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. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,043
    Likes Received:
    1,133
    Just so you know... As long as there is intervening terrain between you and the "death-from-above" attacker, it is possible to do this. Nobody would look at a trooper that's 4" away from a building and say that their front arc is "blocked", but a SJ trooper could trivially get normal rolls in this situation (they'd have nearly a quarter inch of fudge factor if they weren't playing by intent).

    The only way to guard against it is to have your own troopers on rooftops. If that's what CB intended, then great... just know that games will be decided on vertical superiority if that's the case.
     
    Berjiz, Zewrath, CabalTrainee and 2 others like this.
  2. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    ... I thought the correct term was SJ Warrior?

    Special Skill: can apply Suppressive Fire to any Face to Face roll without having previously declared the State. :wink:

    Anyone care to propose a Unit Profile and faction Availability for Social Justice Warrior? :smile:
     
  3. kinginyellow

    kinginyellow Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2017
    Messages:
    537
    Likes Received:
    386
    Think he meant super jump but I'll chime in:

    Gonna go with nomads for faction. Reason is that aleph as a machines always tries to group things and that offends them on behalf of those other people. And skirmisher with TO and frenzy but becomes impetuous if any model does a wound to any other model in the game.
     
  4. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest River Cool is where I belong

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    354
    Likes Received:
    794
    CB is already fine with, 'shoot a unit in the back from in front of the unit... and on the ground.' Why should '...and on the rooftop.' be any different?

    The issue is not the difference in elevation. It is the effect of the intervening terrain on drawing a LoF. And that has been settled since FAQ 1.1 (or maybe even 1.0. I no longer have a copy of that.)

    The situation is reversible too -- "Death from Below". Look at the graphic from the FAQ.
    [​IMG]
    The fusilier could be on the same level as the reverend, or above the reverend or even below the reverend. So long as enough of the reverend's silhouette is visible... bang!
     
  5. Utilitycookie

    Utilitycookie Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2018
    Messages:
    3
    Likes Received:
    8
    Here are a few screenshots from my games where we enforce RAW. (Like posted by Red Harvest above this post)
    Since these images might help to get this discussion out of the realm of theory.

    Most arguments I see are not based on actual distances and a random number is thrown out there in inces as to when the no ARO situation is possible.

    First and foremost.... This game needs enough terrain, whitout it, it becomes a static roll dice and shoot game where if anyone advances you get sniped, total react to bits etc.. See below a representation of what I deem as enough terrain. You can understand perhaps then my view, as why I do not see the current ruling as an issue..
    2.jpg
    Here we have an in game situation where my sniper is deployed 12 inches from my edge. You can see the models on the roof on the other side of the table, they are 24-28 inches away. No way I can shoot at their back arc with my ''vertical dominance''. The same goes for the model below in front of the building where the enemies are on (18 inches away).
    Granted, if we played with less terrain to the left of my sniper then sure, a situation might come up where I can shoot in his back arc if he advanced up far enough. My question is then, why would you leave the model in that position at the end of your orders.... Bad play imho. 3.jpg

    A better view of the entire table.. 4.jpg 5.jpg

    Same as the picture with the sniper but one level lower. As you can see here, even if I get in a position where I can shoot a model in the back in the alley to the left of the Ragiks, then I could have done it either way by moving up prone beyond the model. But even if I do.... See those other models in the distance? Overlapping ARO's.
    Imagine if the ragiks was a super jumping model and the place where he is standing was the edge of the building he jumps up. Still gets shot by the other models.

    Kleiner.jpg

    I understand that theoratically it might seem as one super jump model can get 10 shots/10 kills with 10 order this way. But on real tables, it will not. The model will get stopped.
    If someone can provide a diagram with inches and angles where it shows that the situation is way worse then I described please let me know. I am open to have my mind changed.
     
  6. HarlequinOfDeath

    HarlequinOfDeath Tha Taskmastaaa
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2017
    Messages:
    598
    Likes Received:
    562
    That is what I tried to say as well. I have never seen this interaction. Never. And I am participating at tourmanents across Germany and in Switzerland.

    And second, I use devices to check LoF as well. My opponents and me even go for situations where we can just see the 3x3mm spot to gain LoF. But we talk with each other and try to be sportsmanlike and not abuse strange situations. And I would bet if someone would do that guy wouldn't find players after.

    It is like the Moira E/M link list. No one wants to play against that list a second time.
     
  7. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    2,595
    The massive difference is that shooting like that horizontally very quick and easy to show in game with a line laser, prove so both parties are satisfied, and move on with the game. Shooting vertically for free is a total pain in the ass to prove you can do it, and to prove exactly to which point a model needs to move to do it (for appropriate ARO declarations from elsewhere on the board), which unecessarily bogs the game down.

    As a TO, I am totally fine with doing this horizontally, there is no problem with it and it's easy enough to work with. The vertical shit needs to go though, that's a bunch of headache inducing arguments waiting to happen and it doesn't provide anything of value to the game.
     
    #187 Triumph, Oct 29, 2018
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2018
    Berjiz and toadchild like this.
  8. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    656
    I don't agree with your assessment. I see either three things happening:

    1) attacking model didn't jump high high enough to get the shot he wanted and has to use another order (if available) to try again.
    2) attacking model jumps up too high and fails to stay hidden from the front arc and gets hit by ARO fire (yay TR bots!)
    3) attacking model is able to jump the correct height and take the shot.
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  9. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    2,595
    I assume you're one of those people who like to ruin their games by forcing everyone into a combative mess where LOF is argued over and laser checked each and every time a model is moved or placed because you're unable to agree to play by intent and discussion.

    Forgive me for not wanting any of my games to degenerate into that.
     
    daboarder likes this.
  10. FatherKnowsBest

    FatherKnowsBest Red Knight of Curmudgeon

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    363
    Likes Received:
    656
    Funnily, I haven't had to argue over any of that, nor is there a mess.

    But per @Koni and @psychoticstorm , I won't get into that argument, nor will I cast aspersions on your particular play method, so you should also respect their request.
     
  11. Sabin76

    Sabin76 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    1,043
    Likes Received:
    1,133
    I can assure you that I did not throw out some "random number" in inches. I drew the diagrams and ran the calculations. It's just simple right triangles.

    I agree, but that is because you don't have vertical dominance. You have one trooper on a rooftop slightly above a bunch of others (also on rooftops) that are on the other side of the table already in plain view. Perhaps I was unclear in what I meant by "vertical dominance". I meant controlling the vertical space by being the only one at elevation or with the ability to be at elevation. This is why, although I am wary of concluding that CB intended for this to be the case, I will also simply adapt and move on if it actually is. The defense against "death-from-above" is to not allow your opponent to control the rooftops. TR bots also help.

    I guess I'm not quite seeing what you are getting at with this last comment. You certainly can't SJ your way into normal rolls when your opponent also has troops at elevation. It may also be my meta, but there is rarely a clear LoF from a sniper nest to the other side of the table, if we even allow a sniper nest in a DZ to begin with.

    Perhaps I can provide diagrams tonight if someone else doesn't do it before then. I would hope that it's not 10 orders/10 shots/10 kills, even in the worst case, but even 3 orders/3 shots/3 kills with no risk at all is, IMO, not great for the game. All that said, I think we can agree that building tables to mitigate the efficacy of such tactics is, indeed, a solution.
     
    Utilitycookie and BLOODGOD like this.
  12. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    2,595
    If we ever played I would hands down argue every single movement and LOF you attempted to make just to prove the point of how bad an idea of playing like that can be.

    I run alot of infinity events. Playing without intent, or any type of way that encourages players to argue over positioning and LOF like this vertical free shooting pogo sticking nonsense is a recipe for a headache. Maybe you and your couple of friends you play in a garage with can get along with this, expecting this to go smoothly when you have people who play in different areas and travel interstate to play and who don't know each other particularly well is asking for an argument to unfold.

    The best way to play is to make the game operate so the players can run the game smoothly with minimal need for a judge to come in a resolve a dispute. Having players constantly arguing over whether or not they can get a normal roll on something is just a stupid idea.
     
  13. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,051
    Likes Received:
    10,283
    REMINDER - we've had an official moderator notice to NOT discuss intent in this thread. Please take notice.
     
  14. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    Really and honestly lets not have an intent discussion ok?
     
    DukeofEarl and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  15. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    2,595
    Well we wouldn't need to if CB would grow some balls, do their job, and resolve the rules dispute.

    Seriously @HellLois I applaud that you've bothered to make a solved rules forum but it'd sure as hell help if you like answered and resolved more than a couple of questions a month. You haven't touched the damn thing in like 30 days.
     
    Hecaton, CabalTrainee and Wolf like this.
  16. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,842
    Likes Received:
    2,319
    I mean what do you expect? If they answer a question like this one way or the other half of this place is going to burn down
     
    Icchan and Robock like this.
  17. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    2,595
    We're going to burn the damn place down having the same damn arguments over and over again. They might as well sack up and answer it and it'll only happen once then.
     
  18. psychoticstorm

    psychoticstorm Aleph's rogue child
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2017
    Messages:
    3,019
    Likes Received:
    5,734
    So all more the reason to stop it.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  19. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,842
    Likes Received:
    2,319
    I mean, really though, if they "solve" this rules debate, will it force the non-intenters to play intent or the intenters to play non-intent?
     
  20. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    2,595
    It's not going to stop until they grow some balls and make a decision. This argument will return all the time, people will fight about it, the same people will accuse the same people of punching people, you'll threaten everyone, Koni will threaten to ban people again, nothing is resolved and we'll have the same goddamn argument next month.

    It won't force anything, but they'll stop arguing about it because the decision will be done.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.