At the risk of derailing does anybody actually use the 3x3mm rule? Everyone I know functionally just plays it long as the dot laser can touch the silhouette nobody has ever questioned how much it's touching.
While I'm fortunate enough to have not been subject personally to a super jump to gain LoF to just the back of the silhouette, all of the examples I'm aware of were based primarily on misrepresenting the way silhouette volume relates to firing arc. The idea I'm familiar with was that the super jumper rises high enough to see 3x3mm of the back half of the target's silhouette volume, but no part of the front half of the silhouette volume, then claiming it's impossible for the target to trace LoF back to the shooter despite facing toward the shooter. The argument made was that the part of the Silhouette that can "see" is the front 50%, rather than "any point in the volume can draw LoF, but the target must be somewhere in the Trooper's front 180 degree arc." So no reciprocal LoF was possible, and the wording of the reciprocal LoF rule wasn't pertinent to debugging the issue. IIRC the clarification that fixed it was basically "The LoF is valid if it originates anywhere in the Silhouette, as long as the target is within the front 180 degrees of the Trooper, stop being so creative with your readings of the rules." Maybe I'm misremembering the wording of that FAQ though, there've been a lot of the damn things. If that's incorrect, please feel free to correct me, I like learning stuff. I read a shit-ton more on the forums than I post, and it's generally educational. If it helps, "super jump to see the back of your silhouette 2.0" was a reference to the fact that that particular historical rules interaction was considered an exploit/loophole and patched, and that both involve the active trooper doing something weird that results in LoF that is at best counterintuitive and probably annoying for the player on the receiving end. Basically, trying to remove a "gotcha" from the rules. It was not an attempt to say that the thing I'm complaining about is an exact duplicate or direct parallel of the patched super-jump bug. I can understand why you'd assume I was misunderstanding—especially if you've assumed I'm an idiot already—but I promise I was engaging in rhetorical simile.* *Not a rhetorical smile. I do not smile if possible.** **This is a joke. Deadpan humor is life.
This is what was added to the rule later to prevent the SJ abuse from happening. The wording before that was exactly as you mentioned here: This was because LoF had to be traced from the front half of the silhouette.
Presuming that the correct answer to my original top question—which I'd love to hear from an official person—is that LoF is always reciprocal as long as the restriction on front arc is respected and there's not a skill/equipment interaction in play that makes it one-sided, and that it's obligatory and automatic (meaning instantaneous, involuntary, and always-on) in Infinity parlance, how does one petition for an amended wording in the "living rules" set of N4? Just clarifying for new players who are not obsessive forum trawlers by delineating WTF "attacker" and "target" mean in this context...or better yet replacing at least one of those terms entirely...would be great. "Target" is at least in the glossary as basically anything that could be a target for something, but "attacker" is a big oof because it implies an attack skill in action and the RAW support that interpretation generally, even if that's not the RAI. There's going to be a non-zero number of people who read the current wording and have similar levels of consternation, and AFAIK N4 is trying to cut down on that kind of issue in the rules. This seems like relatively low-hanging fruit. Given that Total Cover (no part of your Silhouette is visible) exists in this game, but somehow isn't mentioned in the actual Line of Fire rules (which are about visibility?!? hint hint), it might be worth leveraging in the LoF rules. Perhaps. At minimum it's a convenient possible replacement for 3mm squares, and would probably be simpler for new players to get their minds around. Finding a way to fix the "face away so the active trooper has to actually round a corner of the structure you're behind, or get higher up, to see you" weirdness of what I called "LoF baiting" would be nice too, since every time a new player does a double-take during a learning game, an angel dies of dengue fever. Facing away from your opponent to keep them from triggering unwanted reciprocal LoF is some Bird Box action and I'd like to see it vanish. Pretty please?
Don’t you only have to go one or two millimeters further? And even if you somehow force the opponent move further to get LoF, you’re still setting them up to shoot you in the back.
This is more likely to occur on a vertical, you can create situations where SX that make it impossible to get direct LOF and the only possible LOF is reciprocal. This also creates weirdness with 360 Visors and Holomask.
Apologies I understood the sniper was looking downwards. If the trooper is not looking downwards then indeed the trooper has no LoF and no reciprocal LoF exists, nothing abnormal in this interaction.
What happens when it's actually a Tian Gou? Or vice versa, it appears that it's a Warcor with 360 Visor but it's not actually?
The trooper has 360 visor and always has LoF so this "trick" is not possible on this trooper. Reciprocal LoF has been created to stop models from claiming unopposed attacks through either shooting an odd part of the troopers silhouette been exposed (the first example when there were no silhouettes and models parts were used to determine LoF was a Guijias feet) or not having a 3x3 box themselves been exposed without forcing a requirement for a 3x3 box to be also exposed from both troopers to be exposed for LoF to be established and possibly making LoF more problematic and arguments more protracted. Snipers prone on the edge of tall buildings would probably be most affected by such ruling, in my opinion, as they would be more difficult to have a 3x3 box exposed. Yes, there will always be edge cases, no pun indented, in all rule systems were realism and game mechanics conflict but since N3 it has been decided that gameplay will be preferred over realism ad this has created a far better game.
You missed the point inane.imp was making. What if <360 visor> pretends to be <180 visor> and What if <180 visor> pretends to be <360 visor> When do you need to inform your opponent that the LOF they did not think existed actually exists and, more importantly, when do you need to inform your opponent that the LOF they thought existed did not in fact exist? E.g. Tian Gou (360 visor) is near the edge of a flat cargo container with his back towards where the opponent is coming from, pretending to be a Celestial Guard Monitor, and the opponent's Lynx moves around very close to the container assuming that there is no LOF to the Celestial Guard because of the extremely acute angle creating a far too small surface area. Lynx is trying to kill the obvious Zhanshi LT near the container. Does the Yu Jing player need to inform the O-12 player that the Camouflage Marker has LOF to the Celestial Guard immediately when the Tian Gou gains LOF to the Marker? Does the Yu Jing player need to inform the O-12 player that the Lynx has LOF to the Celestial Guard immediately when the Lynx reveals and declares BS Attack? Does the Yu Jing player need to inform the O-12 player that the Lynx has LOF to the Celestial Guard only if the Tian Gou reveals, such as when declaring BS Attack using Boarding Shotgun in blast mode targeting the Lynx in ARO to the Lynx revealing, thus preventing the Lynx from shooting the Tian Gou for one order?
If my understanding from CB is correct, and LoF exists at all times and can be checked freely, I would work under the guidance of the Fair Play box. So if they declare a move and are asking about board locations, my job is to help them understand the open info on the board. If that means they move into line of a trooper, whether apparently in front or back of their apparent arc, I think you point out a line can be made between game elements.
As this is still in Mahtamori's thread as not being fully answered, what's not covered by FAQ 1.0? [Errata] Does 'reciprocal' Line of Fire (the first exception for drawing LoF) depend on the facing of the target, and does it require you to attack the target? As long as Trooper A can draw LoF to Trooper B, Trooper B can draw LoF to Trooper A as well, as long as Trooper A is within Trooper B's Line of Fire arc.
I'm going to try to identify the issue as I understand it. Personally I think it has always been clear how LoF is supposed to work, and the FAQ partially confirms my understanding. I'm going to start by setting out how I think LoF works, and then how I think some players argue for a different interpretation not fully answered in the FAQ. I think that trooper B has LoF to trooper A if the following conditions are met: 1. A line can be drawn between the silhouettes of A and B using the following rules: a. The line doesn't pass through scenery or another unit's silhouette. b. The line is at least 4mm wide at at least one end. 2. The line doesn't pass through a visibility zone that B cannot see through. 3. A is in B's front arc. I think that the reciprocal LoF rule applies to condition 1.b. In other words, the line exists between A and B in both directions if it is at least 4mm wide at either end. You can't have a unidirectional line, even if it is less that 4mm wide at one end. I don't think that the reciprocal LoF rule is relevant to any of the other conditions. I think that some players argue for a different interpretation. They argue that if the line is 4mm wide at B's end but less than 4mm wide at A's end, then B does not have LoF to A unless all the conditions are met for A to have LoF to B. In other words, if B is in A's front arc and not blocked by a visibility zone, then reciprocal LoF will grant B LoF to A. But, if B is in A's back arc, then because B can "see" less than 4mm of A's silhouette, B does not have LoF to A, and is not granted reciprocal LoF because A cannot see B due to A's facing. (I think that interpretation is wrong, and is convoluted, and would be terrible for the game). For players who support that interpretation, there is an even more convoluted issue when A is a unit with holomask, either pretending to have a 360 Visor or pretending not to have a 360 Visor. In that scenario, their interpretation leads to a situation where the private information from the holomask state leads to B being deceived as to whether or not it is granted reciprocal LoF. The FAQ entry seems to want to answer the question, but it's not entirely clear whether the FAQ saying "as long as Trooper A can draw LoF to Trooper B" means "as long as the line can be drawn between them per condition 1.b." or whether it means "as long as all four conditions are met for A to have LoF to B." I hope that helps. My explanation is very convoluted, but that's because the position being advanced by some players is convoluted.
What if Trooper A is a Tian Gou pretending to be a Kanren with its back turned towards Trooper B? What if Trooper A is a Kanren pretending to be a Tian Gou with its back turned towards Trooper B? When and how do we confirm whether Trooper B, who do not normally have LOF without reciprocal LOF, have or have not LOF? During Trooper B first skill declaration? During Trooper A ARO declaration? During measuring? During measuring, but only if it becomes relevant.
If I’m reading it right, this. But 3mm. Facing won’t have any impact on reciprocal LoF unless they are both stationary and facing away from each other, but there would be no LoF in that situation anyway.
To make sure I’m reading this right, A is the Active Trooper in your example? If so, what are they declaring that is neither revealing them, nor a movement and therefore granting them 360° LoF?
If Trooper A is the reactive trooper (and therefore do not declare any movement) it causes more obvious problems. Sorry for the confusion. Transcribed to Order Expenditure Sequence: Angus is a Fusilier. Angus is sneaking up behind Zhao who is at an elevated position. Angus thinks Zhao is a Zhanshi. Zhao is in reality a Tian Gao with 360 visor. 1. Angus activates. 1.1. Angus moves. Angus can only see 1x7mm of Zhao. (A) 2. Zhao declares no action. (B) 3. Angus moves. 4. Zhao declares no action. 5. No ARO was declared 6. No action has been declared (C) 6.1 No effects are to be applied 6.2 Order is concluded Does Angus find out that he actually has LOF at (A), (B), (C), or not at all during this sequence? (Those are the most likely places where such information would be revealed as I know the rules). The reverse of this is: Angus is a Fusilier. Angus is sneaking up behind Taowu who is at an elevated position. Angus thinks Taowu is a Tian Gou with Jammer. Taowu is pretending to be a unit with 360 visor, but as we know does not have one himself. 1. Angus activates. 1.1. Angus moves. Angus can only see 1x7mm of Taowu. (A) 2. Taowu declares no action. Taowu can't see Angus at all. (B) 3. Angus attempts to declare a BS Attack on Taowu, thinking he has reciprocal LOF. (D) 4. Taowu declares no action. 5. No ARO was declared 6. No action has been declared (C) 6.1 No effects are to be applied 6.2 Order is concluded Same question as above, but (D) is a new and highly likely spot in the sequence when Angus would find out there is no LOF.
It doesn't matter. If the line between Angus and Zhao is more than 3mm wide at Angus's end or at Zhao's end, then Angus has LoF to Zhao from the outset. Zhao's facing is irrelevant.
Stop here... Zhao DOES HAVE an ARO here. His player KNOWS that he has an ARO. Zhao MUST declare an ARO or declare to forgo his chance to do it. Declaring "no ARO" is not legal.
