It's relevant for Smoke. You count as 'attacking' for the whole of your movement. MSV2 Trooper moves through Smoke from one piece of cover to another, breaking cover en route. MSV2 Trooper declares BS Attack through the Smoke at Trooper X. Trooper X BS Attacks back at a point where the MSV2 Trooper is out of cover. MSV2 Trooper doesn't get to benefit from cover because they count as attacking for the entire order not just from the position in which they declared the BS Attack. Edit for clarity: the point is though, that BS Attack not SS that allows you to respond with a BS Attack in the above circumstance.
I was referring to a SS trooper standing within Smoke. That trooper cannot legally declare a BS Attack ARO in response to a Move+CC Attack through a ZVZ like Smoke. The typical argument in response has been that once base to base contact is made it provides LoF making the BS Attack ARO legal earlier during the order. That argument is entirely subject to ones interpretation of how Sixth Sense and Smoke interact. I'm saying that discussion becomes irrelevant if being in base to base doesn't actually grant LoF in the first place.
The argument usually turns on whether SS allows you to ignore Facing and ZVZ or just Facing. That - to an extent - has been resolved as 'just Facing' LoF granted from B2B is irrelevant because it's effectively the same a Trooper A entering cover behind the Trooper and moving movingLOF while in cover and Trooper B using Sixth Sense to shoot them out of cover. The Attacker counts as attacking for the entire order so any position (outside of Total Cover) is a legal position to BS Attack back at. So the only relevant question is: does Sixth Sense trump ZVZ or vice versa? The answer so far is 'vice versa'.
I'd like to think that has been resolved but some of the more recent posts have been rather confusing to me. I'm not even entirely sure at this stage what point you're trying to make. I understood the first example you gave at the top of this page and agree with your interpretation. The example in your next post which I've quoted is the same or different? I just don't understand the first examples relevance to this discussion. Am I missing something? Are we talking about two different things? It might help me if you started from the beginning. The example I've been referring to makes the only 'relevant' question as you put it, irrelevant. We don't have to debate whether SS trumps a ZVZ if a BS Attack ARO in response to a Move+CC Attack from within Smoke is illegal to begin with. Because at no point during that order does the SS trooper have LoF. Also, LoF bring granted from B2B while in Smoke is relevant to another situation I linked earlier. Which is whether you can Dodge that CC Attack or not.
Thats an interesting discussion. I still remember my first try to CC attack a Fusilier with my TO hidden Ninja. I had to learn that you can shoot that Ninja because it uncloaks at the beginning of the Move + CC attack action, granting the Fusilier an ARO with his combi rifle. I since played it the same way with SS and Smoke, because its the same logic to me. You count as having LoF for the whole turn, if, and there comes @Ginrei s argument, if you have LoF in smoke while in CC.
No it's not the same. Infinity's "everything is simultaneous" isn't universally true. Generally it applies to temporal states not spatial ones. IE just because you have LOF to one part of a Troopers movement does mean you have LOF to all of the Troopers movement. The reason I raised the MSV2 example is because what's 'simultaneous' is that you count as attacking for the entire movement (not that necessarily you count as being in LOF for the entire movement, that will depend on facing and Total Cover). So Trooper A outside of a ZVZ Moves to B2B with Trooper B from outside B's LOf. B does not have SS. Trooper B gains LOF to A at the point they're B2B but BS Attack isn't a valid ARO because the only position where B has LOF to A is while they're Engaged. Add SS and the BS Attack ARO is legal because of SS's ability to ignore lack of LOF. Add ZVZ as well and the BS Attack is not legal according to recent clarifications which limit SS's effect to lack of LoF caused by facing. Whether or not A still has LOF to B whilst engaged in a ZVZ has not relevance to whether SS allows a BS Attack. The 'can I Dodge as an ARO while in a ZVZ' is an interesting but distinct question. The general answer will apply to the SS answer because ZVZ trump SS (according to recent clarifications).
I understand your interpretation now and i agree. But it's still based on opinions of how ZVZ, SS, base to base, and the simultaneous order sequence work in combination. Other players do have different opinions on what SS does and it seems to be played quite differently atm. So I prefer a different approach in this case. There are only two variables in my example, B2B and ZVZ. The resulting answer could remove a much larger variable in these more complicated situations. You're correct that it may prove to be irrelevant if your interpretation is official, and I hope that it is. But I haven't seen an official ruling on that topic for ages. Maybe my other example will have better luck.
I mean sure, if your house is the entire world and your housemates are some of the most active and knowledgeable infinity players around. I'm not saying it's not right to seek absolute clarification on it, I'd love to have a 100% accurate breakdown of how Sixth Sense works in all the situations it might factor into. But minimizing carefully considered opinions about why to treat it a certain way doesn't really serve anyone.
It can't really get any clearer. It says "without LoF". Everyone who ignores that phrase is playing it wrong, no matter how many people are doing it. It's not about consensus; it's about right and wrong.
I don't know what the ruling for this particular rule should be, but I really like Hecaton's sentiment here. Once we can all say "The rules say A, B, C and not D; but we prefer to play B, C, D and not A" then everyone in any group can play the game together - even if it's not always going to be exactly the same game in every group (which doesn't matter very much anyway). To do do that, we have to obtain a fixed point of reference (the A, B, C and D of the example) the easiest of which is to agree what the rules actually say, or failing that, what they were supposed to say; so Hecaton's right on the money.
I completely agree with you that we need clear rules. It's difficult to discuss with others how we play the game differently if we don't even know we're playing differently. I would argue having the community agree on what the rules actually say is the last thing i would ever expect to happen. Rewriting the rules to a much better standard is the easiest route to take imo. But I'm not holding my breath. The current method seems to be employing one/two staff member to rule and FAQ every single issue online until there are no more issues left. I don't really care how long that will take because it's going to be a cluster F of a mess if it's ever finished. It already is to be honest.
@Ginrei if only that was their method. Mostly they just ignore rules issues. We still don't really know how climbing works. I wish the guys who were working on Aristeia did the Infinity rules, then things would be clear.
