I need some help with this one. Does the giant black block represent terrain? I'm fairly confident that is how its being represented as terrain in the other graphics. The new ruling in the errata. "A straight line can be drawn between any point of the troop’s Silhouette and any point of the target’s Silhouette, without being interrupted by scenery or models (allied or enemy)." What I see in this image is the green troopers 180 arch is being blocked by terrain. It's the thin red line right? How do both troopers have LoF?
The thin line is the green troopers 180 LOF arc line The thick coloured line is a demonstration of the line between the two troopers. The example is showing that because the blue troop has a portion of its base within the Front 180 arc of the green troop (the thin line bisects its base) As such given the Errata, the blue troop is within LOF of the green troop. regardless of if the big black block blocks LOF. Why? Because CB said so, why did they do this? because of the game play implications if they didnt where a model standing fully in front of another model can shoot the rear of its silhouette without ever being seen.
So just ignore the part of the rules that says "without being interrupted by scenery or models (allied or enemy)."??????
So just to level with you mate, but you really seem to be misreading and misinterpreting a large number of the core rules based on what you are saying here and in other threads. (this isnt a go at you, just an comment on the situation) The "Intervening scenery" in this case is not blocking the LOF (The thick coloured line) and as such not blocking LOF. The rule you think is being ignored is not being ignored at all
I don't take is personal. I'm a very new play and obviously still learning the game. I'm not really trying be stubborn.
I guess I don't understand how the black block is not blocking the line of fire from the 180 degree arch.
It is clear to me that the silhouettes can see each other. That being represented by the thick colored line. However, the first part of the errata states: "The target must be wholly or partially within the troop’s front 180˚ arc, unless a Special Skill or piece of Equipment ignores this restriction." Since this does not say terrain blocks LoF here that makes the above image valid? This means that only intervening objects be it terrain, allies, or enemies only blocks LoF between silhouettes and not the 180 firing arch, correct?
Becaise lof can be drawn from any part of you base. The target just has to be present in the front 180 of your base. Its 2 requirements. Terrain needs to block the first, in this case it doesnt
im sorry, the green triangle is irrelevant. The relevant part is; 1) the thick line can be drawn from 1 point on the green base to the blue base without being blocked 2) that the blue model is touched by the red line meaning it is in the front half of the green model
This is giving me the weirdest nostalgia trip. In the game I played before Infinity, the designers encountered the exact same issue and solved it almost the exact same way, people asked the exact same questions afterward.
Just to reiterate, because it's likely to come up several times again... What the errata changed was that you used to need to be able to draw LoF from the front 180° arc. This is no longer required. Now you simply need to have the enemy (or any part of their silhouette) in front of your 180° arc to reciprocate LoF.
There are four diagrams in the new errata. Two of those four diagrams are Trooper A shooting Trooper B in the back without being able to shoot back. What changes is that if Trooper A and Trooper B are both in each other's front arcs, the same line of sight line works for both of them.
Thanks Solkan think I get it just seems like the terrain mattering less for this kinda situation is going to lead to arguing and bs to me
Exactly the opposite from my perspective. Far easier to be sure if LOF exists in cases that are most likely to be contentious.
Still need to play it the new way so I guess we'll see. At least it's not 20 different interpretations of "intent" ... so can't be that bad ...right?
