I didn't even know you could shoot people in the ass around corners, because the English text implied the opposite.
I actually thought of this myself back when I first started reading about it (and I'm pretty sure it was before Feb of this year). I didn't say anything because I knew it would be a rules change, but I think it's a rather straightforward approach that both solves the "problem" of ARO negation due to height and keeping the intention of only being able to cover one corner at a time.
While it may be mechanically sound within the game I don’t think it’s a very good interpretation of what could happen in reality. Firstly people generally aren't actually that round. Secondly it encourages an optimal facing when up against buildings that I don’t think is actually realistic. A lot of the time you’re not even centering your focus in the direction of the building/terrain piece blocking. If we were after realism I think a 90 degree shooting arc would capture it better. Perhaps be able to shoot back from 90 and dodge/shoot back with a penalty from anywhere up to 180?
I'm really against using it like that in the vertical options. I don't think mcmurder and tarik need that help at ramboing. (And i play haqq with tarik)
Easy: activate your troop, place where you would like to go and place it down. Then we will check lof.
Now do that with super jump. I'd just create this anti-gravitaional field to suspend the model in the air while we check Lof. (You can shoot in the air with super-jump)
Ok, jump up, tell me the point where would like to jump eg. 3, 75 inc and from that point we will check.
It is not as easy as you make it sound to have two silhouette markers one hold up in the air with a human hand (which actually rules-wise should be cylinders and not flat) and accurately check LoF to an imaginary point on the opponent model. As you might have noticed most models are not cylinders which have the front arc marked at the top.
A ruler and a laser. If some1 wants to play like this, bring the equipment. Ok, i know it is not flat ofc. Just pick the highest possible point on the active troopers s. :)
Many apologies for misremembering when this first came up as an issue for vertical positioning, especially as I had posted in the earlier threads! @daboarder its possible you're misremembering as well, as the Seraph came out in 2015, before the FAQ. Or were you already playing with LoF from the front half of the base?
I may look dumb saying this but I re-read the latest FAQ (1.4) and didn't find anything new regarding LoF (new things are written in red and there is no red in the part talking about LoF). I recheck the FAQ 1.3 and there were nothing new in this one either. So is there really something new in the FAQ ? Or are we simply seeing an old rulling a new way ? By the way, in my meta we simply ignore the issue of "shooting someone in the back while being in front of him" (vertical or horizontal) and don't do it (I went to a tournament in an other meta this week end and it looks like they do the same). That's pushing play by intent too far for my taste .
No, this is all going back to the 1.2 FAQ from 2016. Or before, for the players who were already playing LoF from the front half of the base. Note that this isn't really related to play by intent (of any type of intent), if you've got a large base facing the wall and at a distance from the corner it's trivially easy to do as the positional accuracy can be inches rather than millimetres.
The intent only starts to come into play for the horizontal thing (super-jump) and maybe S2 vs S2 horizontal. Here is the mentioned FAQ for anyone too lazy to check or other reasons (I can't see the picture on the wiki for example): "Q: Can I return a shot in ARO if a troop attacks within the 180˚ front half base, but without LoF from the 180˚ front half base? A: A troop have a LoF angle of 180˚, that is, they can see with the front half of their base. LoF can be drawn from any point in the troop’s volume to any point in the target’s volume. Because of this little nuance of troop / target, “If I can see you, you can see me” the target can draw LoF to the attacker troop when the attacker is within the 180˚ front half base of the target. In summary: For a miniature can ARO must be within its 180˚ front half base and be able to draw the LoF from those 180˚. As we can see on the graphic, the Fusilier can draw a LoF from any point of his volume to any visible point of the volume of the Reverend. The Fusilier is within the 180˚ front half of the Reverend, but she can’t draw a LoF from her 180˚ front half, because the scenery block the line, so she can’t shoot. "
then it was within a week or two of the FAQ dropping at best. It certainly wasnt years thats for sure, the implications are pretty stark and noticble.
or no and your ruler idea makes this easier, trigs a thing mate, its fairly easy to know how hi above a mini you need to be exactly you might struggle with a rules, others wont, they will nail this exactly every time
The earliest reference anyone's found so far is from 2017, which doesn't appear to refer to any previous discussions.
@Sabin76 I've thought a bit more about the fix for the 3D implications of the FAQ proposed on FB & while it's initially appealing, think it would also have unwanted consequences in 2D situations. (To recap: the proposed fix was to allow troopers to trace LoF into their front arc from the entirety of the top of their silhouette cylinder, simulating their ability to look up.) For example, applying this house rule to the 2D example shown in the FAQ would allow the Reverend to shoot back at the Fusilier. So I further proposed that this be limited to LoF above the shooter's silhouette, which would restore the FAQ's intended effect. So far, so good. But now imagine that the Reverend is prone (S0) while you're using this house rule - and we're right back to her being able to return fire. Line of sight rules are always tricky!
Meanwhile, rather than addressing the issue with their rules set Corvus Belli take a different approach. And update their facebook page with shitposting on the topic. Super professional right there. @Bostria @HellLois how about you guys actually do something about your rules instead? Address flawed rules first, siesta/shitpost second.
It's funny if they fix the ongoing rules problem first, then post the libertos thing. The unintended crap with shooting from above has been known for ages and they've refused to do jack about it. That's highly frustrating and reeks of lazy developers, and rubbing it in doesn't help the mood.
