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

Shooting the back of silhouettes and facing

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Feb 27, 2018.

  1. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Brisk antipodean

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    1,056
    Likes Received:
    1,705
    Can someone summarise the z-axis interaction for those of us who missed the ruling?

    (Or else link to the page of the thread it's discussed on)
     
  2. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    4,557
    Fucking clowny on their part then.
     
  3. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    1,253
    Short version is if you're above the target, either on a roof or with a super jump pop up over a building, then you can get a line of fire to the rear half of a silhouette without exposing yourself to the front half, creating the same situation as in the FAQ, only vertically instead of horizontally.
     
  4. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    A good plain language summary thanks, Cazboab.

    Okay, but wouldn't this also require an assumption that the front arc of the attacked unit is limited in height (presumably the height of its silhouette); is there any there any reason in the rules for us to make that assumption?

    We did encounter this as a problem once when a Pan O Seraph used Super Jump to attack a remote with a large base and low Silhouette, and we realized there was potential issue, so we just house ruled for mutual awareness anyway.

    So is there a current position from rules/FAQ/moderator clarifications that means we don't have to house rule it?
     
  5. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    1,253
    @Wolf , the front arc isn't limited in height any more than it would be limited in distance horizontally, but the diagrams all show LoF angle coming from the front half of the silhouette. Since the top of the silhsilhoue is flat it's very easy to block the angle to the front of half while still having 3mm x 3mm of the back half visible. The line of fire has to pass through the targets arc of fire, but that doesn't matter since the path of the attack does not trigger AROs, only the silhouette does.

    If the 3mm x 3mm requirement is 2 dimensional (and as written it is) the angle from which one can see the back half without being seen by the front half of an S2 silhouette is fairly shallow, allowing the line of fire to be around a 1 in 9 drop (IE you only have to be firing from a point 1cm above the target for every 9cm of distance from the target), and its even more shallow for the wider silhouettes, with anything on a 40mm base being around a 1 in 15 drop, 55mm being almost 1 in 30 and the 80mm magriba (the non 360 version anyway) being susceptible at an angle so shallow I can't draw it out because I can't see the difference between the two pencil lines....

    This does not seem to be right,so I think we're going to have to acknowledge that while the rules say this, it's also monumentally stupid, and we have elected to ignore them...

    IMO, the best way to house rule it whilst still following the FAQ from page 1 is to treat the top of the silhouette as being part of the same half of the base the closest point of the base. That way if you are above and in front of a model you can be seen, but if you are above and behind you cannot. That seems more reasonable to me than allowing vertical pie slices to the same model...
     
    T. Rex Pushups, daboarder and Hecaton like this.
  6. Jonno

    Jonno Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    121
    I hope they FAQ this before Interplanetario. With the buff of Fatality Level 2 to Khawarijs I imagine they might be more popular and this vertical pie slicing on every model will come up more often.

    I can see two solutions (if corvus belli actually wants to fix it, which may not be true):

    Solution A: LoF is two separate checks:
    1. Is target in front 180 regardless of terrain? and
    2. Can you draw a 3x3mm cube between both silhouettes?

    This would stop z-axis shenanigans, and would allow one model to guard both corners.

    If you only want to stop z-axis abuse, but keep models only being able to guard one corner you could use

    Solution B:
    - Models have LoF from the entire top of their silhouette.

    This means they can see from the back edge of the top of their silhouette, simulating how some people can able to look and shoot upwards (as long as the target is in the front 180 of course). There may be some unintended consequences of this but I can't think of any at the moment. Maybe something with climbing plus models hanging onto the side of buildings?
     
    T. Rex Pushups and Icchan like this.
  7. macfergusson

    macfergusson Van Zant is my spirit animal.

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2017
    Messages:
    885
    Likes Received:
    1,304
    As far as I can tell this is explicitly what they were using the FAQ to address as not correct.

    Personally I would have no problem with this, in general, but it would need to be worded so as not to have further unintended consequences. (accidentally granting small silhouettes 360 vision to anything taller than they are, for example).
     
    FatherKnowsBest and daboarder like this.
  8. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Good reply thanks, @cazboab.
    :grin: I never have any problem with players saying "We can't make any sense of this, so we're doing our own thing" :smile: (Or, for what it's worth, players saying "This (whatever's in question) isn't actually in the rules, but we like playing it this way anyway").

    But maybe we can find a sensible solution here with a combo of @Jonno's Solutions A and B?

    This seems the most elegant way of managing the problem, because it just extends how mutual awareness works, and that feels like an important core mechanism of the game to me.

    So with respect to macfergusson's reservations:
    Couldn't we just apply the first part of Jonno's Solution A
    Something like "Units can use the top of their cylindrical silhouette to obtain LoF, but only in the forward 180° arc"
     
    T. Rex Pushups likes this.
  9. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    943
    Likes Received:
    1,253
    There's probably a few more ways to phrase it, but the results are pretty much identical in almost all cases, though using the closest point of the base gives a tiny bit back to the active player in the just past 3 and right before 9 o'clock positions. I feel like that's a pretty good compromise since it still allows the vertical ambush, but in a greatly reduced arch...
     
    T. Rex Pushups and Wolf like this.
  10. Wolf

    Wolf https://watchwolf.net

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    852
    Likes Received:
    1,011
    Well, if I understand it, it's just a bullshit rules exploit; so we needn't feel bad about closing the loophole, at least as a house rule.
    I'm tired of people claiming they "can make that interpretation" (that supports whatever they've made up to play the game the way they want to play it, instead of just trying to make sense of the rules. But ...
    ... perhaps I missed something about the vertical ambush that isn't bullshit; does anyone think it's a legitimate tactic? I mean, Pan O is my main army, and the Seraph is my favourite unit - I'm just don't care to try to catch out opponents through silly rules interpretations.
     
    cazboab likes this.
  11. fkaos

    fkaos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    30
    135B50DB-336B-4FAA-B226-A50241DE9147.png

    Because I hate this ruling and have access to drafting software I made this for my playgroup.

    You can cover both corners of anything 3” or less no problem.

    Technically you can’t cover both on a 4” building but the sliver they have to get into is less than 1/100th of an inch, so good luck placing your guy there accurately.

    Normally I play intent, but if someone tries to say intent for this bullshit tactic to get to a sub millimeter location I draw the line there. Especially since no one is going to stop mid game to figure out if there actually is a theoretical location they can get my guy in the back or not
     
  12. toadchild

    toadchild EI Aspect

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    2,531
    Likes Received:
    4,819
    But do I have to get my model at an exactly 29º angle in order to accomplish this? It's just moving the sub-milimeter placement onto the other player's plate.
     
  13. fkaos

    fkaos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    30
    But if I’m off by 15 degrees (which is about 1/8”/3mm) then it is still a less than half millimeter placement for them to shoot my back arc
     
    T. Rex Pushups, Hecaton and toadchild like this.
  14. grampyseer

    grampyseer User of the "ignore" button
    Warcor

    Joined:
    May 18, 2017
    Messages:
    292
    Likes Received:
    512
    You don't think that they play tested this issue before the FAQ. I'm not sure that's a fair assumption.

    I think the problem with this rule comes from its interaction with intent. When someone naturally lands at that perfect spot to shoot your back arc, then fine. No one cares. Conversely, if someone needs a whole bunch of minute interactions and dialectic agreement to do it, it's a major turn off.
     
  15. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,689
    Likes Received:
    4,557
    Just the fact that it's possible at all is the issue. Playing without intent is crazy, but "random chance of normal rolls" is even more nuts.
     
    T. Rex Pushups likes this.
  16. fkaos

    fkaos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    30
    I would be willing to bet that the faq ruling was never play tested, at least not thoroughly.

    It seems like they saw the original rules question thread that showed a large base Rem with its butt hanging out behind the corner of a building and lof to its front half clearly obscured. They made the pretty logical call of of course the Rem can’t see through the wall, but didn’t understand the implications of this ruling which we are dealing with now.
     
    T. Rex Pushups and Hecaton like this.
  17. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,276
    Likes Received:
    7,830
    Considering the long time between when the issue first popped up and made a huge fuss and when they answered; it was probably tested and discussed thoroughly.
     
  18. p2k

    p2k New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2018
    Messages:
    4
    Likes Received:
    3
    I really hate this FAQ. It destroys the whole gameplay.

    Luckily most people I met either dont know this FAQ or dont play with it. However in the tourney scene , where winning is more important for some people, it could become popular. And then Im out.

    Please CB, overthink this Rule, dont let Infinity become a geometry Lesson.
     
    E-Warden likes this.
  19. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,276
    Likes Received:
    7,830
    Above all else, I think what this does is force people to pick a corner to defend instead of allowing them to cover all angles.

    So, don't let your game become a geometry lesson and stop trying to cover everything at once.
     
  20. fkaos

    fkaos Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2017
    Messages:
    26
    Likes Received:
    30
    Edit: oops wrong thread
     
    #100 fkaos, Mar 8, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2018