Hello, thank you always. I've tried reading rules and making a logical answer but wound up very confused. I need a clarification about B2B move and ARO options. Situation : Enemy model A move into B2B with my model B, using first short move and moving from out of my LoF. A ended his first move contacting B in rear. 1. Does B get LoF to A, because of A contacting him, making him engaged status and granting 360 loF to enemy in B2B? and B gets shooting ARO option? 2. What happens if enemy model B2B me within smoke(ZeroV)? what options do I get as ARO? Can I shoot even in smoke, provided I am engaged?
1. (Unless Sixth Sense Level 1 is involved) No. The point at which you gain LOF is the point at which you are Engaged. So BS Attack isn't a valid ARO at that time: there's no point where you are both not-Engaged and have LOF. So basically you're stuck with Dodge, CC, Alert, Reset or 'doing nothing' (Jammers and HDs notwithstanding). 2. As per 1. Confusing/contentious discussion below the fold: ----- How Sixth Sense Level 1 interacts with this is (IIRC) still an open question. But generally it's played that in 1 you'd get a BS Attack and in 2 you don't get a BS Attack. Getting the ability to BS Attack (or not) in 2 being the more contentious interpretation because its not actually possible to have LOF outside of the Engaged state. Edited because I got the SSL1 vs Smoke wrong (I think). But either way FAQ please :)
Unless you have Sixth sense and there is no smoke. Ie active troop spends short skill moves into reactive troopers b2b. Reactive trooper holds via SS Active trooper declares attack Reactive trooper may per SS now shoot active trooper in the face https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/sixth-sense-and-cc-in-the-rear-arc-zero-vis-zone.960/
But only if the active trooper attacks. If they don't your options are limited to those that work while Engaged.
I assume CB still haven't gotten off their ass to clarify the issues about SS and suddenly being able to shoot through smoke/terrain and we're going off IJW's gut feelings still? I agree with the interpretation but it'd be nice if CB stopped being so blatantly lazy about a clearly awfully written rule that needs a redo.
Cb are like the bad schoolteacher of tabletop gaming theyve explained it once and it’s our fault for not understanding ;)
