Discussion in 'News' started by Ayadan, Apr 11, 2019.
To clarify further:
The problem I see with your idea is that it makes it even more difficult to get the rear angle than now (admittedly only a half inch-ish) while not gaining anything outside of your personal issue with center model arcs
I could even cut a triangle out of the back so a ruler can fit snugly against it providing a secure anchor.
And that is something you're welcome to disagree with. I've given resaons why i think it's better in terms of measurement accuracy and keeping things simpler to understand and follow from a rules perspective. Or do you truly think allowing the situation below to exist is ok when it doesn't have to exist?
W8 Stop ! Hammer Time !
so FAQ include a Wery important Errata that is on the end and is hard to find
could somebody actualy Drag this important thing on the begining and add HUGE "ERRARA "
and explain that front LOF got replaced by whatever in front Arc and this do not requite lof
or something like that.
as this is a hug game changing mechanic as there is plenty in rules reffering to Front lof to do a check of X or Y.
Accolite of Water
I’ve just spent four hours driving through bleep bleep bleeping awful traffic on my way to a Satellite tournament - I was replying to your last post that was directed at me.
I don’t know if that’s been tested within CB, but my gaming group spent several months of N2 playing exactly like that due to a mixup in the wording of the second edition LoF rules. It’s substantially harder to measure accurately than current base markings.
I guess i can't argue with all that evidence and those numerous facts you've provided in comparison to mine. You must be correct then. That was more sarcasm in case you were wondering.
I’m just giving you feedback based on direct tabletop experience.
I'm not going to speak for anyone else here, but I think the problem is not one of theory, but one of logistics. The only way you are going to get a nice, precise, measurement is to change out the bases for ones you've suggested earlier. I think you are underestimating the cost of that and inflating the benefits compared to what we now have with the errata.
You obviously don't like the ruling and I THINK it's because it seems unintuitive. You are essentially suggesting that the LoF "angle" be extended to the very back of the model. But doesn't this do exactly what the errata does already? Without needing to swap out bases, or provide extra markings, etc.?
@Razi your tone is hostile and isn't helping. You have a ruling, move on.
How can there be a ruling on what would work better? There are opinions only.
But it also eliminates the situations like I've already reposted. Where troopers fire well beyond their 180 degree front arc with sometimes different results. Here's another:
@Razi i didnt say better ruling and I will not be engaged in arguing on that. I said you have an official ruling on LOF.
My suggestion results in something far more consistent and intuitive when looking at the same example as above.
The same situation could happen with your proposal just by moving the units back an equal distance. You aren't solving anything, just changing where the same interactions would happen
Sure, but it seems like the positioning difference between Normal rolls and F2F rolls for the two ideas is half a base width (i.e. not very large). As I said, the logistical challenge of implementing your idea far outweighs the loss of corner case "oddities".
It is not Ruling - it is a Whole new Rule - an ERRATA
Ruling would be - "this blue colour from now on include a tint of green" and this case is " This blue you know? - forget about it, it is now Red and applay this to all reffering previously blue "
Problem i have is there is plenty of interactions that prevously required a front los check and now it require front Arc check - that do not require los check.
it interact with Six Sence , with Speculative Fire , and plenty of others like engaging in CC and other that have not pop up in my head yet and may cause a chick up.
BTW: im Happy that jump and shoot in back arch of mini without Ftf is gone ;)
Then prove me wrong. Draw an example.
Which I already knew. I haven't been trying to understand or get a ruling on that part of the FAQ. I've been showing and discussing the flaws in it. And giving ways to improve it.
Isn't this exactly how Warmachine handles this?
Please everybody calm down, it would be much appreciated.
The LOF debate has overtaken the thread I would advice opening a new thread just for it.
Yeah. I like it.
The problem as I see it was created because CB arbitrary decided a troopers front arc is stationed from the middle of a troopers base going forward. I'm sure it seemed reasonable at the time. But this created issues when the active player could target the back half of the base while being hidden from the LoF of that troopers front arc, super jumping for normal rolls as an example.
So CB needed to eliminate this attack option. Instead of simply moving the front arc to the back, so no part of a trooper could be targeted from the front without mutual LoF being created, they decided to add new rules. Bad rules which create situations as I've outlined earlier in this thread. I understand many of you don't seem to care they exist, but they don't have to exist. And the rules eliminating them, make the game easier to grasp and more intuitive IMO.
Can you enlighten me please? Or point me to where i can read about it?