Perhaps it would be more productive to muse on how to defend against super-jump troops (though any unit on a roof can do it too) while we wait for a CB response to this. I believe we're 100% clear on what the rules say, even if many of us are hoping that what they say was not intended and will therefore be changed.
There is something to be learned from a rainstorm. When meeting with a sudden shower, you try not to get wet and run quickly along the road. But doing such things as passing under the eaves of houses, you still get wet. When you are resolved from the beginning, you will not be perplexed, though you still get the same soaking. This understanding extends to everything.
In the meantime, what do we do about TO's forcing their house rules on people because they can't accept the clarity of the rules?
"I jump high enough to shoot your back from the front" "I walk around the corner enough to shoot your back from the front" "it's geometircally possible, don't be an ass and watse my time measuring and lasering it for you" What is your response to the above? Since you are basically trying to guilt trip people for pointing out what almost certainly is an unintended consequence of a ruling made. Or do you want to open the whole INTENT can of worms as your solution?
@theradrussian Whether you play with intent or not it's still a problem. Gotcha! players acting like their method solves this issue are full of crap.
I was hoping to illuminate the complexity of the issue for Harly to help him reach the conclusion. But yeah, I dislike the idea of people simply declaring their way works and anyone else is just bad-mouthing the infallible lord that is CB :P
"can you hold your in the air to where you think you can see JUST my back arc? I'd like to check if I have any other AROs." *presumably wobbles model in air* "Huh, weird, i'm pretty sure I can see you with my front arc there"
Not sure what an INFOWAR hacking program has to do with this... Need to hackable characteristic increasing
So then you are only "countering" half the issue. In addition to implying intent should go away (NOTE: i am not trying to open that can of worms, mods plz no ban :D )
Deal with it how you would deal with any conflict with other players. By discussing and agreeing. Maybe compromises.
I'm not implying intent to go away, by any means. I'm just trying to double check my AROs. it's not unreasonable for me to ask where your model is at the height of it's movement Just because something is geometrically possible and your hitting one guy where he can't see you doesn't make you immune to all other AROs on the table.
So in effect, what I derive from this line of logic is it is best to not allow shooting people in the back with a super jump, as it makes the game break down? I agree.... :P
Surely ‘prevent them from ever making meaningful AROs.’ is a little overstated for rare occasions when the active player is a) in a suitable position to try the tactic, and b) they actually manage to estimate the placement correctly? Also, i think we may be somewhat at crossed purposes in this thread, because the situations have different challenges depending on play style. Maybe people could specify if they’re talking about managing this situation with Intent or otherwise? For by-the-book players this is really just a weird shenanigan the active player might just be able to pull off if they've a good eye. Declare your intention; make your best estimate for placement; then find out if you achieved your intention after you’ve measured for distance and checked your new Lines of Fire, as usual. Yes, this is messy with Super Jump, but it is stiill manageable. And regardless of our play style, no doubt we’d all be well advised to check if our oppomemt is aware of the possibily before that Order is declared.
@MikeTheScrivener a model's final position is not a quantum wobbly state, it muat be clearly defined, one way or another.
the point i'm poking at is it's really hard to actually tangibly produce this. It differs from intent, say moving along walls to a specific point, because the movement measurements there are usually so small AROs are easy to visualize anyway. With Super-Jump you are often moving 4+ inches in a manner that is tough to actually visualize to get the angle you want
sure, but I have yet to meet anyone with hands of steel that can hold a super-jumping model's final position accurately long enough for me to check all other possible ARO situations.
Sure, but if they say "I jump up just high enough to see model x's back arc" and you're playing with intent, then that's how far they jumped up. You don't get to say "Ah ha! You moved slightly so that you can see my front arc, I get an ARO!" Sure, any other models who can see them at that position get to do their thing, but that position is defined. I have no idea how Gotcha! players resolve this situation, since I don't play that way, but it seems pretty unworkable in that paradigm due to the inability to define a specific endpoint.
Playing strictly with theoretical intent in a game without premeasuring kind of defeats the point of playing a game without premeasuring.
