You seem to have a preconception of what "function" means in this case is what I'm saying. Please consider reviewing this preconception. Not everything can be served for you, and I kind of doubt whether such a document is a valuable investment for the company. Historically and in many games I see this being done by community members during major edition changes. During previous transitions that community member was IJW if I'm not mistaken, but one can imagine he's been pre-occupied by other matters due to working in a direct capacity with the project this time around. As far as I can tell no community member has stepped up to undertake this so here we are. Rules lawyer style: If the distance is so close to 0 that no line is drawn between them, then there is no line of fire because you do never draw a line joining the two silhouettes.
Per Ian's definition, there's always some LoF between Silhouettes, even in base contact. It's not a line between the closest points of the S volumes, but any points of the S volumes. In a Zero Vis Zone they don't exist, of course, but this rule below (from Line of Fire) means that there is a LoF, a contact one, if you will, but there is one, as long as you're in b2b. A Trooper in b2b with other Silhouettes has "contact LoF" to all of them, basically.
You mean I can't expect a quality of life document from a major game company? Especially for a game with ruleset rife with convoluted rules and extremely complex interactions between them? Is that really "expecting things being served for me"? Really? :D If former edition player retention and ease of introducing new players is "not a valuable investment for a game company" on an edition change, then I don't really know what to tell you. And that's a pervasive issue with old school of thinking about game design. We're not five dudes in a garage anymore, neither is the company. It's time to step up. If this can be the expected norm with modern pen-and-paper RPGs which often are also full of complex rules (see Shadowrun, for example) and the companies can be expected to release edition update docs, then what's the exact issue here? To me it looks like poor resource and process management and poor UX design. Would it require a lot of effort? Probably. But if it had been planned for from the get go, tracking changes would've been a part of the design process from the start and in the end it would only require exporting the latest design branch doc to something legible for the end user because all the content would've already been there.
Does this make sense though, to say a model using stealth enters silhouette contact from the rear and Grant's a CC ARO but within a smoke template does not? Why are there so many double standards in this edition? Like Ladders and Stairs are considered the same and both are granted cover, the stairs I easily understand. I can easily understand from an intuitive perspective that a ladder with some obstacle next to it serving as cover. But then Climbing Plus does not... and no I'm not starting a Climbing Plus conversation, I'm just pointing out the numerous double standards on things that should be unintuitive and theres probably some that arent intuitive and still have a double standard. And yes, I understand, you're just one guy of many involved I got it. P.S. I heard back from Juan, he is busy as expected, I would have told you in PM but despite your suggestion on starting fresh, maybe it wasnt that simple. Regardless, I'll probably hear back from him further next week after he's had more time. I'll drop him a few more. I assume you and he see eye to eye on most things considering what you've been telling us here in the threads has been your experience working on the rules. I hope collectively the 3 of us can do better and sway certain opinions...
As I said in another thread I am done debating your opinions, if a question is asked the authority of the answer is FAQ> @ijw or @HellLois > someone who thinks they can support their answer from the rulebook. Anyone who does not accept this will be marked for at least temporary ban and I will see if they get a permanent ban from the rules sub forum.
Who is this directed towards? Nobody above is out of line (even wuji, he's asking respectful and pertinent questions).
To any and all who second guesses an official answer, If an answer is given in the FAQ or by @ijw or @HellLois it is final until further notice.
There's a big difference between the kind of "nu-uh! I won't use that ruling and it's not a proper ruling until it's in the FAQ" that we've seen previously and a calm discussion of "can you please explain what are the reasons and logic for this ruling and did you consider X, Y and Z interactions it brings along with it?". Please tell me that you're not gonna suddenly start banning people for calmly discussing the Rules on the Rules forum.
Strange, considering that LoF is granted by fiat in the case of silhouette contact, so there's implied to be no "line."
Faq explicitly states any skill that requires lof from being determined at declaration and not resolution. So you have to have a lof to declare bs attack otherwise that skill is illegal (as in against the rules to declare) and not just invalid and turns into idle if it isn't retroactively made valid.
To be entirely frank it has become tiresome to have everything second guessed here and official representatives status challenged, this has gone too far and the reserves of patience are running out. I will accept a "yes, but why?" reply only if the next reply, if an answer is given, is "ok thanks for explaining this to me" Am I clear?
Still a medium company according to Spanish tax standards unless I'm mistaken. Keep in mind that Defiance represented a major risk for them and that they clearly worked overdrive for a very long time to produce this edition, and still are. So no, I'd say you're demanding a bit too much. It's the demanding aspect that I'm averse to, not the wanting. We're also in a digital age where this stuff is something that fans will love to put on their blogs/vlogs, so they'd also be competing with their fans to produce a better product which is why I think it's nuts to pay someone for hundreds of hours of work doing stuff that'll happen organically.
Let me see if I get this right (I'm honestly finding this to be quite a nightmare to navigate through to be honest, but I want to make sure I get it right so that I can answer any local questions) (I'm not second guessing anything, I just want to confirm and clarify ) BS ARO needs to be valid at Declaration (Even if the point you shoot at is not the same as the one you pick at Resolution) This kind of ARO can be verified at Declaration and is required at Declaration and Resolution. ZoC ARO needs to be valid at Resolution This kind of ARO can't be verified at Declaration (due to no premeasuring) and isn't required until Resolution. CC ARO needs to be valid at Resolution This kind of ARO can be verified at Declaration, but isn't required until Resolution. ARO vs stealth needs to be valid at Declaration (and are also illegal if invalid, prevent you from outright declaring) This kind of ARO can be verified at Declaration and is required at Declaration and Resolution. - - - - - It would be nice if all kinds of ARO had the same behaviour (all checked at Resolution), or if at least all the ARO have parameters that can be verified at Declaration (Being engaged, having LoF, having stealth) had the same behaviour (all checked at Declaration)
If you are talking to me, I would need a quote of my post to know it, but you and I also have a PM chat going so you can always get me there. Since there seem to be many people finding so many discrepancies, nothing that anyone isnt trying to be uncivil about, but it is frustrating, I've got to ask, since I haven't seen anyone insulting anyone, why did you yell at anyone with red words threatening to ban them?
Basically; A LOF requirement is the only requirement that has to be valid on declaration. (The point you shoot at is not declared as part of the skill declaration for non-template weapons, that's declared just prior to measuring distances at step 6) Stealth just prevents ARO declarations. Yes, there's special case for when non-Stealth troopers are also involved - when you can declare AROs against the Stealth trooper, but if the Stealth trooper then does not declare skills that are incompatible with Stealth those AROs are invalidated.
By required i assume you are talking about must be legal at declaration. But from what I understand of your post, this overall is a correct understand of how skills, both active and reactive work. Edit: @Mahtamori said it better.
Just to be thorough/nitpicky: if you have LoF to the Stealth trooper then you're granted an ARO, you can then declare an ARO that may not be valid until Resolution. The example I can think of: hackable trooper with Stealth moves in LoF of my hacker. Hacker declares Oblivion. Active trooper moves closer. In Resolution, we discover that the active trooper was outside my hacking area until its second Move, but the hack is still valid.
Not really, to be honest.This is still arbitrary as heck and since the actual person interested doesn't seem to mind the continued conversation on this particual point and thread (or at least I haven't seen Ian say anything like 'this is final, stop digging', he instead continues in the exchange), it's really strange how you're suddenly jumping in and making the thread much more hostile than it was before you spoke out. You're making regular people afraid to ask questions about Rules in a Rules forum, just because one or two dudes pushed a point way too much and didn't get ignored like they should have been. We can ask a single question about the reasoning behind a whole rule interpretation / change and if the answer we get doesn't cover all possible angles and if we ask a follow up we'll get banned? Seriously? You're jumping from the usual, virtually most lenient moderation I've ever seen (red texting people doesn't count for much), to being extremely heavy handed on a single particular topic, out of the blue. I ask this in the most respectful way possible - could you please step back for a moment and rethink your approach, the tools you're reaching for here, as well as the role this Forum is supposed to have for the Infinity community as the basically single point of contact and open discussion with the Rules Staff? :|
Someone ping me when we have an 3rd party app that keeps track of all the rule changes and official takes on how the rules work. Maybe we can have that in Comlog, would be sweet. Peace out guys, I'm done with this one :D
