(emphasis mine) Sorry, but I've re-read the post-FAQ comments on here twice and I'm somehow still missing something. What makes the bold phrase above true? The FAQ itself (download link) says LoF arc matters: The FAQ answer just repeats bullet 1 of the LoF exceptions in the rulebook but replaces "target" and "attacker" with role-agnostic Trooper A and Trooper B. This scenario illustrates my point of confusion: Reactive Trooper Angus is leaning against a wall with a 1mm x 1mm hole in it, facing away from the hole. Active Trooper Zhou steps out from a nearby corner, exposing his full Silhouette. Angus, who is facing the wrong way, cannot draw LoF to Zhou. Can Zhou draw LoF to Angus? Based on a casual read of the comments here, the answer is somehow "yes."
ijw's ruling. I mean, it was already clear to me how it was supposed to work, even before the FAQ. But for those who thought otherwise, the answer is simply: ijw's ruling. He repeats the ruling several times in this thread.
I don't know what exactly makes it right, but we have IJW saying that this is the way it works. And in a way it makes sense. Why Zhou couldn't see Angus's butt in the hole but after Angus declared dodge as ZoC Aro and succeeded to turn around for some reason Zhao can now shoot his balls in his next order.
Ok. On that basis, when does the bold text below matter? This is basically a "who invented transparent aluminum" style paradox. In the example I gave above, Angus fails to be able to draw LoF because of bullet 1, so has no LoF to Zhou. Zhou fails to be able to draw LoF to Angus because of bullet 2. Individually, neither of them should be able to draw LoF. So whose LoF is triggering the first exception bullet? Trooper A (either one, it doesn't matter) can't draw LoF to Trooper B (again, whichever one wasn't A, it doesn't matter). Per the rules and FAQ, there should be no LoF between them. Is it reasonable to sum up the ruling as, basically, "LoF exists between two Troopers as long as, between the two of them, all three of the requirement bullets are met, even if either Trooper is only able to meet one or two of the requirements" - ?
FFS. ijw has told us the answer. You think his answer is inconsistent with the way the rules are written. That's fine. It's not the first time and it won't be the last. But we have the answer now. What's the problem?
For me? I'm just trying to make sure I actually understand the way it's meant to be played and to make sure I'm not missing some key part of the discussion. Apparently I'm not? It's playable, and most of the time this issue will hopefully be an edge case. My main takeaway is to be really particular about confirming with opponents pre-game whether or not we will permit drawing LoF through very small holes in terrain. I've been "gotcha'd" with that before, and this ruling means you can linked Kriza HMG six dice through a pinhole gap in terrain into a back arc if the table permits. For a new player who doesn't deep-read the forums and whose first tournament experience involves finding out that his understanding of the rules is wrong about LoF, the problem may be different—particularly if he refers exclusively to the official rulebook PDF, wiki, and FAQ. Anyway, I'll repeat my question from the end of my prior post, as I would like to make sure I have this working right in my head:
TL:DR post FAQ 3x3 mm rule passus only is effective if it both sides are unable to draw LOF (regardless of facing) to a 3x3 mm part of each other's Silhouettes. If either one of the troopers can, the 3x3mm rule passus is overruled by reciprocal LOF.
How is it so difficult to write LoF rules correctly? CB had like 2 editions and multiple FAQs to fix the language.
Read it this way. LoF is an imaginary line starting from a Silhouette to another. If ANY of them can see 3x3mm, there is a LoF. But how do you use it? You need to have the other one in your front arc.
