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. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,055
    Likes Received:
    7,592
    Always allowing ARO if attacked means it'd be preferable to be shot from a dead angle over a visible angle.
     
  2. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    Well, at least with the idea I myself put forward, that would only apply if you were in the front arc of the enemy (regardless of if they could trace LoF that way.
     
  3. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,055
    Likes Received:
    7,592
    Well, a less impactful way of handling it than completely removing facing would be to:
    1. always allow Change Facing if attacked
    and
    2. have change facing's rotation not be a factor of the face to face roll. (And this would make Warning redundant)

    P.s. or change Warning to not have the restriction of not having declared an ARO.

    P.p.s. this wouldn't change the situation of someone shooting the back half of a silhouette from the front using Sup-Jump or elevated terrain, but elevation advantage is a very real thing... not sure how I feel about removing it.
     
    #123 Mahtamori, Mar 16, 2018
    Last edited: Mar 16, 2018
    Icchan likes this.
  4. Triumph

    Triumph Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Likes Received:
    2,597
    I'd prefer always allowing return fire from attacks within ZoC.

    You could also throw in some caveats for models with Stealth or Silent weapons.
     
  5. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Which would make change facing nearly obsolete. It also allows return fire on speculative shots at close range, which makes grenades less useful (though there will be people who see that as a good quality).

    I think the actual answer is to make the 3x3 square of silhouette necessary for LoF into a 3x3x3 cube, which is implied already by the text saying that the requirement is a volume (which is 3 dimensional) the size of the target's head(which might technically be 2 dimensional but that generally kills people...). This greatly reduces the valid angle of fire to the back half of a silhouette so that in the vast majority of cases the attacker will need to be greatly above the target, or practically right on top of the target. The one major exception that comes to mind is that s8 models will be still quite vulnerable to top down attack, but since there's only one of those, and it has the option to have a 360 visor, I think that covering a huge warmachine from elevated threats is possibly part of the job description of an infantry soldier...
     
  6. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    @cazboab that dramatically increases the amount of ad-hoc geometry required to do something as simple as figure out LoF. How many times do you see people actually measure out the 3x3 square? People always just guess.
     
  7. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Yeah but you can also guess a cube, and it's only actually relevant to an elevation of about 8 inches above the target unless you're close enough to be within ZoC, so realistically the solution is to cover high ground for AROs and to roll a change facing when it's possible...
     
  8. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    @cazboab I don't think that's the case. You'll always see a 3x3 square of the target's rear arc silhouette before the front.
     
  9. neostrider

    neostrider Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    95
    Isn't this already covered in the rules? Faq seemed to clearly create an abuse where the rules had none.

    "For a troop to be able to draw LoF to its target, it must meet these conditions:

    • The target must be within the troop's front 180˚ arc.
    • The troop must be able to see, at least, a part of the volume of its target with the size of the target's head, or a minimum size of approximately 3x3mm (the size of the black squares on the Silhouette Templates).
    • LoF can be drawn from any point in the troop's volume to any point in the target's volume.
    • LoF can be obstructed by figures—friendly or not—and pieces of scenery."
    The active model is in the target's front 180 degree arc. Check.
    From the back of the model I can see the active model. Check.
    Bullet 3 extra clarifys that the back of my model can be used even if it's not the front 180 half of my model. Double checked.
     
  10. daboarder

    daboarder Force One Commander
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2017
    Messages:
    3,426
    Likes Received:
    4,960
    That was how we all originally played N3 yes. FAQ changed this
     
    Dragonstriker, Hecaton and inane.imp like this.
  11. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Square yes, but not a full cube. It will still be possible, but it changes the angle where its geometrically possible to the point where you need to be about half as high above the target's highest point as you can are far away from the target, instead of how it is rules as written where you basically only have to be higher by a few mm more than the distance away.

    There's also an 'intent' discussion regarding this, but it seems easy enough to rule that you can't use intent for this one specific thing no matter how else you want to use intent...

    Other than that, the solution is the same as covering a corner in the FAQ, in that if the furthest point of the base from the wall is in the rear arc you will be mathematically vulnerable to a pie slice...
     
  12. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    @cazboab how do you "see" a full cube, anyway? That's in impossibility considering only one point of reference. Your suggestion just makes things needlessly complicated. See @neostrider 's post for a saner interpretation.
     
  13. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    @Hecaton you can see a cube by seeing a vertical square and a horizontal square, unless you live in a non euclidean world. @neostrider 's interpretation ignores bullet point 4 and saner or not its already been invalidated by the FAQ...
     
  14. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    My point is exactly that they should walk back the FAQ ruling. You're advocating for a change of the rules, as well. You can't see a cube from one perspective; I don't know exactly what you're talking about besides that.
     
  15. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    I think you're misunderstanding, First of all, I'm suggesting a method how we play to the FAQ, Second the rules state "volume" not "area", implying there is at least an acknowledgement we're three dimensional beings playing with three dimensional figures in a three dimensional reality. Third you don't have to see the whole cube, because yes that is impossible. Put a D6 on a table with the 1 facing down an the 6 facing upturn it so you can see the 5. now move your head so you can ONLY see the 5. It's still a cube right? It didn't become a square because your perspective changed and It didn't become invisible. At least none of my dice do that, maybe you have a different kind...
     
  16. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    4,557
    Likes Received:
    4,433
    @cazboab What you are describing is a house rule. It's impossible to have a 3x3 "volume"; I assume they meant "area" and it was a translation error.
     
  17. cazboab

    cazboab Member (phrasing)

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    920
    Likes Received:
    1,194
    Yes, it is a house rule. One which I have suggested as a solution to the problem at hand, since the rules as written and the FAQ related to the interpretation thereof create the problem. As it stands we either ignore the FAQ and the bullet point that line of fire can be interrupted, and play in a way with a house rule we've been told is wrong, or we use a grey area to solve the issue.

    Also the more I think about it, a 3x3 area of the surface of a silhouette, given the silhouettes are cylinders means mathematically you actually only need to see less than a 1mm vertical section of the edge, as well as creating the LoF issue at the top of the silhouette...