1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

You know it was coming back to get you: smoke on roof edges.

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Sirk, Apr 5, 2021.

  1. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    I suppose that raises broader questions of how you are or aren't allowed to specify points if you don't play with intent. Which I don't find particularly interesting since I do play with intent just like nearly everyone else.

    The way I've seen it articulated by intent opponents is that you have to place your model and then see where it ended up. By that logic, you couldn't place the blast template anywhere near the edge, because it would fall off. Even if you're allowed to hold it in place, you still wouldn't be able to place it exactly on the edge. You could tap the corner with your pen to indicate where you hoped to place it, but then when you physically placed it, you wouldn't get it exactly centered on the spot you had tapped.
     
  2. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    depends how far below the other model is. A circular template laid with the centre on the edge, will fall as you say, but could in some situation rest as it hit the top of a model below the roof. At that point of equilibrium, the template would 1) touch the model and 2) have the under-side of its blast focus in contact with the edge.
    And the blast focus being so big (compared to infinitely small point) that you don't even need to try to be exact. You could declare : i'm placing the template here. Place it approximately centred on the edge. Then let it slowly pivot as you raise your hand and if it touches any model then that model is hit.

    I agree most play with intent. but sometime when you do you end up needing to go on a chalk board and pull all kind of mathematical equation of what is feasible or not. Sometime, simply playing it as it happens, using our rudimentary and not-very-exact tools (like the acrylic templates) gives other answers.

    If it is possible to have the template rest on a model head slightly below the roof level, and with some part of the blast circle touching the roof, then this is physical proof that the theory about it being always impossible simply doesn't stand.
     
  3. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    You totally lost me here. I can't visualize what you're describing.

    If the blast focus is even very slightly offset from the edge, then nobody thinks that a model below the roof can draw LoF to it. You don't get to wobble the template to try to jimmy sombody in.

    The only questions are (1) can you place the blast focus exactly on the edge, and (2) if you can, can the blast then travel downwards.
     
  4. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    the blast focus is much larger than the edge. I'm not sure what you mean by 'exactly' in the context of real world application. But for me, "placed on the edge" in this case is like any case of putting a 12" plate on a 4" glass. As long as part of the bigger object is on top of the smaller one then yes, it is "on" it. Can it travel downward ? Well, we do know it can travel along the whole surface of the template. So yes, anything that touches the template is included, as long as the blast focus is on the roof edge. If the blast focus is off the roof, then it doesn't count.

    You could try to argue that the molecule exactly in the centre of the circle must be precisely on edge to be exact, but that would be trying to add restriction that don't exist. All we know of, is that the blast focus is that circle. No need to grab a magnifying glass to try to be more precise/exact than "the blast focus is that circle". I went downstair and couldn't find my acrylic template. I'll try to go downstair again to find it.
     
  5. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    I think that the blast focus of the circular template is a point, but if you're right that it's a black circle, then the questions don't change. You're just trying to place the edge of the black circle exactly on the edge of the roof, rather than the center point. Either way, the questions are (1) can you place it exactly at that position, and (2) if you do, can it draw LoF downwards. Whether you're trying to position the center point, or the edge of the center circle, doesn't change anything.
     
  6. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    [​IMG]
    the model is being touched by the template. No question there. The question is : Is the blast focus actually on the roof edge ?


    [​IMG] [​IMG]
    Well, as far as I can tell, yes, the blast focus point is indeed touching the roof edge (photo from below), and is centred on it (photo from above), as far as my eyes can tell.

    And that is enough to play this wargame, there is no need to get more precise instruments than eyesight.

    (edit: as far as centre point of blast, remember photo is from above and acrylic is angled and thick. but the centre of the hole is aligned with where the diameter is the largest. i could have taken a picture upward from acrylic instead to show it better)
     
    #46 Robock, Apr 12, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2021
  7. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    So... you're arguing not only that the blast focus is a circle, but that the blast focus doesn't have to be entirely on a horizontal surface. That the focus can be partially suspended in midair.

    It's a unique perspective, I'll give it that.
     
    Diphoration likes this.
  8. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    part of it is suspended, indeed, due to angling, but part of it is also touching the edge (or would be, if the manufacturer wouldn't have drilled a hole in it).
    the question was if the centre of the template was touching the edge. not if the entirety of its centre was touching.

    no one ever argued that the entirety of the small template blast focus must touch the silhouette... only part of it is enough to count as touching. so why would we now argue that the entirety of the centre must touch the roof (therefore lay flat, relative to the roof angle) ?

    Let's consider a different question, in plain english.
    Is the acrylic disc on the edge of the cardboard box ?
    I'd be surprise if anyone would say : no it is not on the edge.

    Unless the game rule ask to be more specific, I don't see why we would say that "No, the hole is not on the edge of the roof in that picture". It is the exact same situation.
    Therefore, the hole is on the edge, perfectly right on it, as far as we can see. and is also touching a model below.
     
  9. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    if we play by pie-slicing intent, one could argue: the exact centre is most likely away from the edge, therefore there is no line going downward.

    if we play without pie-slicing but play as is. Then the picture, as is, shows the centre of the blast is exactly on the edge. and the template is wobbling downward. and the centre is still touching the edge. Maybe the microscopic centre is either mid-air above the roof, or mid-air off the building, making this placement invalid. But we don't play with such microscopic tools allowing pie-slicing. We play as is and as far I can tell the placement of the centre blast on that edge is perfectly legal.
     
  10. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    i remember reading an argument in the past that it is impossible that two model are 8" apart. If you do measure 8" on a ruler, it is most likely that the measured distance is either a tiny bit more or a tiny bit less than 8". The probability if it being exactly as measure are close to null. Nice philosophical talks, but impractical in 28mm scale game play.

    If the template was graduated as a ruler is, I could, without difficulty, place it such that the line (or dot) representing the centre point is touching the edge (with more precision than the current picture where to the best of my ability, the centre of the hole looks like is on the edge).
    And if I did that, I'm sure those same arguer would come here to say that most likely the actual centre is on either side of the graduated line/dot. And I don't agree. They might be right in theory. But in practice, we should play as is, with the accuracy of the tools we have. If a measured distance is 8, then it is 8. If a printed centre line/dot touch the edge then so be it, it touches the edge, even if the template is angled downward.

    That said, I think there are circular template with centre dot instead of centre hole, so someone can take it and do like I did, placing the dot right on the edge.
     
  11. Sirk

    Sirk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2021
    Messages:
    99
    Likes Received:
    75
    You are making quite an interesting point in saying that one way to play this game is with the "tools at hand" and not with geometry rules.
    I haven't played that way until now, but I can clearly see some advantages given by this let's call "pragmatic" approach :D

    Just to understand the consequences of this way of reasoning: you would also allow the placement of smoke from below for the same reason or not?
     
  12. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    It's not even a prediction. This is a rehash on an N3 conversation.
     
    QueensGambit and Robock like this.
  13. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    6,040
    Likes Received:
    7,177
    This is a meta decision. Some people are happier going "Hey it's geometrically possible, let's just accept that and move on" and other prefer going "Hey, it's the best I can achieve with the tools at hand, let's just accept that and move on".

    You can't resolve the difference with a rules conversation as both are "correct". It either requires a ruling from CB (which they won't make, because it's part of the intent debate) or a discussion within your meta.
     
    #53 inane.imp, Apr 13, 2021
    Last edited: Apr 13, 2021
    Robock and Sirk like this.
  14. Robock

    Robock Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,234
    Likes Received:
    852
    It would be a consequence of the reasoning, yes. And I agree as pictured in post #16. In fact, I can look outside and see the very edge of the roof of the houses across the street, even if I'm below. (technically the upper edge of the wall, but an edge being an edge, both are the same).
    And in game, placing a hard non-bending acrylic piece like in my picture would show that the model on the ground can see a point on the edge. As long as you only need to see a point to declare the action, it would be the consequences of my recent post.

    I was more talking in the line of selecting a point where the template is placed. Works for spec fire. And works for shooting from above, as from above you see 4" x 4" of the roof (more than enough to meet the 3x3), and can then select a visible point of the roof to place the centre-point of the template.
    But in the case of smoke from below, you don't see enough of the roof to select it as a target for a direct attack with smoke ammo.

    I used to be more concerned about geometric theories (such as: a model near a roof edge can see models below). But when it runs into arguments during play (argument such as: a model below that is touching the wall can only see straight up, so no way that the rooftop model can see back), I prefer now to say: the heck, let's just use our eyes and see for ourselves. (or use a straight edge when buildings prevent us from positioning our head at the right place to show that there exist a direct line between model A and B.)
     
    Sirk likes this.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation