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

Sixth Sense and visual MODs

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Ginrei, Jun 26, 2018.

  1. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    This was just brought to my attention in the FAQ, Page 7:

    When performing an Attack with a Jammer, is the roll affected by the negative MOD of ODD or Camouflage, for example?
    No, in the case of an attack that does not require LoF, the negative MODs are not applied.

    I'm continually told Sixth Sense removes the LoF requirement rather than simply extending your LoF angle from 180° to 360°. If SS truly ignores/removes the LoF requirement, shouldn't it also bypass visual MODs as well?
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,054
    Likes Received:
    7,584
    6S removes LOF requirements from skills, not weapons. It's not 100% true, but it's the easiest mental shortcut I can make without deep analysis of cover and how messed up the Jammers are.

    (If the game had a concept of Line of Sight, sixth sense would remove LOS instead of LoF requirements)
     
  3. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    I don't see the distinction. A SS trooper is still reacting with a BS Attack ARO that normally requires LoF. Turning it into a BS Attack that does not require LoF. A Jammer is a BS Attack that does not require LoF.

    Both seem to meet the requirements to ignore visual mods.
     
  4. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Trying to use anything in jammer to apply to the rest of the rules is a huge mistake. Jammer is an absolute mess in how it is written vs. how they "intended" it to be played.
     
  5. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    The FAQ clearly states how attacks with no LoF requirement function in these cases. It seems remarkably straight forward.

    Instead of trying to dismiss this because it includes the word Jammer, try finding a rules explanation. The only reason I can even bring this up is because of the believed interaction between Sixth Sense+Smoke+CC Attack. Maybe that's the real issue and not the FAQ.
     
  6. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    If you want to get to the "REAL ISSUE" it's actually more basic than that. What causes multiple problems across various rules is that CB has defined LoF, but does not define Facing (Angle of Facing?), and often uses Line of Fire interchangeably with Angle of Facing (I think I invented a new label I like) when they actually mean different things.
     
    toadchild likes this.
  7. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    I brought that up in this thread, https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/smoke-and-sixth-sense.23551/page-5
    The rules call them LoF angle and drawing LoF. I was hoping to get a backhanded ruling on that via this thread. Maybe i was being too subtle.

    If SS is officially ruled to not allow us to ignore visual MODs maybe they'd rule (inadvertently or otherwise) against SS allowing a BS Attack ARO against a CC Attack from within Smoke.
     
  8. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,553
    Likes Received:
    4,424
    @HellLois What should we do? The FAQ entry implies that all attacks which don't use LoF ignore vision mods... should we apply this to other situations?
     
    Ginrei likes this.
  9. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes Received:
    10,444
    Sixth Sense doesn't grant the No LoF Trait to whatever is being used.
     
  10. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    What does it grant the No LoF trait to then?
     
  11. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Nothing?
     
    ijw and inane.imp like this.
  12. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    How exactly do i need to word this so you'll provide an answer then? If you're so quick to say it doesn't do this, then you must know what it does do.

    SSL1:
    • Allows the user to respond with a Face to Face Roll to Attacks (and only Attacks) directed at him by an enemy inside his Zone of Control, even without LoF to the attacker
    SSL2
    • Allows the user to respond with a Face to Face Roll to Attacks (and only Attacks) directed at him by an enemy outside his LoF

    How are the rules above applied? What exactly do they do?
     
  13. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    Basically it boils down to they ignore facing. Which, as I mentioned earlier is part of the problem with how they did not Define facing as a separate term. And yes I am quite aware that this is somewhat less than obvious with how the rule is currently written. As I saw someone else mention not too long ago, it is generally best to think of this Sixth Sense effect as a poor man's 360 visor.
     
    bladerunner_35 and ChoTimberwolf like this.
  14. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    If that's how it works then SS troopers can't declare a BS Attack ARO in response to a CC Attack while in Smoke.
     
  15. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,132
    Likes Received:
    10,444
    Yeah, that's exactly what was discussed recently.
     
    toadchild and ChoTimberwolf like this.
  16. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,553
    Likes Received:
    4,424
    No, it literally says "without LoF to the attacker." That text is there. Ignoring it is another of @ijw 's house rules, not RAW.
     
  17. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    427
    I know, I discussed it in depth but no ruling was made. So how can you be so sure in this thread but not that one? In that thread you said it was your opinion. Quote below. Why is this thread different?
     
    ChoTimberwolf and Hecaton like this.
  18. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    4,957
    if IJW tells you a rules works a way, it works that way.

    Suck it up Hecaton
     
    inane.imp and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  19. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,553
    Likes Received:
    4,424
    Sorry, I'm not part of your cult.
     
    ChoTimberwolf and Ginrei like this.
  20. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,553
    Likes Received:
    4,424
    Because he was hoping people wouldn't pick up on it and he could push his house rules as official more, I suppose.