madtulip

Members
  • Content count

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Time Online

    3d 3h 15m 34s

Community Reputation

3 Neutral

About madtulip

  • Rank
    Atek
  1. On the weekend we had a rather difficult situation where a Fireteam would move around a corner into LoF of a reactive Heavy Rocket Launcher. Lets say the team leader of the fireteam "A" moves into no cover. A 2nd model "B" of the fireteam moved in partial cover. Reactive model "C" declares BS attack as ARO. The active player triies to decide if he wants to declare dodge or BS attack as his 2nd short skill. The reactive player triies to decide if "A" or "B" should be the target of the ARO. "A" and "B" are very close, so both would be affected by the template (in both cases ofc.). We played.: - If active player declares BS attack as 2nd short skill then "A" would roll FtF against "C", no matter if "C" fires at "A" or "B". "C" would, no matter how that FtF ends, apply his single (same) roll as a normal roll against "B". - If active player would declare dodge, then "C" would FtF with a single roll against "A" and independently of that also against "B". - If reactive player would target the BS attack against "B" he would modify his single roll by "B"s cover. If he would target "A" he would not mod his roll by any cover. As there seams to be no difference in target selection apart from the partial cover "B" has, he should target "A". It might not be to clear in the text above, but "C" would only roll one single die in the whole process in all cases. Was that a correct play? We thought a lot about the situation. Some oddidies seamed to be that "A" could succesfully shoot "C" while "C" still kills "B".
  2. Ok that extends my question. It the above question i meant Team A trooper wants to move over unconscious Team B trooper laying in a doorway. If it matters to which Team the trooper belongs that raises further questsion.: so far we played that you can not move through other models, be it friend or foe. you answer suggests that you can move over friendly unconscious model. Can you also move over friendly none unconscious models?
  3. Hello. We had a situation where an HI in active turn would move from within ZoC and out of LoF of a reactive turn hacker just to the other side of a wall of the hacker in its first short skill. The hacker got to decide to ARO: hack but wanted to stall ARO to declare ARO:BS attack after the 2nd short skill (move) of the HI. The 2nd short skill of the HI would allow it to reach base to base with the hacker. Sketch 1: -> HI (Hi moves here by 1st short skill, Hacker has no LoF to HI) --------- <- Wall Hacker Sketch 2: --------- <- Wall Hacker HI <- HI could move into base to base with his 2nd short skill move It seems that the option to hack already generated an ARO possibility for the 1st short skill, which, if you dont take it, would not allow you an ARO to the 2nd shortskill as you cant delay your ARO (unless camo). On the other hand the ARO to the 2nd short skill opens up a new opportunity, or type of ARO, namely the BS attack which requires LoF and which was not available as reaction to the first short skill. The question becomes if whatever ARO possibility to the first short skill is sufficient to deny an ARO to the 2nd short skill. That would, in extension also affect situations where the hacker in this example is not a hacker, but just gets a change facing ARO due to an activation inside his ZoC but without LoF. It seems unintuitive, that aiming at the corner doesnt allow you at least one BS attack ARO if someone moves around it.
  4. Hello. The question is the title. We had a situation where an S2 model was shot unconscious in a door. Is it possible to move over an unconscious in general, or are there silhouette restrictions, or cant you move over it at all?
  5. Well he placed the new Lieutenant on the HacTao which doesnt have Chain of Command. I found out in the meantime, that the scenario beeing played was "ITS season 8 Tagline 1.4. Decapitation" which has the scenario special rule.: "In this scenario the rule Loss of Lieutenant does not apply." Which finaly explains above to me. Its still not fully correct to place the new LT immidiatly but he should have waited for the "tactical phase of his next active turn" as per scenario special rules, but that doesnt matter unless the 2nd LT also gets killed in the same reactive turn. Thanks for the clearifications!
  6. So the "immidiate nomination of a new lieutenant" is not a legal move as he would not be in the loss of lieutenant situation before the start of his next turn and could only cancel LoL (by nominating a new lieutenant) at the end of the turn in which he entered it? Thanks a lot for the fast response!
  7. In the below battle report video in 28:25 the Lieutenant is lost on the reactive turn. The Player on the reactive turn comments.: "immediately nominate a new lieutenant". I dont understand how this is supposed to work. As far as i understand the Game Sequence states that your loss of Lieutenant check is only performed on your active turn ( http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Game_Sequence ) so he is not in a loss of Lieutenant situation in that moment. Under this link http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Loss_of_Lieutenant it is stated, that " The player can appoint a new Lieutenant at no cost at the end of the Turn in which he entered the Loss of Lieutenant situation. The identity of this new Lieutenant is still considered Private Information. ". To my understanding as you are only able to enter LoL in your active turn you can also only cancel it in your active turn. So if you loose your lieutenant you would allways be forced to play a whole active turn in that situation (unless you have none default means to cancel it like chain of command). If im missing something here this would be very important to know, as this is a severe impact to the game. Thanks for reading and commenting.