Assuming that both models are facing each other (or have 360 Visors) and there is no smoke, albedo, msv, etc. involved...what actually can and can't grant reciprocal Line of Fire? Since this rules quirk doesn't really belong in the thread where I was bringing it up, hopefully it will do some good here. The pertinent rules include the Line of Fire rules (p. 24), the glossary definitions of Target and Trooper (p. 151), and possibly the ARO validation rules (p. 21). The LoF rules talk about whether a Trooper "can see its target" and assign three requirements, all of which must be met: 1) the target must be in front arc, 2) at least a 3mm x 3mm square of the target must be visible, 3) it must be possible to draw an unbroken line from anywhere on one silhouette to anywhere on the other. Reciprocal LoF is granted by the first exception bullet: As long as any Trooper can draw LoF to its target, the target can draw LoF to its attacker as well, as long as the attacker is within the target’s front 180º arc. My specific requests for clarification: What do "its target" and "its attacker" mean in these rules? The wording could easily have been "a Trooper" or "a model" or "a game element." Using target and attacker, with the possessive wording, makes it sound like LoF is dependent on a relationship between the two, but it's not clear what creates that relationship. If it literally means that you get reciprocal LoF when you're targeted by an attack, that has implications for the ARO sequence when the reactive trooper can't get LoF due to failing requirement #2 for LoF. A reactive trooper that doesn't qualify for an ARO after the first short skill due to lack of LoF might gain LoF and therefore a valid ARO for the second short skill if it's an attack targeting the reactive trooper. If "attacker" and "target" just mean "any two Troopers," so no special relationship is involved, why not say so in the first place? More neutral language is used elsewhere in the rules, even in the LoF rules themselves. If reciprocal LoF only occurs in an attacker/target relationship during an Order, how does that interact with ARO requirements and pie slicing? It is possible for Angus (the active model) to peek around a corner just a tiny amount, thus denying Kitara and Zhou the 3x3mm square needed to draw their own LoF, but gaining it against them. If Angus hasn't declared anything but Move yet, neither Kitara nor Zhou meet all the requirements for LoF on their own because they don't see enough of Angus, so they have to depend on Angus providing them with reciprocal LoF. If "attacker" can mean anyone even outside of a declared attack, then they receive reciprocal LoF when Angus moves even slightly into view and can LoF ARO at the first opportunity. However, if "attacker" depends on a declared attack, then Kitara and Zhou will have to wait to see what short skill Angus declares second, and if it's an attack then they will gain reciprocal LoF and be able to declare their own LoF AROs. However, if Angus only declares the attack against Zhou, does that mean Kitara isn't a "target" and so is denied reciprocal LoF? If any two models are potentially the "attacker" and "target" at any time, what are the practical limits to reciprocal LoF? If the practical effect of reciprocal LoF is that "if you can see me, I can see you, and vice versa" in all cases (again, barring smoke/msv, etc.), is there any way to prevent this other than being in sufficiently deep cover that no part of your silhouette is visible? The examples below could be considered "LoF baiting," in that the active player is trying to use the reciprocal LoF rule to force an enemy into LoF when that enemy is positioned to try and avoid LoF from that angle. To me, all of these feel like bugs, not features. Example A: Angus (active model) exposes 3x3mm of his silhouette in view of Zhou, who is mostly behind a wall, and both are in each other's front arcs. Only the very top 1mm of Zhou's silhouette is higher than the wall. Angus can't meet requirement #2 because Zhou's silhouette shows less than a 3x3mm square, but Zhou can meet it because Angus is sufficiently visible. Zhou wanted to avoid LoF, but now has LoF to Angus whether he likes it or not, and Angus receives LoF reciprocally despite being the active Trooper and unable to meet requirement #2 on his own. Example B: Angus is trying to pull the stunt described in Example A, but Zhou is facing away so Angus is not in Zhou's front arc. Zhou has no way to gain LoF to Angus no matter how much Angus steps out of cover, and Angus can't see a 3x3mm square of Zhou's silhouette. There's no LoF between them at all, but the only difference is that Zhou is facing away this time. Example C: Again, the setup is just like Example A, and the only difference is that Zhou has a 360 degree visor, so it's physically impossible for him to face away from Angus—who is guaranteed to bypass LoF requirement #2 by making himself a potential target for Zhou without needing to even check Zhou's facing. Wrapping Up: I understand how this is generally accepted to work in N3, but for N4 we've got the attacker-and-target LoF language coupled with a new order expenditure and ARO sequence, and some validation requirements that are a bit different than N3. If N4 LoF is always reciprocal, the ability to bypass the 3x3mm target requirement for LoF by exposing yourself enough to trigger reciprocal LoF seems questionable, and is definitely counterintuitive under the current wording of the rules. It's also possibly a very slight nerf to 360 Visors since it makes the requirements for them to seek total cover more stringent than "cover 99% of your silhouette and then face away from the enemy." Given that N4 cover has been streamlined to binary yes/no, there's an argument to be made that the 3x3mm requirement should be made symmetrical (both silhouettes must be that exposed to create LoF between them), or eliminated in favor of "if you can see any portion of the silhouette at all" to make LoF more binary in a similar manner to cover. If LoF is dependent on establishing an attacker/target relationship, that asymmetry makes it possible for an active trooper to pie-slice by only targeting a single enemy at a time while exposing less than 3x3mm of his own silhouette, creating a situation where the only possible LoF granted against the active trooper is the reciprocal LoF received by the target of an attack. This renders even a carefully arranged multi-trooper ARO null. Thanks!
You missed the most abusive use. I deploy a MSR Trooper prone on the highest piece of terrain on the table. I don't deploy it adjacent to the edge but fractionally back from the edge. No other trooper can ever get a 3x3mm LOF to it. Which means that if "attacker" and "target" are the result of "declaring an Attack" then that MSR Trooper can always choose their targets: if they don't attack, nothing can get LOF to them.
Reciprocal LOF doesn't turn on when the side that has LOF with 3x3mm visible declares a Skill/ARO with the side that has LOF but can't see 3x3mm visible. To facilitate movement and interactions during game, we must consider the following exceptions when drawing LoF. As long as any Trooper can draw LoF to its target, the target can draw LoF to its attacker as well, as long as the attacker is within the target's front 180º arc. The ARO Sniper peeking out only a mm² can't turn off having LOF of his own, doesn't matter if he declares an ARO or not. Him being able to draw LOF to the Active Trooper automatically lets the Active Trooper gains LOF despite not being ablte to see 3x3mm.
Except he's not an attacker until he declares an attack. Reciprocal LOF is between an attacker and defender. So: 1. Alice Moves to where she can see 1x1mm^2 or Bob's SIL but Bob Van see 3x3mm^2 of Alice's SIL. At this point Alice does not have LOF to Bob, Bob does have LOF to Alice. 2. Bob declares a BS Attack. This creates an attacker/target relationship between Bob and Alice, so LOF is now reciprocal. 3. Alice declares BS Attack back, making use of her reciprocal LOF. If Bob had not declared an Attack at Step 2 then no attacker/target relationship would exist and consequently Alice would not have LOF to Bob. Now, I hate this but it's the only way to read attacker/target without additional clarification or Errata.
N3 used the same language but we all knew what it meant. Sure, clarification never hurts, but in the meantime we all know that reciprocal LoF doesn't depend on someone declaring BS attack. The RAI is 100% clear on this one.
Yeah - that's how I would be playing it if I could get a game. But arguably a reason this wasn't fixed for N4 is no one made a big deal out of the fact that RAW and RAI *clearly* say different things. Compare Dodge in N3 which had the same issue but was FAQ'd in N3 and fixed in N4.
We had this discussion back in C1: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/lof-in-code-one.37212/#post-342397 That conversation, plus @HellLois recent comments seem to settle the idea that LoF exists at all times, before, during, and after any particular declaration.
I’m not sure that holds up, because having LoF is a requirement for BS Attack, which means you need LoF first, and become an attacker second. I don’t think there’s a viable way to make reciprocal LoF conditional on skill declarations.
The reason I asked about reciprocal LoF specifically is that it has slightly different requirements than regular LoF because it allows A to bypass the otherwise universal requirement that it be able to see a 3x3mm square of B, and substitutes a new requirement that B must have already had LoF to A. This is a causal relationship, since reciprocal LoF explicitly doesn’t exist until non-reciprocal LoF is established. It’s broadly useful to cut down on “gotcha” moments where A peeks through a teeny gap to get one-way LoF to B, since it lets B shoot back without needing to see a lot of A, but because of the way it’s worded and the turn structure of N4, different interpretations of that wording can result in weird shenanigans. I’m asking, broadly, which interpretation is intended in N4, whether the resultant shenanigans (like LoF baiting as described above) are bugs or features of that interpretation, and whether a clearer explanation of reciprocal LoF is possible and desirable. @Vanderbane the weird way LoF reciprocality works in conjunction with LoF being Open Info honestly makes the problem worse IMO because it means the asymmetry of that 3mm square requirement is even more nonsensical. The interaction that allows you to peek your head out and draw a bead on the top of someone's hat brim to shoot them while they're actively trying to stay down feels like "super jump to see the back of your silhouette" 2.0. The whole point of the rule is to cut down on one-sided gotchas, and yet it introduces a new one that allows the active model to effectively get the benefit of flanking around a distant barrier to shoot the trooper behind it, without needing to actually move around that barrier enough to really see 3x3mm of the trooper behind it. (edited for clarity)
Completely agree that's the intent. Can we also agree that's not what the rules say unless you parse "target" as "game element which may be subject to an attack" as "attacker" as "game element which may declare an attack". My basic argument isn't "hey that's what the rules say so we should play it like that" but rather "the rules are badly written and an erroneous, but reasonable interpretation allows some pretty Unfun shit". The next level of interpretation is how does this work with facing: Take the MSR Trooper I described earlier. Let's say that I deploy it facing backwards so that the 1mm x 1mm of the rear (ie outside 180 degree) arc is visible to most of the table. A "target" Moves out such that there is an imaginary straight line that joins 3mm x 3mm of that Trooper's SIL with 1mm x 1mm of the MSR Trooper's SIL. Does LOF exist?
I would say yes, since LoF does not discriminate attacker and defender but troopers and the trooper on the top of the tower even reactive has LoF to the trooper bellow, I am not to be held as an authoritative response on this one, but this is my understanding of it. A bit of an edge case to check the breaking points of the system I assume?
If attacks through small slits to deny the opponent a clear shot while shooting them are edge cases then military architects made some questionable artistic choices by adding embrasures everywhere for the better part of the last 2 millennia. :P On a more serious note: In my opinion this would come up literally every game had we not learned to simply ignore it for a smooth gameplay. Why would any moving attacker ever stick out more of their head than necessary to see their target. The target at that point (aka: when declaring AROs) would never see more than a tiny slice, far from the 3x3 necessary to shoot.
Especially given the debate about whether LoF is Open Information, I'd honestly prefer that the LoF rule be modified to something more like this: Line of Fire A Line of Fire is an unbroken, imaginary straight line connecting one game element to another on the game board. The game element the Line of Fire is drawn from is the origin and the game element the Line of Fire is drawn to is the target. A game element that is off-board may not be an origin or target for a Line of Fire. Certain game elements may block Line of Fire by preventing players from drawing a continuous line between the origin and target; models and scenery items block Line of Fire, as do any game elements that are specified to block Line of Fire. A Line of Fire exists between the origin and target when these criteria are all met: It is possible to draw an imaginary line from any point in the origin's Silhouette volume to any point in the target's Silhouette volume without intersecting a game element that blocks Line of Fire from the origin to the target. Neither the origin nor the target is in total cover with respect to the other. The target is within the front 180 degree firing arc of the origin, if the origin has a 180 degree firing arc. Because any game element is potentially the origin and target for many Lines of Fire at once, players may check for the existence of unblocked Line of Fire between two game elements at any time. To facilitate movement and interactions during game, we must consider the following exceptions when drawing LoF. Troopers that declared any Skill with the Movement Label can draw a 360º LoF all along their route. Troopers do not obstruct LoF all along their route. Markers do not obstruct LoF. Unless specified otherwise, Markers have a 360º LoF. Troopers engaged in CC have a 360º LoF, but only to whatever they are in Silhouette contact with. Therefore, Troopers engaged in CC cannot draw LoF to Troopers or game elements that they are not in Silhouette contact with. Important The existence a Line of Fire is considered Open Information, and it is permitted to check for the existence of a Line of Fire at any time, but players are encouraged to limit this to their own Troopers to avoid slowing gameplay considerably. When the position of a game element is indeterminate, such as during measurement for Trooper movement, players may verify hypothetical Lines of Fire to and from positions the Trooper may occupy, and once the movement path is declared it is permitted to verify Lines of Fire to or from any point in the Trooper's Silhouette volume at any point along the movement path. [EDIT: Rephrased the third LoF criterion because there's a much simpler way to do it that's aligned with existing understanding of the rules.]
@wes-o-matic you will note in the link I provided that make essentially the same argument you are forwarding now. What was put forward there by others, and I think confirmed by @HellLois this weekend, is that LoF reciprocality is not dependent on any timing, it simply is or is not, and is checked in both directions all the time. In a word, it is "between" game elements, not the to-from relationship that the game text implies. Since we are always checking LoF, yes it is possible that you will be spotted by an opponent who exposes a 3mm x 3mm to a pinpoint of your silhouette. That means if you want total cover, you better be bottled up. I am not seeing many practical real world problems with this working definition, but am happy to be shown any that exist.
Since when have CB's authors been strict enough with the phrasing to hold to that standard? Hell, there's the immediate counter example of the wording for Dodge in N3 where they used "attacker" when the demonstrated semantics was 'active trooper'. Relevant for further down stream, during both 2nd and 3rd edition, it was established that line of fire being reciprocal is completely involuntary. And, if anyone has forgotten or missed it, that led to at least one big blowout discussion in rules forum in 2nd edition.
If I interpreted the example correctly it would be that the ARO can see the trooper and the trooper cannot see the ARO trooper, given the ARO trooper has LoF the reciprocal kicks in.
The difference being that they fixed the semantics of Dodge between N3 and N4. And yes, they haven't been strict on their phrasing: but they have gotten better where it's been pointed out that their existing phrasing doesn't reflect their intent. @psychoticstorm which example are you referring to? The second one where the ARO Trooper is facing away from the active Trooper: because in that example the entire point is that the ARO Trooper does not have LOF due to their facing, so can't trigger reciprocal LOF. They're literally turning their back and going "Nuh uh, I can't see you so you can't see me!"
So, LoF has to be reciprocal at all times, not just when attacking. Reason being, otherwise you'd get this: 1. Active Trooper A moving within ZoC of Reactive Trooper B moves so that less than a 3x3 area of their silhouette is visible to Trooper B, but they can see a 3x3 area of Trooper B. 2. Trooper B can only declare Change Facing, as they have no LoF to Trooper A. 3. Trooper A declares BS Attack against Trooper B. Trooper B now has LoF to Trooper A, but has already declared an ARO and so has no chance to declare BS Attack. No, you don't understand. It's exactly this mechanism of reciprocal LoF that *prevents* the "super jump to see the back of your silhouette" situation. So you're very wrong that this makes the situation worse.
