Sorry, the web program isn't very user friendly. I assumed it would be fairly intuitive. The trooper on bottom right is being shot and facing south in both. Are we also ok with the diagram below? Attacks from all positions but the closest one are normal rolls? Even though they're effectively the same, just one happens to cross that LoF angle through a wall?
They can only see the one that is inside their front arc. I think you are confusing yourself by saying 'LoF angle through the wall'. LoF doesn't have an angle any more, just 'is the target inside my front arc' plus 'is there a line between our Silhouettes?'.
I'm not confusing anything, but thanks again for trying to imply the issue is with me. That was sarcasm btw. CB clearly calls a troopers front arc, a LoF angle of 180 degrees. The problem i have with this FAQ is that it creates situations where the reactive trooper can now draw LoF beyond 180 degrees in one scenario and not another. There can now be a scenario where the reactive trooper can shoot back at someone at 190 degrees but not in the next scenario even though they can still draw LoF at that same 190 degree angle. By using the back of the base as the LoF angle/front arc those situations above do not exist. That is good imo. Players would now never need to check to see if the active trooper is in their front arc and within LoF. Because there is no longer this grey area where reactive troopers can draw LoF from the back half of their silhouette. The back half which is outside their LoF angle/front arc. By using the back of the base, the entire silhouette is included. So no grey area exists. EDIT: hell, players can just put a stick at each models base and angle it to show each troopers LoF angle. There are plenty of solutions that don't force players to rebase anything. There are plenty of practical solutions.
Yep, you're confusing things. Please step back from being defensive and consider this: After FAQ there is no LOF angle, Line of Fire is any line, at any angle, as long as it's between points on two bases (silhouettes) and not completely obstructed by terrain. The 180° line / angle is for Facing arc, you need to have your enemy at least partially (a fraction of their base / silhouette) in your front Facing arc, all regardless of the terrain. Terrain no longer obstructs Facing. Check if your base/silhouette can see his base/silhouette. Check if he's at least partially in your Front Arc. If both are a "yes", you can fire. If either is a "no", you cannot fire. That's all there is to it now. You can't go back to rulebook wordings if the Errata has changed the rulebook contents.
In the example above you cannot create a situation, even with movement, where the reactive trooper can fire beyond it's 180 degree arc. The above and below is bad game design. The angle at which the reactive trooper can draw LoF to both the attacker on its left and its right is exactly the same. But the current ruling allows an ARO to one and not the other.
I think that's a little unfair as your previous explanations were not easily understood. Your new diagrams, however, are excellent.
Thank you. I don't think it's unfair however. If he didn't understand my description/explanation he could've asked for clarification, or point out what exactly didn't make sense. The issue could've been with their understanding, or my explanation. But they didn't bother to find out, instead they both decided to just say I must be confused.
no, because you need to pick a single point in the enemy movement path where you'll measure distance and verify that you have LoF. If you pick the up point, you don't have LoF to that position. If you pick the down point, you don't have LoF to that position.
With CB's FAQ you have to make two different checks to determine if a BS Attack ARO is legal. First, make sure the target is within the front arc Second, make sure you can draw LoF to the target: With my suggestion you only make one check. Plus it doesn't create those unintuitive scenarios I described earlier.
Wow, way to step back from being defensive way into the offensive. So mature :D And yeah, you're confused as all get out. Your "proposition" from the last image is exactly what it was like before the Errata. "I don't like the new way of LoF is being checked independent of Facing, I have this new great idea of checking LoF dependent on Facing! The new idea which just happens to be what the game was like pre-Errata!" Sigh.
You're incorrect. My suggestion doesn't allow for things like Super jumping for normal rolls from the front. I'm glad you insist on claiming I'm confused. More sarcasm there btw.
Whilst I agree your solution is better in an academic sense the CB solution has a significant practical advantage in speed and ease of measuring during play.
Thanks for at least pointing out it's better in that regard. But we'll have to disagree on which is more practical and faster. I think my suggestion is more practical and faster for the same reasons CB makes edition changes or base size changes in the past. While initially it causes work setting the foundation, changing bases, or implementing new measuring techniques, it ultimately saves time and helps eliminate confusion. I'm really surprised at the claims their way is easier to measure.
