Considering the number of non-organic eyes involved in the game, I think the problem is partially that you’re trying to match the line of sight mechanics to that sort of thing. 2nd edition Infinity had the whole “I you can see me, I can see you” rule that ignored just as much terrain obscuring situations. And they do so for the same basic reason—to make it harder to create situations where you shoot someone without a response.
The issue is that the Team Leader normally gets chosen after you've spent an Order on a Fireteam. Without the FAQ, the TA/NCO trooper would have needed to already be the Team Leader to be able to use the extra Order.
Some clarifications to grey areas that were previously enforced by a TO wielding metal dice in a sock. Not a bad FAQ update overall.
Interesting how the LoF changes help balance out what many considered to be the major weakness of larger base sizes. You have to be fully behind the 180 mark to catch them now. Personally that's pretty important.
The alternative is super-jumping for normal rolls, which most considered broken I believe. Personally, this is a big improvement.
Super jumping normal rolls from the front arc is not the alternative though. The alternative actually seems much easier to me. Which is to have the LoF angle be drawn from the back of the base. As if it were a 'U' shape. This still prevents those normal rolls. Basically, if the only visible part of the attacker is completely behind the target, it's a normal roll. It makes LoF and LoF angle very clear, by making them the exact same thing. it seems incredibly unwieldy to have the LoF angle made from the middle of the base and then have these additional rules to cover its deficiencies. In other words, the situations where the attacker can acquire LoF to a point behind the LoF angle of the target, while still being in their front arc, and all while remaining outside it's LoF. I'd simply eliminate the need for those extra rules from the very beginning.
Boo on stealth hackers, but the FAQ did a great job addressing the most common hang ups people have in the game current. Big Bravo for clarifying back-arc shenanigans.
That's why i suggested having the bases in the shape of a 'U'. It draws its own line so clearly you could place any object along it. In practice, today, you'd have to visualize the line they've drawn along the middle, from the back edge, parallel to it. EDIT: only diagram i can make at this time: ___________ U EDIT #2: It just occurred to me that square bases would work but we'd still have to identify which side represents the back. The U shape does this by default.
So you're suggesting that every player rebase all their models, in a way that's going to make them harder to use on the table? I don't think that's a sensible idea. :-(
And to have base manufacturer make a new base shape. I remember when CB came up with a 55mm base (from the previous 40mm + base extension) and how long it took to get nice bases in that unique dimension. How long will it take to have a U shaped bases ? Quickest if you make custom base would be a pill shaped cut in two. And no bevel edge.
I'm not suggesting that at all. And I have to say I find you extremely antagonistic @ijw How would they be harder to use on the table? Because the surface area or width is slightly bigger? I say they'd be easier to use overall. They'd provide clear LoF angles (facing). Players wouldn't have to paint any indicators on their mini's base. Indicators that stand out on gorgeous settings or minis. I'll concede the 'U' shape isn't quite as appealing as a circle, but overall i'd call it an improvement. Mini's could stay on their round bases and sit on a tray in the shape of a 'T'. This would provide the LoF angle without players needing to rebase anything. But most importantly, it helps make the rules clear/easier to interpret and use. What I am suggesting is that CB should have thought of this before they made the FAQ. Or better yet, before they produced mini's and their bases from the very beginning. I'm suggesting what might work better moving forward and the years to come. Changing rules or changing bases isn't something that's uncommon either as CB has done both already. But adding new rules to make their old inadequate ones work, isn't the way I'd move forward. I'd find ways to streamline. Eliminating the differentiation between the front and back half of the base, is a perfect one to streamline.
What you are arguing for is very very strange. Why not just paint your LoF or use one of those discs? I really don't see how a U shaped base would be any easier or more consistent than just using a line laser if your opponent asks
yeah but why? I really don't see what this changes, the same situation from the FAQ that you had an issue with could still occur
