N4 rulebook 2.1 page 24 states: The Trooper must be able to see part of the volume of its target, with a minimum size of 3x3mm. As long as a Trooper can draw LoF to their target, the target can draw LoF to that Trooper as well, as long as that Trooper is within the target’s front 180º arc. Let's suppose we have a situation when active Trooper A DOESN'T HAVE LoF to 3x3mm square on reactive Trooper's B Silhouette, but Trooper B HAS LoF to 3x3mm square on active Trooper's A Silhouette. I have a dispute with a friends over wording in the rulebook. I say that since Trooper B can see Trooper A the Trooper A can shoot Trooper B even if Trooper B doesn't declare any ARO. He says if Trooper B doesn't declare any ARO targeting Trooper A, Trooper A won't be able to see Trooper B and therefore act against him. His reasoning is that the rulebook says "their target", so Trooper A has to become Trooper B ARO's target to be able to see him. My reasoning is that 'target' here is just a word to describe "if B sees A, A sees B" and since we do a lot of targeting with skills in the game it has been chosen poorly because it suggests that you have to do something against an enemy for him to be able to notice you. Who's in the right here? It would be nice to see someone in contact with designer team on this, since it's a basic mechanic and wording seems pretty clear for my friends' reasoning and intuition on how this game is played towards my reasoning.
If A sees B, B sees A, regardless of what action A is taking. If the word "target" on that page was conditional on being the "target of a BS Attack" it would say as much. Reading "target" as such here would also be completely ridiculous, because it would mean that you don't see anyone ever until you actually designate them as the target of an Attack, lol.
Or unless you see 3x3mm of them as per the first bullet point. However, on page 1 of FAQ 1.2 for N4 we had: It was publish on Feb 2nd 2022. Rulebook 2.0 and 2.1 with FAQ 1.4 rolled out much later, the latter in June 2023 and this little errata got erased probably with change to the wording in rulebook 2.0/2.1, but logically the issue came back, because this errata should be included somewhere in there and is not anymore...
Does somebody really play with official LoF rules? Prone snipers on a roof with their backs turned can’t be shot from below…
Is this "with a minimum size of 3x3mm" rule still valid? I never played a single game (casual nor tournament) with this rule in N4. Edit: I do not find this "with a minimum size of 3x3mm" in the InfinityWiki https://infinitythewiki.com/Line_of_Fire Edit the Edit: Found it thanks to Iskandar
This has been debated for tens if not hundreds of times in various channels, but let's do it again. 1. A prone sniper on a roof with it's back turned can't see the activating enemy trooper because the trooper is not in the front arc. 2. The activating trooper can't see the prone sniper because the prone troopers base is only 3mm high and part of the roof is blocking it because that happens with roofs. It's mathematically impossible for the activating trooper to get 3x3 square visible. How on earth do you get reciprocial LoF here which would allow the activating trooper to shoot the prone sniper?
I guess the answer is that the 3x3 square does not have to be vertical (meaning 3mm horizontal along the table, 3mm vertical directly up in the air), but can be orientated differently. So if you see a part of the snipers base top that is 3x3mm, it does not matter whether you see the rim, if that clears it up.
@Th1nG I want a see a picture where you think that 3x3 square exist in that scenario because I can assure you, it's mathematically impossible. But like I said before, I have trouble believing that someone still plays with official. LoF rules. They might think that they play, but they are deceiving themselves.
Red is the attacker, blue is the prone sniper. Either I am totally misunderstanding your proposed situation, or I have no idea what should be mathematically impossible about this I guess...
The attacker is on the ground level and he is shorter than the house where sniper is prone on. If the sniper's back wasn't turned, there would be reproducial LoF but because it's turned there isn't and that's silly when you think about it.
Ok, then I misunderstood your example. But in that case, the attacker can not see the sniper at all (which happens disregarding reciprocial lof or not), or are you imagining a scenario were he is just tall enough to see a sliver of the sniper's base? EDIT: A, I think I do understand what you mean now: the sniper is prone on top of a building that does not have a parapet or similar. In that case, if the sniper is not exactly on the edge of the building, yes, you would not be able to draw a 3x3mm square and thus reciprocial lof. We do not really have a lot of higher buildings without any type of parapet, though, thus I did not think of your scenario right away
If you know it's been done hundreds of times then you've seen the IJW ruling that very clearly says how it works. The snipers arc does not matter for reciprocial LoF. If either Trooper could see, if they were facing in the right direction, there is LoF.
Yes, the imaginary LoF from the ass that is only used for this purpose. Note that the imaginary ass LoF cant be used to ARO. So much cope. I think that they should write that ass LoF to the rulebook so that everyone can appriciate how well the rules have been written.
DISCLAIMER: pardon the poor graphics but i'm in a hurry and i don't have the right instruments here Despite the base is this: The silohuette of a prone model is this: So, a model on the ground can always see the minimun amount needed of the sniper-on-the-roof-of-doom
@tox No it can't see the mimum 3x3, because the edge of the roof is slightly blocking the view to the base.
If they're up against the edge, the roof is not blocking the side at all, which is 3mm high, so there is no issue. And even if they're not up against the edge, if they could see 3mm from the opposing trooper reciprocal LoF kicks in, so there is no issue.
The bases are circular so it’s physically impossible to get 3mm wide part of base to touch the roof edge. If bases were square this could be physically possible. It’s worth mentioning that even square bases would be untargetable if the base was 1mm away from roof edge. But this discussion is meaningless because all(?) players either ignore the official LoF rules (read: LoF is established from one atom to another) or have adopted previously mentioned ass LoF concept.
