LoF to rear arc issue

lol

Well, I find it funny, but it probably isn't a bad idea to check to make sure the opponent is aware of any recent rulings/clarifications.

 

Oh...... intent.

Pass. I don't.

 

I'm not asking if you do or don't and I'm not trying to incite an argument, I'm simply just adding in my two cents on why this rule doesn't play well. because it potentially opens up another can of worms

 

How much of the rules are unintended consequences at this point?

 

@sam2064 I think in your graphics you forgot to take the 3mm x 3mm minimal target part into account. Since an active trooper has to see at least that 3mm wide strip (or square) of the target's silhouette to be allowed to shoot all of your LOS angles get narrower. Furthermore the situation in your sixth graphic might make a shot in the back impossible.

 

A few quick comments, since I was also part of the FB thread that prompted the OP:

1. IJW has stated (earlier in this thread) that on a horizontal plane, the FAQ was 100% intended to produce these results - so it's not only RAW, but RAI. (Of course CB can change this any time they want, but for now I think it's hard to house rule/hand wave this FAQ away, no matter how much you might personally dislike it.) It's the three dimensional consequences (aka "death from above," with potentially no ARO) that are "possibly not intended/unintended consequences."

2. I realize that Infinity's rules are complex and that FAQs can be hard to keep track of. That said, the FAQ being discussed is over two years old - should diligent players (the kind who fully read and keep up with the rules) be penalized (or worse, denigrated) for playing the game as CB intended?

3. In the FB discussion, I raised the point that this technique can only be relied on if you're playing by intent - because it generally requires a geometrically precise placement of the shooter to accomplish. Interestingly enough, most of the folks who replied to this said that they were still strong supporters of PBI, despite it leading to situations like this. Be careful what you wish for.

4. Also in the FB discussion, the concept of Negative Play Experiences (complete with the NPE acronym!) came up. I have to say, I found this new wrinkle interesting, because it seemed to be creeping into some people's definitions of PBI. For example, I've always thought that PBI meant "two players cooperating to interpret and apply RAW, so as to speed up game play" - which I'm not necessarily opposed to. However, in the FB thread, it seems that some folks now define PBI as "two players cooperating to have a positive play experience/avoid an NPE" - which strikes me as a vastly different proposition. (i.e. someone remarked that, even after IJW's clarification, they'd " ...worry about doing this at a tournament unless there was a general consensus that it was legal." WTF? Worrying about playing the game using the rules as written and intended at a tournament???)

 

So this rule has been around for 2 years. And you argue that the horizontal actions are acceptable and in no way should be a jerk move to do it. But the vertical actions are unintended.

It took the forums less than a day to figure out that vertical actions had the results they do.

So if vertical it was unintended but the faq was supposed to be used, why hasn't it been changed for 2 YEARS? If we start to use what this FAQ actually allows? This game would be poor as aros would be meaningless.

So no, to tell someone that horizontal is 100% okay to use but vertical is a dick move is being a hypocrite. It's both the same natural outcome of the same rule.

Either play with both being acceptable or play with neither. Neither is acceptable to me. Is hollow man or rodocks never allowing you an aro acceptable to you?

 

I honestly don't recall the vertical interactions coming up until much more recently. It's been on the forums off an on this past summer, but I don't recall it being discussed 2 years ago.

 

No, the rule has been around since N3 came out. The FAQ just confirmed it. And it didn't take the forums less than a day to figure out the implications for vertical positioning, it took several years. As ToadChild said, applying it vertically is a new thing.

 

What prompted the most recent interest about this (on FB at least) was actually a 2D/horizontal example from someone's recent game. (One of his REMs got shot "in the back" from a corner he was partially faced towards, and he couldn't ARO back.) As folks commented on it, the 3D/vertical implications were tossed in by many as justification for why this was all totally wrong. Why this was coming up two years after the original FAQ was/is beyond me.

Anyhow, many folks on FB seemed willing to live with the 2D implications, but were rather upset by how this can play out in 3D. The most compelling argument for this complaint IMO, was that while you can choose which way your model is facing in 2D, you can't position your model to "face up" to guard against threats from above (since other than the occasional ramp, most Infinity terrain is completely flat.) Personally I buy that to some extent, though I can also see the merits of the counter-arguments too. (Which are - you need to control the rooftops to protect your guys on the street from "death from above." Oh, and also that sometimes guys just forget to look up.)

Following on from the above, some folks on FB made an interesting (to me) suggestion for how to deal with this - allow a trooper to trace LoF into their front arc from the entirety of the top (and only the top) of their silhouette cylinder. (Meaning they could do this from the vulnerable back top half of their silhouette cylinder as well as the front.) This would essentially represent a (well trained) trooper's ability to look up, especially in an urban environment. To prevent shenanigans, I think this would also have to be limited to only applying to LoF drawn above the trooper's silhouette, but in general I think this further refinement (which might sound complicated, but really isn't IMO) could avoid the 3D abuse (if in fact it is abuse) of the FAQ, while still allowing the 2D effects to stand.

 

really?

cause this thread talks about it from last year:

Shooting the back of silhouettes and facing

so we knew about it for atleast a year now.

 

That thread is from February of this year, so it's not just this past summer, as I stated earlier, but it's not back as far as the original FAQ.

 

February 2018 is eight months ago.

For reference, this is the timeline:
Late 2014 - N3 comes out, including 'In Infinity, troops have a LoF angle of 180˚, that is, they can see with the front half of their base.'
July 2016 (~20 months after N3) - FAQ 1.2 comes out, confirming that troops can only see from the front half.
February 2018 (~39 months after N3, ~19 months after the FAQ) - players apply it to vertical positioning.
Now (~47 months after N3, ~27 months after the FAQ)

 

It took the release of the Seraph actually. I can try and find the threads where I was initially discussing it if youd like?
I did give up trying to explain it to people though, they are in general terrible at maths, geometry and how straight lines actually work so I put it in the to hard basket

 

you are correct, i read the wrong date xD i would swear we realized this much earlier, but my google-fo is crap in this case so i can't argue that it took us a year and a half to find that loop hole.

so instead of 2 years, we knew about it for atleast 8 months. So unintended but allowed within the rules for 8 months? At this point is it truly unintended because they are not aware of how people see and understand their rules or are they this slow at putting a fix to it? Or is their belief that this isn't a problem because people aren't actually willing to do it?

its either incompetence of communicating with their customer, incompetence of fixing their games at a decent speed when a problem does arise, or is their only saving grace that the customer base is willing to ad-hoc by civil convention fix their game for them so they don't have to?

 

I am 100% on board with CB having a more responsive FAQ/errata process.

But I also played back in 2nd edition when having a polite consensus about what was and was not considered ok was a necessary part of playing the game. People love to complain about some of the issues with the rules, but 3rd edition is still head and shoulders above 2nd as far as these things go.

 

february 2017 is when this was discussed in the old forum (not even sure this was the original time it was asked, but an earlier time)


http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/47485-troops-in-different-elevations-regarding-180-los-faq/

 

I think that conversation mainly happened on FB: that's where I remember it happening. But it was certainly within days of the FAQ and the answer was "yes it's RAW and yes it's possible but no fuck off".

 

im pretty sure theres at least one thread on the old forums I mentioned it, I certainly was making Powerpoints illustrations about it

 

You're forgetting the step where the first FAQ or forum ruling made it explicit that it wasn't possible.

The current LOF FAQ is the second ruling on it post N3.

Edit: I'm misremembering how settled that position was prior to FAQ 1.2, I could have sworn that it was dealt with diffently in FAQ 1.1 and 1.2 flip flopped it.

My point is that a large majority of the meta didn't play it as per the FAQ 1.2 ruling until July 2016.