• 0
ShadowDrake777

CrazyKoala use cover?

Question

Can CrazyKoala benefit from partial cover?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

18 answers to this question

  • 0

I don't know the answer, but I also wanted to tag on: can mines benefit from partial cover?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
19 minutes ago, Vita Nova said:

I don't know the answer, but I also wanted to tag on: can mines benefit from partial cover?

Keep in mind that mines aren't prone.  They're just naturally S0.

Otherwise, the cover mechanics apply to "targets" of BS Attacks, not "troopers" or anything where you'd be able to argue types.  If you shoot at something, you determine if there's partial or total cover and proceed accordingly.

 

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

yes, both Total Cover and Partial Cover works on deployables as they are Targets of the attack.

Impetuous don't have Partial Cover MOD because of its listed effect, it is an exception. Same for Template weapon ignoring Cover MOD being a rule exception. Everything else that don't list an exception apply Cover as normal.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

So to up the question a bit. Deployable equipment from an impetious trooper

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Paradur said:

So to up the question a bit. Deployable equipment from an impetious trooper

Nope, the impetuous trooper has to go towards the nearest trooper.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Paradur said:

So to up the question a bit. Deployable equipment from an impetious trooper

Rephrasing a bit. 

An impetious trooper with a deployable equipment / Helper bot / crazy-fast panda-koala. 

I don't see why the equipment / bot should suffer from the impetious state since it's their owner who has it. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Sorry for not being clear about what I meant, What @TGreatDk said.

The problem is they are equipment and as such part of the troop, so it could go both ways

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
3 hours ago, TGreatDk said:

Rephrasing a bit. 

An impetious trooper with a deployable equipment / Helper bot / crazy-fast panda-koala. 

I don't see why the equipment / bot should suffer from the impetious state since it's their owner who has it. 

Because in some cases, the rules say so.

G: Synch says: "If the Controller is, or becomes, Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous, then his Impetuous Order also activates the G: Synchronized trooper, which will be considered Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous as well."

G: Servant says: "If the Doctor/Engineer is, or becomes, Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous, then his Impetuous Order also activates compulsorily the G: Servant trooper, which will be considered Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous as well."

Perimeter has no such text.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Well - you learn something everyday then :)

Thanks for informing me! 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
2 hours ago, Mahtamori said:

Because in some cases, the rules say so.

G: Synch says: "If the Controller is, or becomes, Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous, then his Impetuous Order also activates the G: Synchronized trooper, which will be considered Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous as well."

G: Servant says: "If the Doctor/Engineer is, or becomes, Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous, then his Impetuous Order also activates compulsorily the G: Servant trooper, which will be considered Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous as well."

Perimeter has no such text.

But they are equipment, so they could be affected by the state of the user. I can't find a rule that states anything clearly on that point.

 

I assume it's clarified in ghost as they count as individual troopers.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
25 minutes ago, Paradur said:

But they are equipment, so they could be affected by the state of the user. I can't find a rule that states anything clearly on that point.

 

I assume it's clarified in ghost as they count as individual troopers.

I'm not making an argument, I'm just stating that for Troopers who are G: Servant and G: Synch, it is explicit in the rules that they are Impetuous if their controller is.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Ahh okay, Then I misunderstood the point of your last line :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 minutes ago, Paradur said:

Ahh okay, Then I misunderstood the point of your last line :)

Right. Well, you can read whatever you like into that one, I'm not actually going to make a point of it other than face value.

From memory I think I've read that equipment don't get cover, but my memory is not a reliable source.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

3 hours ago, TGreatDk said: Rephrasing a bit. 

An impetious trooper with a deployable equipment / Helper bot / crazy-fast panda-koala. 

I don't see why the equipment / bot should suffer from the impetious state since it's their owner who has it. 

Because in some cases, the rules say so.

G: Synch says: "If the Controller is, or becomes, Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous, then his Impetuous Order also activates the G: Synchronized trooper, which will be considered Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous as well."

G: Servant says: "If the Doctor/Engineer is, or becomes, Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous, then his Impetuous Order also activates compulsorily the G: Servant trooper, which will be considered Impetuous or Extreme Impetuous as well."

Perimeter has no such text.

Koalas aren't G:Sync they're Perimeter. It's different.

Edit: it's already covered above.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 8/31/2017 at 7:17 AM, Paradur said:

But they are equipment, so they could be affected by the state of the user. I can't find a rule that states anything clearly on that point.

You can't find anything that states anything clearly on that point because you're chasing a preconception on your part.

If a prone model places a mine, is the mine prone?  No, because the mine's state isn't connected to deployer's state.  Likewise, the mine isn't impetuous or irregular depending on who placed it on the table.

Same thing goes for things like crazy koalas:  If any state of the user effects the deployed equipment, the rules will tell you.  If it doesn't, it won't.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Except for that deploying a mine resembles putting a koala in standby mode, which I agree on makes it independent of the owner. However, until they are in standby mode they act and activate with the owner.

 

Hmm I just found this:

Quote

Active Turn. Perimeter Items are activated by each Order declared by their bearer. Each time the bearer declares Cautious Movement, Climb, Move, or Jump, his Perimeter Items will perform the same Skill. If the bearer declares any other Skill different from the previously mentioned ones, the Perimeter Items will do nothing, considering it an Idle.

 

Reading that they are activated by the owner and not with the owner, so I guess that could be interpreted as they will not share the state with the owner, removing the argument, which I would also prefer.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 02.09.2017 at 11:41 AM, Paradur said:

Reading that they are activated by the owner and not with the owner, so I guess that could be interpreted as they will not share the state with the owner, removing the argument, which I would also prefer.

Is there even an instruction telling that something that activates with an owner must share its state? I mean general rule and not actually present specific instruction under Servant and Synchronized.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 02.09.2017 at 11:41 AM, Paradur said: Reading that they are activated by the owner and not with the owner, so I guess that could be interpreted as they will not share the state with the owner, removing the argument, which I would also prefer.

Is there even an instruction telling that something that activates with an owner must share its state? I mean general rule and not actually present specific instruction under Servant and Synchronized.

No there isn't.
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now