As @Spleen points out: all that's required to fulfill the second point is no-LOF. Regarding Templates, scenery has two effects: the trooper is considered to be in Total Cover and is not affected by the Template. It's the second effect that stops the Impact Template not the first. Re: Mines. Mines are Template Weapons . So the general rules from Templates (ie that secnery both provides Total Cover and stops Templates) applies.
'The term Cover refers to all pieces of scenery that partially or completely obstruct LoF, thus preventing the attacker from making a clean BS Attack.' My emphasis. And although Mines are Template Weapons when they trigger, that's got nothing whatsoever to do with Trigger Areas, which don't involve the template rules.
To be fair, the term 'cover' is defined in the very first sentence: "The term Cover refers to all pieces of scenery that partially or completely obstruct LoF" @Hecaton has a point and the rule can be interpreted as he's suggesting. Based on the definition above and the requirements for Total Cover... a trooper can't grant Total Cover to another trooper. Because using the definition of cover the game provides I read the rule as: Total Cover Being totally blocked by Scenery (Total Cover) completely blocks the attacker's vision of his target, obstructing any LoF. Requirements For a trooper to be totally blocked by Scenery (in Total Cover), one of these two must be true: It's a perfectly reasonable conclusion that both requirements are only referring to situations involving scenery. The fact the second requirement doesn't state what it's referring to is the problem. CB is asking players to make assumptions not supported, or at the very least undermined, by their own definitions and wording. CB got it wrong yet again. They either need to explicitly say Total Cover is also granted when any condition/object is blocking LoF or DEFINE Total Cover as simply not having LoF. Ultimately I believe Spleen is correct and CBs intent with that second requirement was to extend Total Cover to things other than scenery. So CB should have said so, but they didn't, nothing new really.
I can confirm that CB did not intend Total Cover to be granted by anything but scenery. Hence the very first sentence in the cover section.
What is CBs intent...? Does Total Cover do anything relevant as a rule in Infinity? If we deleted the rules about Total Cover would everything stay the same? Total Cover prevents declarations that require LoF. But doesn't the LoF rules already do this? Or is Total Cover supposed to differentiate between Zero visibility zones, scenery, and troopers for things like template weapons?
@ijw With this in mind: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/solved-jammer-total-cover.23474/#post-107344 What speaks against Move + CC Attack granting BS Attack AROs through Smoke again? Reminder that everything in an Order is simultaneous. As long as the Attack Declaration happens at any time during the Order why should we not be able to retaliate? Apparently we get to ignore Smoke and Facing, so what's left to prohibit it? After delaying the ARO with Sixth Sense L1 how is responding to a CC Attack technically different than a BS attack if LOF doesn't play role whatsoever?
Aye, but also that conversation on page one. Which seems not sustainable considering Hellois decided to confirm the statement Sixht Sense "ignores LoF as for orientation/smoke purposes, not when there's a wall or SS2 guy's ally in a way". But I suppose it would be possible to dig up one of to numerous threads specifically discussing that dead horse.
So it sounds like in practice you are advocating that in spite of what HellLois said we retain the status quo of Sixth Sense not actually interacting with zero vis zones and any allowance to attack through them being derived from the visibility rules? I'm very much on board with that idea. I think it's the neatest way to handle the sixth sense rules. It's just hard to reconcile when there's now a quote from an authority which seems to significantly impact certain interactions and was fairly off the cuff.
Helllois doesn't really understand the rules too well in this context, methinks. Or the Spanish version reads differently.
Given that he was replying to an example of Speculative Fire, the answer can be covered by the rules for reacting to BS Attacks through Smoke. But we'll have to wait and see what's in the upcoming FAQ.
I think the distinction is also important because otherwise a Fusilier in a full link would be able to return fire with his Multi Sniper Rifle against someone who's chugging grenades over a wall. Which would be silly, unless the Fusilier had taken lessons from Angelina Jolie in Wanted. O_o
Intuitively I feel that Total Cover (anything that would block a template) should stop it, and ss should allow you to retaliate against anything else.. But that's not directly supported by the rules.
First of all it this thread came to my attention now, sorry for that, I am expecting posters to be civil among each other, no matter who "each other" is, no insults no direct or indirect conflict. I am expecting from everyone to behave civil regardless of the opinion they have for the other poster. Second SS essentially allows an ARO response without needing to have ARO, it does not grand 360 vision, but if an attack is declared draw LoF from the model ignoring its front arc, but a LoF must be drawn. In the case of a Jammer firing through a wall, the SS will grand a dodge without the -3, but cannot allow the model to shoot through total cover.
I don't think this translated to English accurately. Essentially what you're saying is that Sixth Sense Level 2 simply allows you to ignore your facing when you are attacked from behind, correct? It also does other things like ignoring dodge penalties due to not having Line of Fire, but I think the first part is most relevant to this thread.
