In the interest of getting answers to some of the more contentious threads from the previous iteration of the forums for (hopefully) a CB employee to answer definitively, or (at least) IJW to give us some insight, I'm consolidating what I've found to be the still outstanding rules questions. I can manage this thread like the ITS 9 Questions thread by updating this post with new fuzzy rules interactions and answers from CB. Situation: ARO against multiple activating models (Coordinated order or Fireteam), some of whom have stealth. Question: Are you allowed to target a stealth model that would otherwise not grant an ARO if some of the non-stealth models activated by the same order DO grant you one? Situation: Sixth Sense vs Move + CC in smoke. Question: Are you allowed to respond to a Move + CC attack from within smoke with a BS attack using Sixth Sense? Situation: Kanren KHD HoloL1'd as a Wu-Ming. Question: If the "Wu-Ming" enters the hacking area of an opponent Killer Hacker, what information must be volunteered by the owner of said "Wu-Ming"? What ARO's are available to the opponent's Killer Hacker? Situation: Camo Marker "contents" and combat groups. Question: Is the combat group of a camo marker (any level) open or private information? Situation: Symbiomate used to cancel an attack. Question: Does the troop that used the Symbiomate have the choice of making/failing a guts roll, or not? Situation: Enemy Engaging a trooper near a wall in ARO. Question: Assuming the Engaging model succeeds, can the Engaged trooper choose to place the enemy on the wall as long as the silhouettes are touching? Alternate Question: Is the ruling that a Climbing/Climbing+ model can drag an Engaging model up a wall (link) specific to models getting Engaged on vertical surfaces or is it a general ruling that Engaging models can be placed on vertical surfaces?
I've got a couple: 1. If a hacker is within the ZoC of an enemy repeater, are all enemy hackers considered to be in their hacking area, and can they perform ARO's against such hackers if they, say, use a short movement skill outside of LoF (and don't have Stealth)? 2. Is the baggage skill an exception to the normal rule of automatic skills not functioning when the user is in a null state? And how does this affect scoring Objective Points in, say, Annihilation? I've got some others but they're ITS specific.
1) Same as the Yojimbo combo, I'd wager. Anyway, you cannot spread Burst while in ARO, and you are forced to use the ARO as soon as you get one (and Fireteam'ed/Coordinated models grant one single ARO to each legal enemy), so... 2) Can you shoot back when an enemy with N2-3 Multiespectral visor shoots at you? Does Sixth Sense supersede enemy's Stealth? I'd say yes to all ^^ 1) Yeah, that's precisely the point of having a KHD inside an enemy's repeater. They move, and they either hack or reset... or suffer! [discard] As far as I've been told in several tournaments, Baggaje goes KO with the model, but the model counts as +20 points even when dead (if the Baggage was not disabled, you would always get +20 points alive per baggage model...). I assume the logic behind this is that "killed enemy points" goes in the line of "resources denied to the enemy". [/discard] 2) I have checked, and no, if your baggage model is KO, the baggage goes off, so if your enemy kills it, it's just the base value.
Baggage is auto equipment, in null state it does not provide the +20 point. Victory points counted at the end and it means the sum of the surviving troops. The model worth +20 victory points. if it is not alive aka in null state how you count it?
You don't, but your enemy does (as "killed" enemy points). As I said, it's something I've run into, not my call (which would be "+20 points if alive, +0 Killed points to my enemy if dead"). As for the reasoning, I believe it might be because, in the Wiki, the spanish version has different bullet point over the english version: While the english version uses "Victory Points" in all bullet points, the Spanish version uses "Army Points" in the fourth bullet point, which is a direct correlation with the Primary Objectives in, for example, Annihilation (where it's relevant both surviving and killed Army Points).
I'be asked around, and memory was playing tricks with me. As you say, baggage troop KO == baggage disabled, so no extra points to the enemy.
So N2 RULE! Baggage. Provisions, supplies and ammunition are key elements in long term operations, or in those developed far away from military supply lines. Baggage is Special Equipment which represents these supplies. Baggage adds an extra 20 points to the Victory Points which its carrier would normally provide. This increase in Victory Points is only used to work out the Retreat! percentage and the Victory Points the adversary receives from taking down or capturing the carrier of this piece of Equipment. Example: Signing up 1 figure with Baggage in a 300 point army, the player, to calculate his Retreat! percentage, will use a total of 320 points (300 points of troop costs + 20 extra points from Baggage Equipment). If he signs up 2 figures with Baggage, then the increase would be 40 points. Applying this rule in an individual fashion, a Remote with Baggage Equipment, costing only 8 points, provides 28 Victory Points (Cost: 8 + 20 from Baggage) to an adversary if taken down, instead of the mere 8 points it would give if it didn’t have Baggage. In a campaign, or in scenarios which require it, keeping Baggage safe provides extra Victory Points, depending on a mission’s objectives. Remotes and Vehicles are the usual carriers of Baggage. If you read the latest rules, there is no such point that your enemy will receive +20 point if he/she manages to kill it.
Regarding smoke and DTW (edit : impact template not DTW, I thought one and wrote the other) : can smoke grenade be used in ARO to avoid a DTW if you are not the main target (and have LOF, otherwise you can only dodge so no smoke grenade) . I have seen argument for yes and for no in a few topics so an official statement would be great Previous discussion on the subject : http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/...n-fireteam-vs-impact-template/#comment-941617
As Bobman says, you can't use Smoke to avoid a Direct Template Weapon at all. The linked thread is for secondary targets of Impact Template Weapons.
Sorry, I meant impact template, not direct. For example, my proxy mk2 shoot a volunteer. His template also hit an highlander (who has LOF on the MK2). Can the highlander protect himself with a smoke grenade ? Some says yes, others says no (see the previous topic), both with valid arguments. An official answer would be nice.
So the main question is, does the smoke block the placed down impact template. Proxy moves Volunteer do attack/dodge. Highlander smoke dodges Proxy attacks the simple dodgeing volunteer We place down the template Volunteer and highlander are affected. Proxy roll 11 it is a hit. Volunteer 12 dodge, so no dmg. Highlander roll 14 to smoke. But template is not req lof, so he has to roll arm. If he declare dodge and roll 12 he would be safe.
I think this comes up primarily when the stealthed trooper is hackable and in the ZoC (but not LoF) of a hacker. You get an ARO from the other troopers activated by the order, but the question remains as to whether you can use that ARO to hack the stealthed trooper. Keep in mind that of all the contentious rules questions from the last iteration of the forums, the two in the OP were the only ones (that I could find) that did not have at least a semi-definitive answer from either a CB staff member or the primary non-CB rules guru: IJW. Debating them amongst yourselves here is, unfortunately, not going to get us any closer to an answer. If you have additional rules questions that you feel still don't have a sufficient answer, please post them here and I'll update the OP. This thread is not really meant as a place for people to post their general rules questions, however. That's what the entire sub-forum is for.
Doesn't matter, if it's not in an official CB rules document one of the local TOs refuses to play it that way.
There is an answer to that, it is "Read the Rules". Yes, they are convoluted, you need always to check at least THREE different parts (because you need to follow a trail of dependency), but no, CB is not going to answer every single small doubt that can be solved checking the rules. Anyway: Let's say it's Aleph (Danavas H+, Naga KHD) Vs Nomads (2x Interventor H+, 1 Tsyklon, 1 Zero KHD) for example. On Nomads Turn, the Tsyklon moves enough to reach the center of the table and fires a Pitcher which reaches to the Danavas H+ and the Camo marker (for whatever reason). The Pitcher (and all Aleph troops) is more than 20cm to the Tsyklon. Also, the Interventors are not (yet) under Cybermask, but the Zero is in marker state. Hacking links stablished: FROM the Pitcher TO ALL Nomads hackers: the Danavas can ARO against any activation of the Interventors with -3 and the Nomads get +3 to PB (because of Firewall); the Naga can ARO against any activation of the Interventors without Firewall mods. The Zero can move freely because having Camo also gives Stealth (so he can move freely even if he is uncloacked). So if, let's say, Interventor #1 declares Brain Blast against the Danavas, Aleph's player can (and is quite likely he will) declare BreakWater or Maestro with the Danvas (there is no way to have a doubt here: she is the target), but since the Naga KHD is inside the Repeater (and the Nomads player can ask if he is a hackeable troop as soon as the Naga is inside the Nomads Hacking Zone) the Aleph player can also declare the Naga will use SkullBuster against the Interventor. Now, the same situation: we are now in the Aleph turn, the pitcher is there and everything is as it was. The naga and the Danavas are out of LoF of enemy models, and also as Figures (no marker). The Naga, thanks to having Stealth, can move outside of the repeater thanks to having Stealth (granted from having Camouflage), but if the Danavas move she will generate ARO from both Interventors and the Zero. In short: a repeater generates a "shadow" of 8'' (20cm) around itself that allows hacking to piggiback on their signal, and they also all have a single thread of Quantum Entangled Magic between their allied hackers and themselves, but not each other. This thread can be noticed when it changes, and it changes every time an allied hacker does something (and they can peek through it to see any hackeable signals in the "shadow").
It's your opinion and while it's seems logic (at least to me) the argument of "template don't need lof so smoke grenade dodge don't block it" is not supported by any written rule (explaining why some others disagree with it) so an offical rulling would be good
