Discussion in 'Rules' started by sam2064, Oct 24, 2018.
Unfortunately not. I'm so terrible painting >_<
Just want to give my 2 cents on this "issue".
A lot of the time when "issues" like this come up it has to do with one of the players experiencing a rule (not an interpretation of the rules in this case) as a NPE. While strictly taken, this is how the rules are written and so how they must be played. I dispise hacking in this game and jammers, basicly any form of no LOS attacks. Should we ignore those rulesets as well? No, this is a game with rules and the diagrams are in no way bending the rules. If this can't be used then why should you be able to hack/jam me? I do not like those rules.....
Realisticly tho, the vertical no ARO thing is a non issue if you think about the actual situation this can be used.
So the active player has to be on a roof, the enemy model has to be close enough, so you are already on a roof on the other side of the table and the roof has to be long enough so you can position yourself correctly. In how many times is this going to be the case???
This is a "greater issue" when you play on a open table. (which I see way to many off, everyone wants their HMG,sniper, total reaction bots to dominate a game. No tactics at all) When you play with enough terrain the game becomes more tacticly fun and will solve the issue people seem to have with this rule. Because if you finally get in such a spot. Well sure you've used 6+ orders to get there. Make that one kill, I still can dodge one a -3 and have a normal bs roll with my other troopers that see you when you jump.
Just my opinion.
couple of key issues with your statement, assuming you're responding to what the tread turned into instead of what OP posted
Hacking and jammers are a well thought-out and intended part of the game, shooting from just above someone's silhouette is not. it is an unfortunate bit that fell through the cracks.
Any model with super-jump can abuse the verticality of an enemy's silhouette, not just models on rooftops. It doesn't even really matter what the super-jumping model is armed with, free shots are incredibly powerful.
you can only dodge at -3 if you're within ZoC. which I can pretty much guarantee you won't be against a super jumping model. coupling this method with "hard intent" it becomes especially powerful because 9/10 you have no ARO.
but in all honesty, we're arguing about a boogy-man here. I can't say I've met anyone in real life that does this or would do this. If anyone has I would be interested to hear the experience, because as of right now this is all theoryfinity.
Thnxs for the response.
I agree we are arguing a non issue/corner case.
I still believe the super jump can be fixed with enough terrain. I tried a game with this tactic on my table (full table with alleys and rooftops and a few long lanes aprox. 16 buildings/flats filled with cars, benches etc.) with tarik and I had issues to create this situation without:
a. having only 3 orders left to kill stuff
b. getting shot to bits by overlapping aro pieces.
True no ARO from outside ZOC so in some cases you have no aro. If this proves to be extremely game breaking and not CB's intend, CB should change the LOS from 180 from the mid of the base to 180 from the back of the base. Still 180 degree vision but fixes this situation..
Just to be clear I do not really care what the correct way is/should be. Only what is in the rules so there are no discussions or gotcha moments during a game and we can all play the game we like. :) Hopefully CB responds with the way this was intended so we can all move on from this.
I'm sorry to hear that. The secret is practice. It's just like learning to write. The more you practice, the more your handwriting improves. The same applies to painting miniatures.
@MikeTheScrivener I've done it with xeodrons and samaritans. I felt bad at first, but it's kind of CB's fault, really.
everyone get a load of this triggered snowflake using emotional ad hominems instead of brain genios logic like the rest of us
And now the thread gets a warning from me to stop this kind of discussion.
My two cents. We have been discussing this topic a little bit on the French forum.
I think most of us are going to disregard he FAQ for Line of Sight. We will keep play it the way we used to : " if you can see me and you are in my front arc I can see you".
A trooper can guard two angles. No superjump I see your back trick. Problem solved.
I know we disregard part of the FAQ. But the 40k player do the same at the ETC.
fair, if thats the way you want to play it.
It's tough to have your cake and eat it too with this issue
The formula for playing pretty much any game pretty much any way you like, but also ensuring that everyone has a fair chance of a good time is:
the game's actual rules
their common interpretation(s)
the way you want to play them for whatever reasons
be honest and direct in explaining these to others, especially newcomers
This will work to ensure a good game of any kind with any opponent, in any game or sports club, in casual or competitive situations.
Admittedly, it does require intelligence, a burdensome level of integrity, and the fearless practice of self-awareness; but it will work.
I think @Marduck's explanation of how his group manages this little Line of Fire weirdness is absolutely How It's Done, and that, and his general candour suggests we'd all be guaranteed a good game with good people there - regardless of what rules they're playing.
I think as long as you make it clear that that's how you're doing it *before* the event, that's fine. But man does it make CB look bad.
What's the over-under on CB A. Changing the faq to this ruling B. Censuring ITS tournaments that disregard this part of the FAQ, or C. Ignoring the whole issue?
I’m not seeing any reason for CB to reimagine how the game is supposed to be played.
How the game is supposed to be played seems to be unclear.
You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.
Or an Atek.
It helps if you actually play....
You know, or get involved in the community, Theres a reason the Best and most active players have the same perception of the game
So you're cool with the "shoot you in the back from in front of you and on a rooftop" play?
Doesn't bother me.
If my front 180 is blocked, then it's blocked. So be it.
Aight. You're clearly in a minority. And I bet CB isn't down with it happening in-game either.