Yes, but I think that has more to do with how often slicing the pie would be successful, not whether it is possible/desire-able.
More or less. Or rather just take the reciprocal LoF rules to not require you to trace LoF from your front arc as long as the target is *in* your front arc. Valid interpretation of the rules pre-FAQ and avoids the "I shoot you in the back from in front of you and on top of a building" silliness.
I don't know, actually. That was a genuine question on my part. I do know that Palanka's shit is pretty official, though. Most of the official rules answers in the previous forum came from him, although @HellLois also provided a decent number.
Yep, mea culpa, I was too busy being a smart arse to explain the point properly... The geometry stops a model from getting 100% line of fire to both corners, so you either have to pick one, and leave the other more vulnerable, or leave them both mathematically vulnerable (which if you play by intent means just plain vulnerable). In any situation when you have a valid ARO, you can reasonably expect your opponent to be smart enough to move past the wall, denying you cover, so being against the wall will be pointless. Your choice within the example is be shot at with no/limited ARO in cover, or be shot at with an ARO but you're out in the open. Both of those options are sub optimum, but, no cover sucks less than no ARO in most cases, and the model is against the wall because you put it there ( engage notwithstanding...) either at deployment or with an order. So don't do that and you don't have to risk being shot in the back from the front, or you can use two troopers on the wall to achieve the same thing...
Yeah. And if something is in your front arc, and has LoF to you, you have LoF to them... before that FAQ ruling, you didn't need LoF from your front arc to make that work. And, as this thread has shown, putting that requirement on reciprocal LoF creates a situation that just isn't worth it, considering the interaction with the z-axis.
You're trying to make it OK to draw Line of Fire through scenery. That isn't how the rules read before the FAQ to begin with.
I'm damn certain that CB didn't intend for players to be able to have their troopers shoot the back arc of enemy troopers from above them while in front of them - and given that, I think it's worth taking a hard look at what the rules *should* say. The rules are fundamentally broken in this instance. What's the alternative, troops on rooftops getting normal rolls willy-nilly since the enemy can't draw LoF to them but they can see them? Is that what you want?
When you're directly contradicting the FAQ they issued, I don't think you can claim any certainty about their intent.
I'm pretty sure if Palanka or Helllois or whoever wrote that FAQ got dunked on my somebody doing the super jump bit or just walking forward across a rooftop it would be what they intended. I'm supposing a lack of foresight for consequences of that ruling on the part of CB.
Before the FAQ it was ambiguous and generated a very long thread with people debating different interpretations. Now it's not ambiguous. Half the people involved were going to be unhappy with the ruling either way.
I'm saying they should have FAQ'd it the other way. I mean... I guess I'll be doing a lot of shenanigans with super-jump and rooftop-placed models in the near future?
What? like how is that you interpret it that way? Needing to not be concealed by scenery is still one of the requirements. But if they are in front of you, and can see you, clearly they are not obscured by scenery. Anyway, yes this has been FAQ'd. No-one thinks super jump shooting to the back is fun. But its in the rules so lets just embrace it. Maybe they'd do a video where superjumping becomes an exercise in holding your model or silhouette at the destination rathre than using intent and at that point it might be impossible unless you happen to have excellent shake control.
I think the problem here is a lot of folks assumed that the front arc was permanent and unobstructed by models and scenery, but the arc is also referred to as a "LoF angle", in fact it's first mentioned as such. Since LoF can be obstructed, it follows logically that the LoF angle (also referred to as an arc) can also be obstructed, which would mean that if LoF is blocked then the model is not within the 180 degree arc. It's not very elegant or intuitive, but it does solve the issue, at least the cognitive dissonance. The Z- axis interaction issue though... yeah that's a weird one, but it is what it is for now.
