Unit 1 in smokes. He make speculative fire with another smoke and affects Unit 2. Does Unit 2 ARO BS attack is legal? Clues 1. Zero Visibility Zone Any trooper who is the target of a BS Attack into or out of a Zero Visibility Zone, or whose LoF traverses a Zero Visibility Zone, may respond to the attacker even without LoF, provided the trooper is facing the attacker. 2. SPECULATIVE FIRE - ENTIRE ORDER Attack. REQUIREMENTS The user must employ a BS Weapon with the Speculative Fire Trait. 3. Smoke and Speculative Fire Certain weapons that use Smoke Special Ammunition allow the user to use the Speculative Fire Common Skill. In that case, the Common Skill Speculative Fire works normally, even though it is a Special Dodge and not an Attack. works normally - like normal speculative fire? So, its an Attack? But if it is, can you speculattive fire with smoke on another your trooper? Because Attack. The use of this Skill is a form of Attack. Remember that you cannot declare attacks against allies or Neutral units, whether represented by figures or Markers.
A BS attack firing Smoke is still an attack. What gives you permission to include friendly models in the area of effect is (at least in part) the FAQ saying that not causing damage makes it okay: “ Q: Can weapons with the Impact Template Trait and no value in the damage attribute be fired with allied troopes in their area of effect? For example, a Smoke Grenade, an Eclipse Grenade or a Nimbus Grenade. A: Yes. ”
@ijw Said differently in this thread: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/hvt-and-smoke.24760/ Or over here: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/smoke-and-sixth-sense.23551/page-2#post-109541 I'm confused.
No shit. Just ignore what he said and treat it as an Attack that just doesn't deal damage and you'll be good.
Straight quote from the rules: Smoke and Speculative Fire Certain weapons that use Smoke Special Ammunition allow the user to use the Speculative Fire Common Skill. In that case, the Common Skill Speculative Fire works normally, even though it is a Special Dodge and not an Attack.
@ijw And that's exactly what you'd expect to see if there was a statement where they had clearly stated "this is not an attack," backtracked on it, and then left that "even though it is..." phrase in there due to poor proofreading.
Smoke doesn't work consistently if it has the Attack label. It does work consistently if it doesn't have the label. So why not take the usual "quote" at face value? Especially when discussing the exact situation (Speculative Fire and Smoke ammo) that the quote applies to.
Because I'm dumb and I often need a deeper explanation. Copy paste a part of the wiki could not be a solution sometimes... Maybe we've already read it before but the doubt remain. (language barrier is a thing for someone). A well written answer promote a clear and well argumented communication.
