But my suggestion from the back is even simpler. It also removes those unintuitive situations by never allowing any player to shoot outside their front arc. Plus it applies to the Active and Reactive trooper without extra wording. Can the shooter draw a line (completely within their front arc) to any part of your Silhouette without it being blocked? If so, then they can shoot you. The text underlined stipulating it must be within the front arc should probably be written as part of the basic LoF rules. Either way, I see that as a resounding win for my suggestion. Add LoF lines and you may see the difference. My suggestion maintains integrity by only AROing targets I have LoF to within my front arc. CBs current rule allows firing behind their front arc at angles beyond 180 to shoot one attacker but not the other. Sure, both rules function in the end, but CBs is not equal or superior.
Results are equal? leads the the same issues? why change? As I said please create a new thread to discuss this.
Results are equal? They're only equal in that they both lead to a result, but not in the thematic experience and how long it takes to get there. Leaves the same issues? It doesn't if you've listened to anything I've been saying and showing already. Where? Although I'd rather not waste the time creating a well thought out post for many of the same people here to ignore the same points I've already made. EDIT: what am I allowed to discuss in this thread then? Just ask for clarifications about how the rulings work? Can i give my thoughts on them as long as i don't call them bad? Maybe as long as i don't suggest better ways to handle them?
More than likely the initial thrust is fine, but as PS had noted, the level of granularity you’re diving into would probably be better served in a new thread. Now, a new question or concern on the content of the FAQ would likely be fine here.
Unless CB wants to admit that due to time constraints they couldn't take what was needed to do things right. That's a completely legitimate reason. It's a sad one, but a plausible one.
... It's also just possible that they disagree with you about what the best possible answer is. I remember the previous debates about LoF that led to the old FAQ; I remember lots of discussions about Rodoks shooting people from above. Yes, your solution addresses the immediate problems that CB's does; but theirs is also quite functional. If you want to argue that the FAQ needs to be overturned, you need to show that it enables something as bad as the previous elevation-related exploits. Honestly, those are the diagrams that mean the most to me in the new FAQ, and I keep on being surprised that nobody is talking about them.
That’s right in your opinion, not CB’s. And it’s CB’s game, not yours. And while perhaps the level of granularity is needed, it’s been stated by a mod that this particular thread is not the proper place for it, and stated in a courteous way. My counsel, for whatever it is worth, is to follow the direction of the still courteous mod.
AME is suggesting that this level of granularity should be in its own dedicated thread, not in the ‘general FAQ discussion’ thread.
You are obviously allowed to discuss here about the FAQ, but this is a thread in general about the new FAQ, but a dedicated discussion about LoF and possible alternatives to is in this detail should better be in their own tread.
But that suggestion is unrealistic. Unless you or someone else can tell me to what level of granularity I can discuss the FAQ rules here. So when do i cross the line from discussing this FAQ in general terms to more dedicated terms? You win, I won't make another post on that topic here. But I'm telling you now, this is bullshit. Warn me or ban me, I don't care. I'll be taking a longer break from this forum than any ban would matter. Maybe I'll come back when my account is old enough that I can just dismiss ideas as not sensible. You know what, I'll do that now. Your idea to start a new thread is not sensible PS, you must be confused. Your arbitrary decision makes no sense. Bye.
Well, as a rule of thumb, perhaps sometime after the fifth or sixth post with multiple diagrams would be a good time to open a new thread...
Don't care so much, that you had to post a whole paragraph about how much you don't care. Won't start a new thread, just because. Only your ideas are sensible and people can 'go to hell' if they disagree. Mod decisions are arbitrary and make no sense. Welp, that was a quick forum career!
Please respect the basic rule of been polite to everybody. @Razi what I said is an open invitation to discuss your idea and opinion in a dedicated thread, what I said is that this is a thread generated for the FAQ discussion in general and 50% of it is discussed for the LOF, it would be better served in its own dedicated thread.
Yes, thank you! You're right, the terrain doesn't technically matter, AROs are allowed even though there is 'LOF-blocking' terrain in the way. But to illustrate that the proposal didn't actually change anything, the terrain needed to be there.
I think it was a nice logic to @Razi 's suggestion. If I were designing a new game I would prefer that solution rather then the current Infinity one. But that would demand hexagonal or square bases to work nicely, I think, and I'm not sure it would look as good. I don't think the issue is so important that CB should change it, though. But an interesting theoretical exercise :-)
