Unsolved question list

B can declare Change Facing because A2 has activated in their ZoC without using Stealth. If B started the Order in Engaged state then sure.

 

And it will resolve in melee against melee?

 

Ideally the examples are illustrating the rules, not adding new rules. They are providing context showing how to interpret and apply them. One of the lessons I take from those examples is that the engaged state doesn’t trump everything at once for the order in which you enter base contact.

 

I agree with toadchild. They can do that because the rule already allows it. The examples confirms that the ability to perform your second short skill at any point of your first short movement skill, still apply when your movement ends engaged, you can shoot from before you got engaged. And that the ability to ARO at any point of the previously declared movement and/or eventually declared movement (in the case of BS ARO where the model then move), still holds true when the Move skill puts you engaged.

 

Ideally, yes, however, realistically this is not true. We have many cases where IJW have to tell people that the examples are part of the rules as well. What's written in the examples can alter or even counter-say what is actually written in the rules.

 

I know, and that's why I said "ideally". I think this is one of the cases where it holds up pretty well.

 

It works like a Dodge, why would it not resolve against a CC Attack? It's not being resolved 'in' melee because the trooper isn't in Engaged state for the entire Order, so that's irrelevant.

 

Change Facing:

• Change Facing works like the Dodge Skill in Reactive Turn, but the Roll to use it is PH-3 and the user does not get to Move on a success, only turn around so that the active enemy is inside his LoF.
• Any rules, Traits, Special Skills, etc. that would apply a MOD to a Dodge attempt also apply to this Common Skill.

I see no reason that this would not apply against a CC attack if you declared it as your ARO as an enemy came into base contact.

 

The verb you’re looking for is “clarify”. :)

Compare what the rules say here:
http://infinitythewiki.com/en/BS_Attack_Declaration
with what Engaged says. So Engaged looks like it’s saying one thing and BS Attack is saying something else.

Suppose someone looks at the example in the Move skill and says “You can shoot along movement paths, but you can’t Hack (or ARO hack) along movement paths.” Or that you don’t get to declare AROs against movement paths for anything but BS Attack. That argument fails when you turn to Engage and it has the diagram of the active turn trooper leaving the 2” zone of Engage yet the Engage is still good.

But there’s the other side of things—all of the examples where when you move into base contact and suddenly CC Attack and all of those base contact skills become valid. All of those skills are being declared against the movement path as well. Even though the principle is only described for BS Attack.

And there’s stuff like the “CC plus Movement Sequence” blue box talking about this sequence:
1. Active
2. Move into base contact
3. ARO
4. Declare Hacking
...

Hacking isn’t on the approved skill list for Engaged. And nothing in the hacking rules talks about declaring hacking along the movement path, but here you have the CC rules taking that for granted.

So we end up with principle that everything gets declared against the movement path, including Change Facing. And that changes how you have to interpret what Engaged says.

Disclaimer: The rulebook (and the Operation booklets) do an abysmal job of explaining how the order and ARO mechanics actually work.

 

Nah, sometimes the examples contradict the text.

 

@Arkhos94 I touch on these questions here but the thread doesn't have much traction as of late.

1. Do AI Beacons count as troopers for deployment, except when noted otherwise? Do scenario deployment restrictions that indicate "troopers" apply to them (as per the definition of deployable equipment)?

2. When does deployable equipment count as a trooper for the purposes of States? The examples indicate that AI Beacons can be isolated, and Perimeter weapons can be Disconnected, as per their own rules text.

 

Arguably, number 1 is a question to ask @HellLois (HellLois: can AI Beacons deploy inside Exclusion Zones etc?) in the ITS forums since it's limited to issues caused by ITS. AI Beacons are not troopers, as has been reasonably consistent in answers so far, so they are strictly not troopers as far as scenarios are concerned and as such it's up to the scenario author to take that into consideration. For ITS, CB is the author.
However, as for number 2, Disconnected (...) are states that certain deployable equipment can enter, as noted, and that really needs an answer.

 

Yup

 

While the answers aren't completely satisfactory, there are related issues and questions, I believe the specific questions have been answered;

1. http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Traits
"The placement of Deployable weapons and Equipment cannot violate the Deployment rules or any restrictions on deployment put forth by the rules of the scenario being played."

2. They are specifically not troopers, according to IJW, but in the case of Disconnected it doesn't matter because Perimeter is an automatic skill and the line in http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Disconnected regarding Automatic Equipment doesn't deal with troopers.
"Automatic Special Skills and Automatic Equipment have no effect while in the Disconnected state."

 

@Mahtamori part of it though is that the Activation section for these states only allows troopers to have them.

 

That section of a state has never and will never be exhaustive

 

One could make the same argument about the use of the word "Trooper" in effects.

 

No, because states are always going to have the potential to arbitrarily be applied. The activation list can not be made exhaustive.

 

I disagree, but let's leave this thread to the unsolved questions.