1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Sixth Sense and visual MODs

Discussion in '[Archived]: N3 Rules' started by Ginrei, Jun 26, 2018.

  1. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    It just seems really hard to follow at this point. Off the top of my head I can't think of any circumstance where the Total Cover rules have been a factor. Most times I'm looking at rules talking specifically about scenery or LoF. Basically, am I supposed to be looking at Total Cover rules as well as LoF rules anytime I'm making a BS Attack declaration? Is the problem all this time that I've essentially been treating them as one rule?

    Meaning...

    When a SS trooper declares a BS Attack ARO in response to Spec FIre it is not allowed because... SS ignores LoF but doesn't ignore Total Cover?
    When a SS trooper declares a BS Attack ARO in response to a CC Attack all within Smoke there is no Total Cover rule getting in the way. So it just comes down to our interpretations of what exactly SS does?
     
    #61 Ginrei, Jul 3, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 3, 2018
  2. Cartographer

    Cartographer Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    738
    Likes Received:
    1,216
    Would the rule not be clearer if it read:
    SS1
    • 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, as if he were equipped with a 360 visor.
    SS2
    • Allows the user to respond with a Face to Face Roll to Attacks (and only Attacks) directed at him as if he were equipped with a 360 visor.
    Or am I misunderstanding the misunderstanding?
     
  3. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Even that could be misunderstood. Would be cleaner to just say "ignoring facing" without the bit about "ignoring LoF" if those two statements are truly redundant.

    It would be nice if "Facing" was a legitimate defined term in Infinity.
     
    Barrogh likes this.
  4. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    No that was a dreadful multitasking error :(

    I meant to write LoF....

    SS allows to have a proper ARO without the model having LoF but if the response needs to draw LoF, for example a BS attack, the model needs to have a proper LoF ignoring facing.
     
  5. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    You are talking about this whole bullet point, right?
    • Allows the user to respond with a Face to Face Roll to Attacks (and onlyAttacks) directed at him by an enemy outside his LoF and regardless the facing of the user.
    What situations do Sixth Sense apply to, that aren't already covered by "regardless the facing of the user" that aren't ALSO covered by these two bullet points:

    • Sixth Sense L2 allows its user to respond to Attacks against him through a Zero Visibility Zone without suffering the usual -6 MOD.
    • When attacked with a template weapon from outside his LoF the user may ignore the -3 MOD to Dodge a template from outside his LoF.
     
  6. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    Follow up thought...

    Shouldn't this point
    • Sixth Sense L2 allows its user to respond to Attacks against him through a Zero Visibility Zone without suffering the usual -6 MOD.
    Specify BS Attacks? Since there is not another kind of Attack that you use through Zero Viz Zones that would suffer a -6 MOD.
     
  7. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    All situations are covered in initiating the response, the response is not covered, from what I can see in the thread, regardless of the facing of the user does not nullify the need of the skill declared to be valid, if the model does not have LoF regardless of its facing then it cannot declare a BS attack for example.
     
  8. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    A hacker could potentially attack, or some pheroware attack from Tohaa.
     
  9. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    So does this mean a SS trooper within Smoke and the target of a Move + CC Attack can not ARO with a BS Attack?
     
  10. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    884
    Likes Received:
    1,292
    I'm sorry I really have a lot of confusion on what you're saying here. If you're saying you still need to be able to draw LoF, but you can ignore Facing when doing so, that was the point of my post. If you're saying something different, I really don't know how to interpret your comments.

    Those attacks don't involve LoF anyways, though.
     
  11. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    Correct.

    I think we are in the same page, I am not sure why there is a confusion.

    Correct the fact these attacks do not need LoF do not stop SSL2 allowing the model to respond through smoke.
     
  12. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    What if a Hacker is hacking a HI who in turn is in a 5-man link and with a ZVZ between them preventing normal LOF? Important: Neither Hacker nor HI is touching the smoke template. Since the Hacker doesn't require LOF, it can't be said the Hacker is hacking through a ZVZ, but can the HI still respond with a BS Attack?
     
  13. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    Yes, it would be the same as if an MSV2 trooper outside the smoke was shooting through the smoke a model outside the smoke.

    This cannot happen if the target of the attack does not have sixth sense though, Zero visibility zones specifically state BS attacks not any attacks, it might be an oversight, I need to check it.
     
  14. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    So, excuse me for seeking clarity, I found your initial response a bit confusing;
    If attacked at range, 6S grants ranged retaliation regardless of ZVZ and facing and regardless of type of attack.
    If attacked in melee, 6S will not grant ranged retaliation.
     
    inane.imp likes this.
  15. Barrogh

    Barrogh Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    2,062
    Likes Received:
    1,791
    It would be nice if Infinity had an actual glossary defining terms that aren't previously written rules but are used nevertheless, at all.
     
    Zewrath and Xeurian like this.
  16. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    Huh?

    Why can you fire at a Hacker hacking you through a ZVZ but not at Trooper Move+CCing you within a ZVZ?

    In both cases the Trooper is obscured by a ZVZ in a position where it would be legal to BS Attack them.
     
  17. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    The only instance when you can respond with a BS Attack ARO through a ZVZ is in response to a BS Attack. (EDIT: Might be exceptions like Jammers since they do not require LoF, not sure, not gonna think about it).

    The CC Attack obviously isn't one. So unless a hack is considered a BS Attack, I don't see how you could respond either.
     
    #77 Ginrei, Jul 4, 2018
    Last edited: Jul 4, 2018
  18. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    Maybe you are right and I am thinking too much 2nd ED, my reasoning was the attack happens when the model is in base to base contact, not before.

    Edit to clarify the procedure would be
    Model A I declare move into base to base contact
    Model B I hold my ARO
    Model A I CC attack you
    Model B is already in base to base contact and is not been attacked outside of its LOF to use SSL1-2 to BS attack the model moved into base to base contact.
     
  19. Ginrei

    Ginrei Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    914
    Likes Received:
    428
    I assume the simultaneous nature or an order means the ARO can happen before base to base. But that question might be irrelevant in the case of Smoke. Before applying a lot of these rules to specific situations there are some basic questions we should answer first.

    An Active player and Reactive player are in base to base contact within Smoke. Do they have LoF to each other? I asked that question in this thread recently https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/smoke-and-engaged.23763/

    After that we can look at exactly what SSL1 and SSL2 mean by these two different explanations, bold is my emphasis:
    SSL1
    directed at him by an enemy inside his Zone of Control, even without LoF to the attacker and regardless the facing of the user.
    SSL2
    directed at him by an enemy outside his LoF and regardless the facing of the user.
     
  20. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    5,888
    Likes Received:
    11,260
    You make an interesting case in your linked question I need to look into it.
     
    ambisinister and Ginrei like this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation