If we assume that the majority is correct by default, that's still 1 person in 5 getting it wrong, which I think is enough to make it worth while correcting...
its fairly safe to assume if they independently read the rules a particular way, then that is what the rules say, may that change? perhaps but its a pretty solid consensus for a rules question. Even if we do get an FAQ I doubt this will be put to bed, just like the ZOC measurement question it took community consensus to find the solution to that despite 2 rounds of FAQs
I would rather not shut down anything, but if it ends up there it will happen. Please behave, and debate as much as you like withing reason, but I do not think this will be resolved without a FAQ.
Consensus is good, but not final. The majority can be wrong, and have been on many occasions in the past for example "soon" used to mean "immediately" but it was used wrong by the majority and "literally" now means "figuratively"... According to the rules(or my understand of them...)attacks are declared and THEN line of fire and range checked, AROs are declared before that so most of the time they'll already have a good idea of LOF unless your opponent got it wrong too, but its not checked until they're all declared, if the target is out of line of fire,out of range, or a friendly/neutral model is underneath a template, the attack is null. So far as i know all targetless weapons are all also capable of speculative fire(though its granted as an additional ability, not part of targetless), so even that caveat wouldn't apply.
The rules explicitly confirm you may check LOF that would disrupt an order before declaration. And that checking such LOF is open information. At most there is an argument about how you go about doing that. The timing is never an issue. The consensus therefore is that if said order includes a move skill you are within rights to check LOF along the path of that potential move before you declare it. Or as per the rules ask your opponent and they must share said Open Information.
The question this raises is how anyone has any idea of LOF without checking it. Checking LOF is not something that can be restricted to a certain step as it is impossible to differentiate between looking at the table and checking LOF under any circumstance. It has been put forward (unconvincingly in my opinion) that LOF can be "measured", and it is this measurement has restricted timing. The rules make no mention of measuring LOF, only that it exists when an uninterrupted line can be drawn between 2 models/markers, and the presence of LOF is a requirement for some things, so you should check it exists before resolving these things.
Again another undefined term pops up in "disrupt". It could be that AROs don't "disrupt" a move order because regardless of the outcome of the ARO, the move still happens. It's a pretty big leap of logic on that one though. The biggest, most concise argument for being able to check at any time to my mind is that, unlike Open Information, Private information is pretty well defined and doesn't include LOF. Technically Not being private information doesn't automatically make it open information, for example the number of troopers in a combat group including camo, HD and AD isn't private but if it's open that makes the private information on the presence of said troopers moot. Everyone(barring some disability) can look at the table in front of them and get an idea of line of fire, checking it in my example is only for confirmation that the order is possible its never "restricted" as such but its only at that stage, after the template/marker has been placed that a line of fire to the template/marker can be determined, and since you can place targetless weapons without line of fire, they still work if you're determining line of fire to the template/marker after placing it. Both sides have valid points that don't have easy resolutions due to undefined terms and at various points have declared that an FAQ isn't required because they're right. and this portion of the intent debate can be settles with one or two green boxes with less than 100 words between them on the wiki: Q Are potential lines of fire from a model to any point of the table open information? A1 yes A2 no and Q Are targetless weapons considered to have an existing line of fire to any point of the table in range? A1 yes, but who cares? A2 targetless weapons only have line of fire to the template/marker once the shot has been declared and the template/marker placed. The numbered Answers are paired IMO, we can't have A1 to one and A2 to the other because that would just make us all crazy and/or cause exploits that invalidate the other, and if the answer to the first one is yes really the answer to the second one can be "my cat's breath smells like catfood" for all the relevance it would actually have... Essentially what I'm saying is both could be functional, but damned if I know which one is right....
Weve been here and done that. While its possible to read the rules multiples ways at the end of the day we have the vast majority reading them one way and 10 percent of the community arguing with that. Thats consensus
Maybe to encourage some sort of input? "Faq isn't something for who deliberately play wrong" if I recall correctly... Or am I wrong?? Mask
The idea that more people agree with something means its indisputable is a logical fallacy. it's definitely far simpler to play that way, more people prefer to play that way, but at the end of the day, it can still be the "wrong" way to play as far as the intent of the game designers goes, regardless of wither 1% or 99% agree. And if 10% including some people credited in the rulebook are getting it wrong, that's way more than common enough where an FAQ is warranted in my eyes.
What if the original intent of the game designers is actually contradictory and poorly thought out, therefore impossible to write solid rules for, and the fact that they tried and failed is the reason for this debate? Is it still the "right" way to play?
Arguing that the minority disagrees with the majority isnt grounds for a question to be adressed either. Plenty of prominent members of the community see no issue with the wording and find it clear. Ultimately a vocal but minor section of the community disagrees with the majority. That doesnt make the minority right. As to arguments about people credited to the rulebook getting it wrong, well theres a long and strong precedent of them continuusly doing just that. That weakens the argument that there is an issue not strengthens it. Especially when what you are discussing has other major rules wrong within it.
In that case it would still technically be the "right" way,even if its genuinely impossible(which I don't think it is in this case) Why shouldn't there be an FAQ that says you're right? If it says you've been doing it right the whole time it didn't affect you, because it wasn't for you, or the 90%, it was for the 10% of poor buggers getting it wrong...
I dont think there shouldnt be one as such. I more think that its unnecessary to begin with. That we have a working and good understanding of the rules currently as a community and that even if we get an FAQ it will not solve the argument based on precedent. Ultimately LOF that would disrupt an order is open and shareable information. That cannot be argued with, and only a minority argue with the community understanding of what that rule means
If the FAQ says that the potential lines of sight, regardless of whether an order has been declared, are open information then it shuts down a huge percentage of the people playing declaration only/ non intent's argument for doing so. Someone out there is always going to get it wrong, but not attempting to correct the problem leaves a huge swath of people who just don't know any better playing it wrong, who would otherwise change over. Additionally, the inevitable stubborn people who'd still argue their way is better can continue to play it their way until told not to by a TO, and when they post on the forum after the FAQ, nobody has to provide evidence to dispute it, they can just be linked the FAQ and allowed to scream their displeasure into the void... edit: by the same token if it says the two things I pointed out that would make it possible(likely is a different mater) for line of sight not to be open information to any point of the table then its a pretty big deal, and while its still within the realms of possibility, after a couple interplanetarios watching folk do it wrong I think there would probably have been something said, even if it was "its wrong but it's better so now its not wrong"
A faq can be used to contradict how 100% of how people play and people will accept the new ruling and move on. This is how shock can now knock 2w nwi models unconscious when before it couldn't. And if a vocal minority complains about something and has legitimate rules to back it into validity, regardless of how many people play it a particular way, it should be ruled by an official authority on how it should be played. A faq should answer questions that have been raised by the community where the official rules are not clear. There is no limit to the space available to answer said questions.
