1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hemos actualizado nuestra Política de Privacidad acorde con la nueva RGPD. +Info // We've updated our Privacy Policy to comply with the GDPR. +Info
    Dismiss Notice

LoF to rear arc issue

Discussion in 'Rules' started by sam2064, Oct 24, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. sam2064

    sam2064 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    18
    I would really appreciate if CB could respond to these rules concerns. Maybe someone could post this on the WarCor Forum

    After a recent discussion about LoF and facings I've put together a series of scale diagrams. Each shows LoF of Blue vs Yellow. The lines are 3 mm wide. There is a S2 vs S2 sample and a S2 v S7 example. The first examples concern shooting around a corner. The second set involve walking along a roof top to shoot a target from above. The third set involve Super Jump and Shoot behind a wall.

    I'm not making any judgement about if these rules are ethical... but rather that they are possible.

    IMHO the shooting around a corner issue isn't too bad, but shows that you can't cover a corner unless you are facing it, and you can't cover two corners of a building at once, by having your LoF facing parallel to the building wall.

    The "Shooting from above" and "Super Jump" examples are both problematic for the game as there is no way to couter deploy other than to have an ARO piece on the high ground.

    I know this is a controversial issue, but I really want to find out if this is as CB intended in the recent FAQ.

    https://www.facebook.com/StrategosLevel3/posts/2392767534126659

    Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 09.09.23.png Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 09.09.34.png Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 09.09.44.png Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 09.09.53.png Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 09.10.05.png Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 09.10.17.png Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 20.31.18.png Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 20.31.33.png Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 20.31.49.png Screen Shot 2018-10-23 at 20.32.03.png


    44645687_2392764790793600_5133557336966692864_o.png
    44688736_2392764800793599_9090130060999917568_o.png

    44633195_2392764820793597_459305705304752128_o.png
    44510873_2392764900793589_8879099686179307520_o.png

    44658248_2392764554126957_7636227543325999104_o.png
    44743000_2392764540793625_7890915384537120768_o.png

    44688714_2392764550793624_6014651654194855936_o.png
    44701916_2392764687460277_418122814386601984_o.png

    44702830_2392764697460276_5935599160454545408_o.png
    44649035_2392764724126940_5805595070249828352_o.png
     
    Berjiz and Hecaton like this.
  2. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    9,285
    As far as horizontal positioning is concerned, yes it is 100% intended, and is the entire point of the FAQ entry. Note that it's not a recent FAQ entry, as 1.2 is from July 2016.

    It's only the vertical positioning that's controversial/possibly not intended.
     
  3. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    400
    I can already see the intent discussion spawning again from this.
     
  4. sam2064

    sam2064 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    18
    If you take this example, where the attacking trooper is further away from the wall, then the situation is very much clearer, with over a cm between the point where LoF is gained to the back of the base, and the point where LoF from the defender to the attacker would be possible.

    It certainly is an issue that upsets people.

    It came up in a friendly game. I explained the issue to my opponent but in the end decided not to use is as it was a bit odd, although my opponent in a show of goods sportsmanship said it looked perfectly legitimate.

    Screen Shot 2018-10-24 at 11.25.18.png

    IMG_0507.jpg
     
  5. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    9,285
    Yes, it is clear, and it's 100% what the FAQ says.

    Personally, I'm not a massive fan of the ruling, but I am a fan of the effects* of the ruling, which is that one trooper can't guard two corners at once by facing the wall.

    *For horizontal placement.
     
    Dragonstriker, fenren, n21lv and 4 others like this.
  6. sam2064

    sam2064 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    18
    It's just a shame that the label of being "that player" or less flattering versions are given to players who mention this as a valid tactic.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  7. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    9,285
    You're not being 'that player' when using it horizontally, the FAQ is 100% clear that this is how the rule is played. The defending player has to choose which corner they want to defend.

    Note that the FAQ doesn't change the Line of Fire rules, this is already in there: 'In Infinity, troops have a LoF angle of 180˚, that is, they can see with the front half of their base.'.
     
  8. sam2064

    sam2064 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2017
    Messages:
    18
    Likes Received:
    18
    You wouldn't think that from the tone of peoples replies to the WGC Facebook post. Do this in a game and got and kill some kittens afterwards :O
     
  9. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    655
    People on Facebook are usually whiney bitches.
     
  10. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    4,628
    Likes Received:
    9,285
    You know I'm posting in that thread? ;-)

    They're complaining when it's used for vertical positioning, which is what appears to be an unintended consequence, not about when it's used for horizontal positioning.
     
  11. Alphz

    Alphz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    844
    Likes Received:
    1,622
    These are some good diagrams to explain things.

    I think most people are very much against the vertical application.

    I find the FAQ a clunky solution to achieve the desired result, and don't like it. That said, it can't be argued that it doesn't achieve the desired effect of making corner defence more of a choice.
     
    sam2064 likes this.
  12. ev0k

    ev0k Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    300
    Likes Received:
    324
    I think horiontal application is valid and logical, but vertical application IMHO is a "undesired side effect" of the "front 180°" rule.
     
  13. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    382
    I'm not a personal fan of that FAQ. There was a weakness enough as is to try to look at both corners. The fact that you can not gain cover (as shown by the first two pictures by the OP) due to the firer can see you from the corner but he will have cover.

    This just creates both NPE and gotchas. If you did this to a person who wasn't aware that this rule was being played.
     
    Ben Kenobi, Hecaton and sam2064 like this.
  14. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    655
    Where are those covered in the rules?

    Well, carry a copy of the FAQ and present it to your opponents before a game to make sure that they are versed in the most recent clarifications of how CB has intended their game to be played.
     
  15. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener Kamau Amphibious Intervention Operative

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,979
    It all boils down to the intent argument again imo. chances are in a lot of these situations you are unable to actually place models in a way where just seeing the back of the base is possible and not the front arc. its a fine ruling imo, but its just tough in practice because it often times requires a bit of imaginary placing that some players are not alright with.
     
  16. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    532
    Likes Received:
    382
    NPE is not covered in the rules either, but npe hurts the drive that leads us to play this game. This game is built to allow the reactive player to allow to have meaningful aros, and taking that away from them is to drive people from this game.

    And no I do not wish to bring the faq to games at the local store. I have no need to have the faq with me as I have no interest in this spreading. I would also be a staunch supporter of insuring this not be allowed in the meta and local tournies.

    If this becomes standard, then so does the vertical aspect of this rule and that is a travesty as a tikbalang or hollowmen will kill most things in the game uncontested. It doesn't matter that the rule was unintended as that is allowed, right/s?

    but if using this trick becomes popular then I will start asking at tournaments if this is enforced by the TOs. If its like colder than carbonite, it won't be and that's better for everyone. If it is, then I will be one to heartlessly use it till they realize that it should not be allowed.

    And for the note that it's an faq and so "intended". Tell that to shock vs 2w nwi. That was intended too, until it wasn't.
     
  17. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    655

    How do you mean?

    It's pretty black and white. You are either able to draw LoF from the front arc of one to only the rear arc of the opponent while the opponent's front 180 is completely blocked, or not.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  18. CabalTrainee

    CabalTrainee Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2018
    Messages:
    305
    Likes Received:
    400
    Yeah that's how i like my game evenings to start. With a clipboard and a list of all unresolved issues the game has that we need to agree on how to play. This adds at least 20 minutes to the game to first explain what these issues are and how we could possibly play them.
     
    coleslaw and Smiler like this.
  19. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    655
    It's just a game.

    You aren't guaranteed "meaningful aros" at all.

    It's not up to anyone to allow. It's the rules. That'd be like me saying that we aren't going to allow hackers. Because. The hacking rules are too hard for me.

    It already is standard. It is the rules. Also, I can remember right when second edition came out and we got Toni who would take crazy Climbing Plus shots. No one called that broken or OP to my memory.
     
  20. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener Kamau Amphibious Intervention Operative

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,635
    Likes Received:
    1,979
    you're right, but much like "I am only going to move so far up to only see this ARO piece and not this one", sometimes it is not always placable on table top, whether that be because of the minuscule measurement or shaky hands or the 1000 other factors that there are when placing miniatures at an exact point with our hands.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.