I understand most people would play this way but ultimately it isn’t in the rules. Especially as you say if the area isn’t 3x3 then using a silhouette isn’t really an option. Doesn’t seem to be something that comes up often though and common sense usually prevails in these situations. However, as someone who organises tournaments hear things having specific rules is always better for when it’s contested.
That's actually physics, but sure, mate.. Anyway, if you read the original comment where I described the issue, the problem is that nowhere in the rules there's a mention of what are the dimensions of a grenade, so I guess by RAW it can be treated as having no dimensions at all, like a regular BS attack. So I am asserting that declaring a BS Attack with a Throwing Weapon through a minuscule aperture is basically bending the rules to achieve what's not achievable with real life physics (barring the sci-fi stuff).
The issue with this one is that depending on how far back from the aperture your point is will determine if you have LOF to a horizontal surface or not. With sufficient relief (which may only be a few mm, such as the thickness of an mdf wall) it's possible that you can't draw LOF to a horizontal surface at all, or can only do so at such a range as to be practically useless. @n21 And while optics is physics if we simplify the issue using a ray-model for light we are reduced to a geometric question (I think a ray-model of light is sufficiently robust for our purposes). Unfortunately for @daboarder's argument it's one that requires you do know certain distance measurements for it to be resolved (as above). Personally I'd tend to treat 1x1mm gaps in a building to be sealed: this removes any ambiguity. Similarly we usually rule that you can't draw LOF under toy cars used as scatter: LOF does exist under them, but it's simpler from a gameplay POV to ignore it and pretend they're solid to the ground. But @daboarder is 100% correct that grenades have no volume. Even the 3x3mm requirement for targetting the ground is convention, not actually the rules. Apparently RAW LOF doesn't actually exist between a Trooper and points in space / on the ground ;)
If you want to play it RAW then you can only target points on the table, so the roof is 100% out. Don't play it RAW. ;)
I feel I must clarify that I never argued against the fact that grenades have a volume declared somewhere in the rules. The reason why I disagreed with @daboarder was that he argued that using grenades in the way I described is not a rules abuse. Indeed, per RAW it clearly isn't, but I wouldn't call it a gentlemanly way of playing Infinity. I'm especially surprised that he, as an advocate of Intent (I'm personally more leaning towards as-less-intent-as-possible side), argues that there's no abuse of the rules when the only reason this is possible is the absence of detailed LoF requirements for using a Throwing weapon (hence the reason why I posted my concern in this thread). There's more 'Gotcha!' in this situation than with all the Intent-nonIntent way of playing the game.
My understanding of his argument is that if the LOF inarguably exists then using it isn't an exploit, even if doing so would require minutely precise positioning. I actually agree with him on that. I disagree that this is (necessarily) a situation where whether LOF exists to the point you want it to is immediately apparent. The way around this problem is to chat about the table before playing: that door that is slightly cracked is it actually closed, or is it actually cracked open a few mm? That car, can I see under it or not? How are we playing windows? That roof is it horizontal or not for the purposes of Targetless? As boring as box terrain is, it's the easiest to play with. Terrain and the weird interactions it generates isn't something that is easily codified: at a tournie I find I usually play the same table differently depending on my opponent. Nobody lets me use heating vents (for aircon etc) as Low/Poor/Zero Reflective Zones though :'(
"Smoke Special Ammunition is a non-offensive ammunition, so it does not require an enemy—or, in fact, any trooper at all—as a target, and can be thrown at any point on the table." A point on the roof of a building isn't, strictly speaking, a point on the table. Nobody reads it like that though: it's always read to mean any 'horizontal surface'. I can't actually find the rule that allows us to derive that 'horizontal surfaces' are those that a model is fully supported by.
I guess that depends. If you're going to define table as literally the noun a table (ie the piece of furniture). I'd call it the gameplay area which would include terrain. Otherwise you're pretty screwed if you decide to play infinity on a mat on the floor ;)
Well, I agree that if LoF exists, then using it is not an exploit. But here the core of the issue lies in the discrepancy between the fact that rules as written allow you to lob a grenade through a hole that is smaller than the grenade itself, and the fact that this is very unrealistic. I would also agree that apertures that are too small or are located so that it's very difficult to check LoF through them can be usually considered as nonexistent by mutual agreement with an opponent. Heh, I guess I just love finding weird issues like this one :D I hear you, matey, I actually have the very same issue :/ I would *love* to play on a table with special terrain, saturation zones and visibility zones, but no one in my meta ever bothers to at least consider bridge railing as Saturation Zone/Low Vis. Hopefully, I'll be able to force some specially designed tables with these rules for the upcoming event in October =]
I think that was ruled in one of the threads on the old forums as an answer to that one never dying question of "can you perform an AD4 on the roof?".
