial Cover" in that blue box did you miss ? Partial Cover means you can see, means you have LoF. No LoF would be Full Cover not Partial Cover.

    On that I agree. Both skill are similarly written. But Spec Fire blue box has an example that goes against "Can only target models behind Full Cover or with LoF blocked by smoke".
     
    xagroth likes this.