Okay not sure how this works.

Corp unit at range 4 from an AT ST drop a smoke token to get light cover from being shot at. Atst shoots, they have light cover (assuming full unit is in range 1 of said token etc)

Now based on the following rule

A vehicle unit within range 1 of a smoke token does not improve its cover, and units defending against a vehicle unit whose unit leader is within range 1 of a smoke token do not improve their cover.

What happens when either player drops ANOTHER smoke token in range 1 of the AT ST rules as written, the infantry unit no longer improves their cover because the qualifier above is that the vehicle leader is in range of A token, instead of specifying the same token as the defending unit.

So if I'm correct, all a player needs to do to negate a defender's smoke is to provide smoke of their own around their vehicles.

11 hours ago, syrath said:

Okay not sure how this works.

Corp unit at range 4 from an AT ST drop a smoke token to get light cover from being shot at. Atst shoots, they have light cover (assuming full unit is in range 1 of said token etc)

Now based on the following rule

A vehicle unit within range 1 of a smoke token does not improve its cover, and units defending against a vehicle unit whose unit leader is within range 1 of a smoke token do not improve their cover.

What happens when either player drops ANOTHER smoke token in range 1 of the AT ST rules as written, the infantry unit no longer improves their cover because the qualifier above is that the vehicle leader is in range of A token, instead of specifying the same token as the defending unit.

So if I'm correct, all a player needs to do to negate a defender's smoke is to provide smoke of their own around their vehicles.

It's true that the rule doesn't specify which token, but I think its implied. Meaning that a trooper unit won't gain cover from the smoke token at range 1 of the vehicle, but if they are within range 1 of another smoke token, then they would be getting the benefit from that other token.

Agreed with Lemmiwinks. It’s certainly implied.

If you look at the attack rules you’ll see an identical wording issue that someone asked about way back when. The ranged attack rules say that the “attacker and defender are not in a melee”. The argument was it does not say “with each other”, but that is obviously implied.

3 hours ago, Lemmiwinks86 said:

It's true that the rule doesn't specify which token, but I think its implied. Meaning that a trooper unit won't gain cover from the smoke token at range 1 of the vehicle, but if they are within range 1 of another smoke token, then they would be getting the benefit from that other token.

A similar issue came up with entourage and commanding presence that resulted in a tournament where they said that they could issue orders at range 1 with entourage or they could issue those orders at range 4 (but not range 2 or 3)

47 minutes ago, syrath said:

A similar issue came up with entourage and commanding presence that resulted in a tournament where they said that they could issue orders at range 1 with entourage or they could issue those orders at range 4 (but not range 2 or 3)

Entourage works at range 1-2. So 2 should've been ruled "OK", but RAW range 3 is a blind spot for the ability in that case.

2 hours ago, nashjaee said:

Entourage works at range 1-2. So 2 should've been ruled "OK", but RAW range 3 is a blind spot for the ability in that case.

Yes, sorry my bad on entourage , I'm a Rebel player and don't use it myself, however the point stands that if it can be ruled that it's okay to give an order out to range 1-2 and 4 but not 3 then they could easily rule that as per the rules the defenders won't get cover in the case I describe, although it is obvious their intention , you could argue their intention with commanding presence is to increase the command "bubble" an extra range band so it makes sense it either doesn't work with entourage, or that it also increases the entourage range to 3 rather than giving it a Saturn's rings effect for orders. The point being that wasn't how it was ruled and a case could be argued for the defenders not.getting cover if the vehicle is "smokin"

9 hours ago, syrath said:

Yes, sorry my bad on entourage , I'm a Rebel player and don't use it myself, however the point stands that if it can be ruled that it's okay to give an order out to range 1-2 and 4 but not 3 then they could easily rule that as per the rules the defenders won't get cover in the case I describe, although it is obvious their intention , you could argue their intention with commanding presence is to increase the command "bubble" an extra range band so it makes sense it either doesn't work with entourage, or that it also increases the entourage range to 3 rather than giving it a Saturn's rings effect for orders. The point being that wasn't how it was ruled and a case could be argued for the defenders not.getting cover if the vehicle is "smokin"

Yeah, see my earlier point about the wording in the attack rules. I think this may be taking the exact wording too literally.

55 minutes ago, nashjaee said:

Yeah, see my earlier point about the wording in the attack rules. I think this may be taking the exact wording too literally.

Which is what a tournament judge is likely to do, rightly or wrongly they only have the wording to go on. I'm fairly clear on the intent of the rule and agree with you, but a tournament organizer has to go rules as written.

Edit, if I played a casual game I'd play it as I think I it was intended, i.e. You'd get cover.

2 hours ago, syrath said:

Which is what a tournament judge is likely to do, rightly or wrongly they only have the wording to go on. I'm fairly clear on the intent of the rule and agree with you, but a tournament organizer has to go rules as written.

Edit, if I played a casual game I'd play it as I think I it was intended, i.e. You'd get cover.

So would you say every event since the game’s release has been ruling attacks incorrectly? Honestly, it’s enough of a precedent to apply the same concept here.

10 hours ago, nashjaee said:

Yeah, see my earlier point about the wording in the attack rules. I think this may be taking the exact wording too literally.

I think you misunderstand my intent here. I'm fairly sure if I called a judge in major tournament they would say the defenders do not get cover because the ATST was in range 1 of a smoke token. The reason I even bring this up is because I do not believe it should be so. I know in all certainty that the intent of this rule is that if the ATST is in the same range 1 bubble as the defender then the defender gets no cover from the smoke. This is not what the rules say however and I think it should be errata'd. The rule is quite explicit in saying that if a vehicle makes a shot at a defender who is under cover of smoke, and that the vehicle unit leader is also in range 1 of a smoke token then the defender does not benefit from the cover.

The problem here IMO is that the rules specify that the vehicle unit leader only needs to be in range 1 of A smoke token. Not the smoke token, not the same smoke token, but A smoke token.

As for the rules on attacking , you cannot attack with a ranged attack if the defender is in melee. If the attacker is in melee it cannot shoot another unit, (excepting Grievous new keyword). They do not have to be in melee with each other to not be able to ranged shoot. Vehicles are out of this as they can be engaged but not in melee. Or are you referring to another rule

2 hours ago, syrath said:

I think you misunderstand my intent here. I'm fairly sure if I called a judge in major tournament they would say the defenders do not get cover because the ATST was in range 1 of a smoke token. The reason I even bring this up is because I do not believe it should be so. I know in all certainty that the intent of this rule is that if the ATST is in the same range 1 bubble as the defender then the defender gets no cover from the smoke. This is not what the rules say however and I think it should be errata'd. The rule is quite explicit in saying that if a vehicle makes a shot at a defender who is under cover of smoke, and that the vehicle unit leader is also in range 1 of a smoke token then the defender does not benefit from the cover.

The problem here IMO is that the rules specify that the vehicle unit leader only needs to be in range 1 of A smoke token. Not the smoke token, not the same smoke token, but A smoke token.

As for the rules on attacking , you cannot attack with a ranged attack if the defender is in melee. If the attacker is in melee it cannot shoot another unit, (excepting Grievous new keyword). They do not have to be in melee with each other to not be able to ranged shoot. Vehicles are out of this as they can be engaged but not in melee. Or are you referring to another rule

I agree with nashjaee, we can't take the rules too literally. If so, a vehicle within range 1 of a smoke token can bypass the cover bonus from suppression or Low Profile for example:

"A vehicle unit within range 1 of a smoke token does not improve its cover, and units defending against a vehicle unit whose unit leader is within range 1 of a smoke token do not improve their cover. "

Suppression: " Units with suppression tokens improve their cover but can suffer penalties when they are activated."

Low profile: "While defending against an attack, if a unit with the low profile keyword has light cover, it improves its cover by 1 ."

All of that because that rule from Smoke doesn't specify that the defender does not improve its cover only from the effect of that smoke token, but its implied and thus I think that no one would argue with you that your trooper unit doesn´'t get light cover from the suppression they have because your vehicle is inside range 1 of a smoke token.

3 hours ago, syrath said:

I think you misunderstand my intent here. I'm fairly sure if I called a judge in major tournament they would say the defenders do not get cover because the ATST was in range 1 of a smoke token. The reason I even bring this up is because I do not believe it should be so. I know in all certainty that the intent of this rule is that if the ATST is in the same range 1 bubble as the defender then the defender gets no cover from the smoke. This is not what the rules say however and I think it should be errata'd. The rule is quite explicit in saying that if a vehicle makes a shot at a defender who is under cover of smoke, and that the vehicle unit leader is also in range 1 of a smoke token then the defender does not benefit from the cover

Oh, I certainly don't mean to imply that you are personally trying to game the rules or anything. I get what you mean. I'm saying that a judge that rules this way would be in the wrong. Because...

3 hours ago, syrath said:

As for the rules on attacking , you cannot attack with a ranged attack if the defender is in melee. If the attacker is in melee it cannot shoot another unit, (excepting Grievous new keyword). They do not have to be in melee with each other to not be able to ranged shoot. Vehicles are out of this as they can be engaged but not in melee. Or are you referring to another rule

So, this is the exact line I'm referring to:

"During a melee attack, the attacker and defender are in a
melee, and the attacker can use only weapons that have a
red melee (󲉫) icon."

If we parse this sentence extremely literally (the way you were suggesting we parse the smoke rule) then two units that are in a melee but not with each other can attack each other with melee weapons. Because each one has satisfied the condition of being in a melee. That's clearly not correct. And I think it's a fair precedent to use in the smoke case.

1 hour ago, nashjaee said:

Oh, I certainly don't mean to imply that you are personally trying to game the rules or anything. I get what you mean. I'm saying that a judge that rules this way would be in the wrong. Because...

So, this is the exact line I'm referring to:

"During a melee attack, the attacker and defender are in a
melee, and the attacker can use only weapons that have a
red melee (󲉫) icon."

If we parse this sentence extremely literally (the way you were suggesting we parse the smoke rule) then two units that are in a melee but not with each other can attack each other with melee weapons. Because each one has satisfied the condition of being in a melee. That's clearly not correct. And I think it's a fair precedent to use in the smoke case.

To elaborate on the current melee rules

Melee represents close combat between opposing units. When two miniatures from opposing players’ units are in base contact, those units are in a melee. • If two trooper units are in a melee, those units are engaged. Any unit type can be in a melee, but only troopers can be engaged.• When a unit performs an attack against a unit that it is in a melee with, that attack is a melee attack. Melee attacks follow the same rules as ranged attacks with the following exceptions: »The attacker can use only weapons that have the melee (򉫩 icon. »The target of the attack must be in the same melee as the attacker.

so the current rules are unambiguous and with tournaments getting larger and less casual reading The rules as written becomes very important. Still my point that I wanted to make is that the rule as it stands doesn't make sense my original question though was asked because if my reading of the rule as it was written was correct, not as it was intended, nor how it should work, but as it is just now, then it needs fixed, but there may have been something grammatical i may have missed with the rule.

Now going back to it it may well be that there is a misread here going back over the rule

Clouds of smoke on the battlefield can provide tactical cover to troops. Trooper units within range 1 of a smoke token improve their cover by 1. While a trooper unit is attacking, if the attacking unit leader is within range 1 of a smoke token, the defender improves their cover by 1. Smoke tokens are removed at the end of each round.

• Every mini in a unit must be entirely within range 1 of a smoke token to benefit from its effects.• A vehicle unit within range 1 of a smoke token does not improve its cover, and units defending against a vehicle unit whose unit leader is within range 1 of a smoke token do not improve their cover

.• During the End Phase, all smoke tokens are returned to the supply

It is quite possible here we have an overlap in rules not wording great but still making sense

In the first instance an infantry unit shooting into or out of smoke has cover applied to them when shot at or when shooting at someone else.

The second part of the rule is saying that no cover is gained from shooting a vehicle if it is in smoke or on the target as a result of a vehicle sitting in smoke. The first part of the rule still applies here if the vehicle is shooting at infantry in a smoke cloud.

IE two infantry shooting at each other from different smoke clouds both would get heavy cover

An infantry and vehicle in the same situation would o my be light cover , on both sides because the infantry shooting from smokes target benefits and the infantry when defending in smoke benefits, the vehicle does not benefit or detriment from sitting I the smoke itself.

Am I correct in thinking that the only way to acquire the Smoke Grenades upgrade and associated smoke token is from the Phase I Clone Troopers expansion?

At the moment yes. I think they will be in each of the Specialists packs. Rex too.

40 minutes ago, NeonWolf said:

Am I correct in thinking that the only way to acquire the Smoke Grenades upgrade and associated smoke token is from the Phase I Clone Troopers expansion?

They will also be included with Rex and the Corps upgrade packs.

After reading this thread, and the official ruling in this post , I believe the Smoke rules need to be rewritten, almost entirely. As written, there are far too many loopholes, not only in the above discussed situation but also the follow two items:

1. The official ruling (linked above and shown below) is not accurate for the RRG Smoke rules, which state "Trooper units within range 1 of a smoke token improve their cover by 1." This sentence doesn't care how many tokens you are in range 1 of it just asks are you in range of a token. If so, you improve cover by 1. The number of tokens is irrelevant, except for the next case, #2. The RRG rule conflicts with their ruling and needs updating.
2. The only strange case where the rules allow a unit to improve their cover from none to heavy is when: UnitA and UnitB are fully within range of a Smoke token, the same one or different. When either unit attacks the other, even in melee, the defender will improve their cover twice, due to these two rules each improving cover by 1: "Trooper units with range 1 of a smoke token improve their cover by 1. While a trooper unit is attacking, if the attacking unit leader is within range 1 of a smoke token, the defender improves their cover by 1.

The 1st sentence is true and improves the defender's cover by 1, and the 2nd sentence is true and also improves the defender's cover by 1.

This may be intentional but I do not think it was. This also needs clarifying in the RRG.

Quote

The ruling in the above official ruling link:

Question: Do two smoke tokens combine to provide heavy cover?

Answer: Yes. Smoke tokens also combine with light cover to provide heavy cover.

Quote

For reference, the full smoke rules in RRG 151:

Trooper units within
range 1 of a smoke token improve their cover by 1.
While a trooper unit is attacking, if the attacking
unit leader is within range 1 of a smoke token, the
defender improves their cover by 1. Smoke tokens
are removed at the end of each round.
• Every mini in a unit must be entirely within range 1 of a
smoke token to benefit from its effects.
• A vehicle unit within range 1 of a smoke token does not
improve its cover, and units defending against a vehicle unit
whose unit leader is within range 1 of a smoke token do not
improve their cover.
• During the End Phase, all smoke tokens are returned to
the supply.