@inane.imp there have been so many instances where I've wished facing worked that way - I'd really be curious to see how much it messes with the current rules, but I think that might be a brilliant idea.
It doesn't cause any issues. There was a brief moment of sanity where it was generally held to work this way, and then the FAQ 'fixed' it and introduced the significant issue of being able to "shoot people in the back from in front". Note: it does change the balance in that it makes non-SSL1 defensive set ups easier, because you can realistically cover both corners of a building under pretty well any circumstances.
That's more or less what I figured would be the case. I had forgotten about the FAQ - I was still in the learning stages when that one came out, I believe. I will say the majority of times I have been "caught out" by facing issues that I didn't see coming were because facing works the way it does, and not the way you suggested. Felt crappy in game. I'm happy to accept my dudes getting shot in the back when they're actually being shot in the back - I can fix that either by better play or maybe couldn't really have done anything about it at all. But losing an ARO because of the line in the middle can be frustrating.
Agree. But I think the benefit to gameplay from half a basewidth outways the costs to AD. Arguably it may make AD more valuable as it becomes harder to get rear shots if you are already on the board. But I think it'd be a YMMV answer.
I agree. I would solve it using the reciprocal LoF rules - if someone can see you and they are in your front arc (irrespective of terrain and intervening stuff, except for stuff like smoke grenades. ) then you can see them.
That's how we've already been playing. Honestly I just don't have time to sit there and explain it to every player while they look at me like I'm trying to cheat.
Theres only one minior issue when you wont to lay on the line of sight, cause you only have a point where the line touches the circle.
A minor one, it makes it possible to guard both corners of a perfectly straight wall without having to face the wall.
Right now if you're facing a wall you can be attacking "from the rear" from both corners of the wall. @fkaos You got that diagram?
This is one of the biggest deals for AD, especially if someone wants to risk doing a template drop. I prefer needing to choose to cover two corners or your back, otherwise almost every passive troop is impossible to flank. The harder it is to get out of LoS, or the less advantage Cover provides, the less positioning matters in favor of combat skills like Mimetism. Right now positioning matters a lot and it's probably tied for my favorite thing about the game.
What would people think about a semi-limited insertion style gametype called "Skirmish" that allows you to have 15 orders total so that people don't either force smaller armies to run LI when they can't, and those same less-expensive armies don't spam 20-25 order lists and the like? Gives wiggle room to those that would like to play LI style 1 combat group lists, while allowing breathing room to spread points a bit thinner between orders
It'd be a lot better for armies stuck with relatively cheap units across the board. Caledonia, for instance, basically doesn't have much of a choice in LI and struggles to either spend points, or get specialists.
Obviously the command token usage to nerf order pools by 2 orders if you have 2 groups would still work if they go first. Would that not be enough?
It took me a long time to remember which rule was upside down in terms of relative power level and naming/numerical conventions. If I understand correctly, Sixth Sense L2 is poorer than SSL1. Pretty sure this is one of the few situations where the lower number is better. Really should be swapped around...
