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

New FAQ (11/4/2019)

Discussion in 'News' started by Ayadan, Apr 11, 2019.

Tags:
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. maru

    maru Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    725
    Likes Received:
    1,223
    W8
    a LOF graphs :
    first one shows no lof
    secound shows an existing one
    but :
    how this looks when in motion ?
    on picture A - lets say Blue one starts in total cover but in front arc - then declare move and ends where he is and declare shooting - this will count as no lof or as a lof as at the begining of an order he was in fron arc ?
    picture B - if he moves an 3 mm forward will he be in LOF or not ? - and declares shooting this 3 mm forward ?

    In case of first picture a blue unit must start his order movment beyond a green front arc - then get to corner get a peek a boo and shoot and not end at any point of movment in a front arc of green to fulfil the requirment ? (so only aro that can be done will be change facing ? )

    - i just have a problem to visualize this as all things happends at same time and if any of thous units move accros the wall a 4 inches they all will be in front arch at one point 0-o' ... so this would mean an green one could just declare change facing in his Zoc and adjust an angle .... so only Stealth units can do this trick ?
     
    Razi and Kakino like this.
  2. Razi

    Razi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    93
    How?
     
  3. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,281
    Likes Received:
    10,695
    @Razi bemused, rather than antagonistic. :-(

    Please bear in mind that LoF arcs being checked from the back of the base instead of the middle is something that I’d considered as a suggestion for the LoF errata, but already discarded because of the impracticalities (having actively played it in games).

    For U-shaped bases (or anything sitting under the base) there are the issues that other players have mentioned, but also any shape other than round causes problems as soon as you have a trooper that’s in a corner, or wants to face away from a wall at an angle etc. Plus the large base size issues with the Maghariba Guard (and lesser issues with 55mm bases) get made even worse, making it even harder to place them in smaller areas. In a worst-case scenario, a Maghariba Guard gets pushed out from scenery by more than half an inch.
     
  4. MikeTheScrivener

    MikeTheScrivener O-12 Peace Kepper

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2018
    Messages:
    1,999
    Likes Received:
    2,607
    Screen Shot 2019-04-11 at 4.07.37 PM.JPG

    Unless I'm totally misunderstanding what you dislike about the FAq or what you propose the "new" bases to be
     
  5. eciu

    eciu Easter worshiper

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    3,529
    Likes Received:
    4,108
    Kudos for releasing FAQ.

    Stealth resolution is well... controversial...

    Bit sad that the question about attack label on smoke is not known, but apparently we will have to wait for it ;)
     
  6. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    4,889

    They promised FAQ releases every 3 months, so they need to save some material for July.
     
    eciu likes this.
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,444
    Likes Received:
    7,996
    It's all about a single point in the movement. Where blue started doesn't matter, all that matters if there is a point in blue's movement where green can gain LOF and it's at this or these points that green can shoot (or Dodge or do any of the other LOF AROs)
     
  8. Yvain

    Yvain Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2017
    Messages:
    190
    Likes Received:
    201
    I wish they got rid of the Xenotech being a mine shield rule. They should make him killable.
     
    Daniel Darko likes this.
  9. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    4,889
    On the upside the ITS season is more than half over and ITS 11 probably won't have xenotechs anymore.
     
  10. Section9

    Section9 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    6,004
    Likes Received:
    9,438
    First, one snicker. This FAQ is as many pages as the N1->N2 change document!



    Exactly.


    =============
    Oooh, Kinematica increases Engage range!
     
  11. DukeofEarl

    DukeofEarl Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2017
    Messages:
    1,271
    Likes Received:
    1,210
    That's been there for a while now. FAQ 1.1 actually
     
    eciu likes this.
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    4,664
    For a tournament we're planning this summer we're gonna do a custom mission where your goal is to get your own xenotech killed.
     
    CoveredInFish likes this.
  13. Abrilete

    Abrilete Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    2,003
    Likes Received:
    2,666
    I agree, I like the current interpretation of the rule.
     
  14. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,818
    Likes Received:
    4,664
    Noooo! This doesn't faithfully represent my Rodoks' special training to shoot people in the butt from weird angles! /s
     
    ChoTimberwolf and meikyoushisui like this.
  15. Pierzasty

    Pierzasty Null-Space Entity

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    840
    Likes Received:
    2,047
    Phrasing!
     
  16. the huanglong

    the huanglong Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2017
    Messages:
    1,055
    Likes Received:
    2,101
    Thank you, rules team.
     
    Melchior likes this.
  17. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,557
    Likes Received:
    4,889
    Yes, thanks to the hard working warcors and CB folks who made this happen!
     
    Melchior, A Mão Esquerda and Alphz like this.
  18. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,091
    Likes Received:
    2,163
    This is an excellent first cut on the new and improved FAQ process.

    A huge thanks to everyone involved.
     
  19. Melchior

    Melchior Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    181
    Likes Received:
    190
    Nice&needed clarifications
     
  20. Razi

    Razi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2018
    Messages:
    129
    Likes Received:
    93
    In your diagram, thank you btw, there is no mutual LoF if we play it how I suggest. The active trooper gets a normal roll. Which is different than what CB is proposing because the terrain is blocking LoF. However, just tilt the angle a bit in your example and the target could have seen around that corner.

    This outcome makes sense from any angle I look at the situation. There is now no need for talking about LoF angle vs LoF in the rules or between players. There is only LoF. So the target has none because something is blocking their LoF or the enemy is behind their LoF. The active troopers visible position is entirely behind the target so thematically it works as a back attack and normal roll. This makes sense to me and also simplifies the rules. Sounds like a win win.

    As @maru is asking, Does the current interpretation of the rule mean the target below gets to fire back? If anyone can point me in the direction of a better web drawing program, please do =).

    upload_2019-4-12_9-26-58.png
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.