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. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    While I think that Intuitive attack is not meant to allow you to force a Face to Face with a DTW against a plainly visible trooper, the comparison drawn between that and Speculative is meaningful. This strikes me as another candidate for needing some cleanup/rules errata to more properly reflect the intended ruleset, if we are to assume that Intuitive has certain restrictions while Speculative does not.
     
  2. Zewrath

    Zewrath Nordic Master

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,477
    Likes Received:
    2,219
    Although, to be fair. Depending on how you read into it, if you place the center of the blast behind the partial cover of the target you're shooting against, then technically speaking, you do not have LOF as you draw LOF from your trooper and the point you're shooting at. This is never the case with the DTW. :)
     
  3. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,412
    Likes Received:
    11,051
    That's a very selective quote. If you read on, the following bullet points explicitly let you fire on a target whether or not you have LoF to them.

    Effects 2 & 3:
    • If the user employs a BS Weapon with the Circular Impact Template Trait, this Skill allows him to place the center of the Circular Template somewhere other than over the target of the attack. However, the target must be inside the Area of Effect of the Circular Template.
    • In that case, both the target of the attack and the point of impact may be chosen irrespective of LoF.
    My emphasis. Intuitive Attack has no equivalent wording.
     
    Robock likes this.
  4. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    But it would be more clear if the part about intuitive attack targeting a marker (not a revealed trooper), was actually part of the requirements, not buried in the effects, don't you agree?
     
    ijw and Ginrei like this.
  5. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Hmm... i think i'm looking at the BS attack separately from the bullet allowing me to attack ineligible targets. But I must keep them together. Which means if i choose not to BS attack an ineligible target I can't make a BS attack of any kind. So i'm left with taking no actions at all.

    You're correct, I wanted to avoid that line because it's not clear imo. What exactly is irrespective referring to? To me it's simply saying I don't need to check if I have LoF.

    EDIT: LoF is a condition for a BS attack and this is telling me I can disregard it. It's not telling me I can target those in LoF or not. The first bullet point should still be relevant imo.
     
    #45 Ginrei, May 24, 2018
    Last edited: May 24, 2018
  6. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    That line, at least, is quite clear. It explicitly states that whether or not LoF exists has no bearing your choice of target or impact point.
     
  7. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,412
    Likes Received:
    11,051
    Precisely. Especially given that it's then reinforced in the rest of the text.
     
  8. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Isn't that exactly the point... it has no bearing. Which means you must follow the other bullet points and they say the target must be outside LoF.
     
  9. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    Why does the first bullet point even exist then? Do we have lots of non template spec fire weapons that need to be prevented from targeting the ground outside our LoF or things within our LoF?
     
  10. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    That is a rather twisted path of logic to follow.
     
    FatherKnowsBest and colbrook like this.
  11. Fyeya

    Fyeya Yakitori over a light flamethrower

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2018
    Messages:
    405
    Likes Received:
    699
    I think the takeaway here is that there should be some FAQ/Cleanup of those two rules. They're really a lot messier than they should be.
     
  12. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    4,654
    It's also a premise that the wordings, format and language will be used consistently across the whole collection of rules. Infinity does not do that, starting with the "FAQ's" being instead disguised patches.

    Funnily enough, there are MORE reasons to block that one, since it renders miniatures with visibility, camo, cover, etc... modifiers totally irrelevant, turning grenades of any kind infinitely better than anything in the ZoC range, at least for those units who would have a target number of 5 or less, even with 2-3 Burst value...

    Been there, done that, achieved nothing. I'm not trying to reopen the discussion, but it would be nice if CB were to fix all orders into a coherent and definite format, indicating also that as long as you fulfill the Requirements you can apply the Effects.
     
  13. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,303
    Likes Received:
    9,132
    You're only technically correct, but since it's impossible to write rules for a board game without writing permissively, you're setting up a straw man.
     
  14. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    4,654
    Not asking for a blank cheque here. Just for consistency on the formatting: If an order has Requirements, then those requirements have to be on the Requirements part of the box describing the order. Just that. Adding effects that only trigger if a further condition shows is ok, but in this precise case that doesn't happen: all the effects text of Intuitive attack are irrelevant and useless without the first point, so if it was a requirement it should be in that part of the box, instead of the effects.

    Also, cleaning non-used stuff would be great, not to mention consolidating stuff like how the pg 147 of the rulebooks enables you to rerroll engineering tests on Ghost: Mnemonica troops ("Reroll a failed WIP Roll when trying to use the Special Skill Engineer on a troop with the Ghost Special Skill. This reroll does not provide a new ARO to the enemy."), while Ghost:Mnemonica is one of the only two Ghost variations (the other is Ghost: Jumper N1... that grants Remote Presence, but for some reason the only applicable rule of that one would be Courage, so it's quite the clutter) that do not specify you can rerroll tests by spending a command token.

    Remember that, permissively, you can apply a hacker's Sixth Sense across their Repeater field because they "ARO react with hacking programs to the enemy as if they were in their ZoC"... Kinda funny how does make anything hackable that enters a repeater allied to a, let's say, Umbra H+ linked with 4 Unidrons to eat the hacking attempt without being able to Reset.

    My intention is not to start strawman arguments, but point that the rulebook needs a revision, just one not made by CB, which prefer to copy and then modify rather than write from scratch.
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  15. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    What are you talking about? Choosing to use a speculative shot instead of firing directly at someone with both Cover and TO Camo isn't worth sacrificing Burst...
     
  16. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    4,654
    Sure thing, it's an extreme example, but we have the Ryuken-9 or the SMG Oniwaban in Suppresive Fire (-12 to incoming stuff), and let's say Hector (PH 14, BS 14, Xvisor, plasma rifle, stun grenades) in ZoC. So B3 at 5 or B1 at 14...
     
  17. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    You mean B1 at 8, because Speculative has a baked in -6 and -3 for Face to Face with a unit in Suppression Fire... Yes, if you're shooting at someone that is shooting back at you, it would still be a Face to Face roll, Speculative or not.
     
  18. xagroth

    xagroth Mournful Echo

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    5,734
    Likes Received:
    4,654
    Yup, I forgot the -6 from Speculative. Damn coffe reserves having only Decaf left -.-U
     
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,303
    Likes Received:
    9,132
    Speculative Fire for Hector using Stun Grenades would be PH 14 (base stat) -3 (Suppression Fire) +3 (range) -6 (Speculative Fire) = Attr 8 B1. 11 if you shoot from other side of a wall.
    Shooting directly is BS 13 -3 (suppression) +3 (range) -6 (TO/ODD) -3 (cover) = Attr 4 B3

    Further edit: Hector shooting someone with speculative fire might not be worth it but Hector shooting somethree might be worth it. Hector is a bad example, though, since the Stun Grenades won't get rid of an AP Mine and his Plasma Rifle is OP enough to be able to affect AOE damage as well.
    Take a Wu Ming Multi Rifle + Light Grenade Launcher as example instead. Might be worth hanging out on the other side of the wall if it means clearing the mine the Ryuken dropped on a 1-10 instead of shooting directly on the Ryuken at B3 BS4 and face taking the mine.
     
    xagroth likes this.
  20. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,954
    Likes Received:
    1,669
    Actually, as per RAW, being in Partial Cover requires only that your Silhouette is at least partially obstructed by terrain piece you're in b2b with. Being in Total Cover for any reason neither cancels nor grants you state of being in Partial Cover.

    This makes certain interactions awkward, but that's another topic (Jammers, you again?). Point being, those two are independent. Rules mention that there are two categories of Cover, but it doesn't say they are mutually exclusive.

    Alternatively, that may mean in that particular case having or not having LoF doesn't matter, as opposed to having to follow instructions above (on having no LoS) written for other cases.
     
    Ginrei likes this.