I'll help you out. Do you mean this? My suggestion above is consistent. CB's is not. At no point under my suggestion about using the back can a trooper fire beyond it's 180 degree front arc. Under CB's rule you can fire at something at 190 degrees in one instance, and not in another. There is simply no need for this inconsistency to exist.
There's your answer. Profanity, even just 'hell', is not appreciated by CB on their forum. Exactly. Look, I don't have access to whatever drawing program you're using. Move that 40mm base on the far right back until it is just overlapping the front arc, it's about half an inch/12mm of movement. But it's still a FTF Roll because that 40mm base is partially in the Front Arc you propose. Front Arcs being measured across the center of the base are most easily marked and lined up using a Line Laser. Looking at the 'from the back of the base' idea, it's easier to misalign than 'through the center of the base' on a round base. If CB used a hex base, that'd be easy to line up (and some games using hex bases do use 'from the back of the base' for Front Arc).
I'm not sure what you mean exactly. But you don't find the below example under the current rules even a little disconcerting? Not to mention it allows players to ARO well beyond their front arc. Using the back treats them both as normal rolls. Hex bases! That's a great idea.
Basically the FAQ says “it works the way you intuitively expect it to”. When the rules were published, people who read the order expenditure sequence very carefully saw a potential catch due to the precise wording of the rule.
Yes, it's a little 'unrealistic'. N2 was the 'realistic' rule set. N3 is about ditching 'realism' for better/simpler game play. LOF now comes down to two questions: Can the shooter draw a line to any part of your Silhouette without it being blocked by terrain? If so, then they can shoot you. Is any part of the shooter's base in your front arc, full stop? If so, then you can ARO back. If not, it's a Normal Roll for the shooter. Simple. A little non-intuitive sometimes, but simple. And the examples show that it is supposed to work in that slightly non-intuitive way. No, it just moves the place where you get those odd interactions back half a base diameter. Thank you. Man, that program is frustrating to use with a touchpad! I cannot get it to work properly. Can someone give me a hand with this? I need to copy the picture in this post: And move the large base on the far right up until it is just inside the front arc to illustrate my point.
https://www.autodraw.com/share/LD5ZE8XNOX0G Forgive me, but it just doesn't seem that much better with your proposal other than being slightly more intuitive due to how you define the "LoF arc". Edit: image didn't work... let me see what's going on here. Why can't I get my image to work? :P
TLDR; someone hates how LoF is now worked out. Came up with something they might like and rationalising that it is vastly superior. So much that physically changing the bases of every model in the game would be worth it. For what it's worth I played this new errata way for a long time due to the stupidity the previous lof ruling created, and I felt the rules already suggested this way. Shooting models in the back was still pretty easy.
Almost. Needs a LOS-blocking thing between the two circles that is only in the Front Arc to completely show what I'm talking about.
The reciprocal line of fire exploit flame wars. The "I would rather die than grant your model line of fire" flame wars. This message brought to you by the Committee for Magic Cylinders.
Could someone shed some light as to why I'm unable to post the image that I made (shows broken link if I post in IMG tags).
