✔ You're right, I explained myself poorly by trying to shorten my post. Let me try again. In my view, ZoC is measured 8" from either side of the unit's base, and then also 8" up and down, so as to create as near a 'sphere of control' as possible. To have such a drastically elliptical ZoC makes stuff-all sense.
@tox and @WarHound I'm getting a feeling you're still talking past each other. You're both saying it's a cylindrical "rod" with straight angles and that an even-sided "egg" with tapered edges makes no sense, correct?
Kind of why I'm phrasing it as a question. On the one hand Warhound writes "sphere of control", but on the other hand they write "elliptical ZoC makes [no] sense" and even though ellipse being a 2D-construct, I can see an... egg... shaped object being described as an ellipse from the side.
How much of that is biased by the fact that you know what the intent of the rule is though? Think from the perspective of a player who had never read the rulebook. This is also my issue with the ZOC rule as written. >The Zone of Control is projected upwards and downwards in a cylinder 8 inches high If I was a beginning player, or had ever studied mathematics, I would read this as >The Zone of Control is projected (upwards and downwards relative to the model) in a (cylinder with H=8) Which clearly isn't the intent, we know the cylinder is H=16, or that we should instead think of this as two cylinders, one being projected up with H=8 and one down with H=8, in reality. But the phrasing doesn't indicate this currently.
In terms of the terrain area going infinitely up and down, no that's not based on my knowing the intent of the rule, it's based on standard English usage. I agree, but that's a separate issue from the Dazer's volume going infinitely up and down.
I copy the response from the other post about this... that got closed for some reason :/ A trooper's Zone of Control is an area 8 inches extending from the border of its base, as measured vertically or horizontally. The Zone of Control is projected upwards and downwards in a cylinder 8 inches high (from the trooper base). It's about context, the writter is using the base as reference in the first line and keep using that in the second phrase, but he didn't include it (I guess to not being too repetitive). However that cause that the second line if read isolated could be read as a cilinder of 8 inches, instead of a 16. btw, a sanity check, the zoc doesn't take in count the height of the S, just the base, right?
@psychoticstorm & @Ogid, I guess I have to continue the ZoC discussion here as the thread was closed. Whether that's due to @daboarder's kind suggestion (sarcasm) or another reason I don't know. Which is funny because typically the request is to move tangent discussions into their own thread. Which I tried to do lol. You worded that much better than me, thanks. I'd love to see you try to explain the first sentence that way, I couldn't come up with a simple explanation myself. "an area 8 inches extending from the border of its base, as measured vertically or horizontally." The only way I can come to grips with this sentence above is that CB was trying to describe an area 8" around any silhouette size. But it's just so clumsily worded it hurts every time I try to follow its instructions as written. The word 'area' is usually used to reference more than a single line of measurement. Which is what this sentence is describing. The rule doesn't actually describe or create any easily understandable shape. It's more like its setting the boundaries and the next sentence is meant to create the three dimensional shape that fits within those boundaries. I understand the notion that by saying "extending from the border of its base" it's supposed to create this circular area around the trooper. But it's immediately followed by something I can't really fathom, "as measured vertically or horizontally". When measuring an area horizontally or vertically i measure from it's two furthest points in either direction. If it was trying to explain it as three dimensional, the second sentence accomplishes that much better and without this help. I really can't say what that part is supposed to do for us. So after being completely and utterly unsure of what the first sentence was trying to do. The second sentence appears to clean it up with what looks to me like a cylinder 8" in total height. My instincts then reconcile the first sentence as the width of the cylinder should also be 8". The scale of the diagram only helps to back my instincts up. It does sit well with me. The idea that a troopers ZoC is actually a radius of 4" falls in line with the average Move value. And having control over a zone that's greater than your move value was strange to begin with. The scale of the diagram clearly backs a 4" radius. It also reduces the ZoC shenanigans in the game. Hacking could be an issue, but that's debatable, and I'm not putting more thought into this side of it.
My very first post in this thread linked to ZoC and all that good stuff, so Tox and others should have noticed that's what i'm trying to get at (of course, in this day and age the forums-goers have moved beyond understanding each other, and instead wanting things to be pointed out pedantically accurately. This seems to be almost purely so they can snipe at each other but that's symptomatic of the individuals predilections.. I digress.) I sadly don't know the correct term for an elliptical object in 3d space, and while egg is a close concept it's not entirely accurate (which is why I didn't use it). Regardless, I am of course at fault for considering the idea of 'sphere of control' as a term, by which i'm implying the area around them in which they have influence, and not literally a sphere (of which I have tried to re-iterate myself already but people are still taking it literally). But, and this bears mentioning, when measure in 3d to determine if something is within ZoC, do people measure 8" away from their model and then up/down 8", or do they cheat themselves by just measuring between the models on a diagonal, for the sake of speed? I must respectfully disagree with Ginrei believing that a model's ZoC should be 4" in all directions, as that makes it incredibly easy for enemies to move around and attack without opposition (which stealth already facilitates). But hey, at least it'd make Ghazi less powerful, right?! Also, if we were to scale i'm sure people be able to hear and/or notice things more than 4m away from them, even round a corner. But still, I can offer no further benefit than my first post to this discussion, and i'm not going to get anything more revelatory from it either. Good day to everyone! *tips hat and exits stage right*
I never said that. Me being fine with an alternative rule doesn't mean I believe the rules should be changed to that alternative rule.
I have to give you credit about that alternative reading. I think most people get the true RAI, but it could be read like that. Definitively two axis in the graphic would help to clarify that, so there would be no doubt. But anyway, we have a confirmation about the official RAI https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/zoc.33956/#post-264981
Intent for 'width' is also known from other parts of the rules like Repeaters and Nullifiers where it talks about the 8" 'radius'.
Yep, no labels on diagrams is a problem that would be both easy to solve and very convenient for helping new players visualize the rules. More diagrams in general could be pretty helpful. The examples in Super-Jump are very easy to understand because they are all illustrated.
@WarHound You've quoted a paragraph where I explained why I'd be fine with a 4" radius ZoC. Please understand that is completely different than me believing the ZoC should be a 4" radius.
That's a good point. Any misunderstanding of the ZoC should be cleared up as players got through the rest of the rules. But not relying on this in any way would be great.
Weird, what the heck is happening with some of @WarHound 's posts? So, if someone puts a smoke grenade on the corner of a building's roof, the area at the bottom of the building is not smoked?
The answer is yes, and I've been told this before, but I also can't tell you where to find this in the rules (because I don't think it's in the smoke rules). The same way that if you put smoke on the ground by a building, the roof of the building doesn't get smoke coming out of it.
It is a combination of smoke having infinite height so from the placement of the template and upwards not downwards, blast focus rules and total cover rules.