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

Units Prone on the roof - visibility

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Stiopa, Dec 19, 2018.

  1. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    7,846
    And I'm saying that if a prone model at higher elevation turns its back towards its enemies, it will not be able to draw LOF and since there is not a 3x3mm perpendicular plane inside this model's silhouette due to trigonometry (the floor this elevated model is standing on will block it), then no one on lower elevation will be able to draw LOF to the elevated model, either. Meaning there is no awareness that can be mutual.

    That's an assumption you can make about all of CB's rules, but the problem is that quickly the rules become meaningless and all you're left with is a huge set of house rules. I find CB's language regarding LOF to be unusually consistent, however, with the only caveat being that the 3x3mm visibility condition being poorly defined, but to each their own.

    That's assuming you've got enough orders to put the Intruder into marker state. But whether it's an Intruder, a Nisse, a Yan Huo, or otherwise is irrelevant to the example as long as it is a model you don't want shot in the reactive turn and that it can go prone.
     
  2. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    14
    Maybe I’ve not read enough rules but this sounds silly.

    Are we claiming that mutual awareness is a must for shooting someone? And that I can’t shoot someone in the back?

    Personally I’ve interpreted the rules to mean that , the active model needs to see 3x3 of the target, and if the target can shoot back even if it can’t see a 3x3, so long as the attacker is in their front arc. Do I have this wrong?
     
  3. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    7,846
    We're talking about edge cases where at least one model does not see 3x3mm of the opponent's model.
     
  4. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,239
    Likes Received:
    10,636
    No, it's being claimed that if you can't see 3x3mm of the target, they need to be able to see 3x3mm of you for mutual awareness to kick in.
     
    DukeofEarl likes this.
  5. Ashtroboy

    Ashtroboy Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2018
    Messages:
    33
    Likes Received:
    14
    So how would you do something like the following scenario?

    Model A declared move short skill , during movement Model A cant see 3x3 of Model B, but Model B can see at least 3x3, and in ARO declares shoot. Can Model A now shoot Model B because of mutual awareness?

    What if Model B declared dodge instead of shoot?

    Sorry if I’m just muddying the issue or if I’m just being dense
    Ash
     
  6. ijw

    ijw Wargaming Trader, Freelance Editor (UK)
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2017
    Messages:
    5,239
    Likes Received:
    10,636
    It doesn't matter what B declares, just that they can see at least 3x3mm.
     
  7. tdc

    tdc ALEPH Fragment
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    1,364
    Likes Received:
    1,200
    The particular question is... What happens if Model B was facing the opposite way, so although they could draw a line to a 3mmx3mm square of model A they can't draw LoS because of facing
     
  8. Regnator

    Regnator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    52
    The 3 by 3 mm only need to apply to the trooper who declare the bs attack first, then the mutual LoF kick in. It does seems weird sometime but the rules are crystal clear about that. In terms of application of the rules related to OP's example, we use a rules of thumb. If your not in contact with the edge of the building while being prone, you can only shoot to the same or higher elevation. It's not mathematically exact but clarify the situation a lot.

    Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
     
    inane.imp and oldGregg like this.
  9. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    It doesn't necessarily need to be the trooper who declared first, the trooper doesn't need to have declared an attack at all.

    It's sufficient for LOF to merely exist.

    The issue @Mahtamori and I disagree on is whether LOF for the purposes of mutual awareness considers facing or not.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  10. Regnator

    Regnator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    52
    "Thismeans that as long as any troop can draw LoF to its target,the target can draw LoF to its attacker as well (assuming, of
    course, that the attacker is within the target’s front 180º arc)."
    This is a quotation of the mutual LoF rule. Combine that with the fact that a mini have a 180° LoF, and a 360° when a mini is activated and you need to see 3x3mm to draw LoF to another model (and lof can only be drawn between 2 models, it's actualy why there is a debate around play by intent). Now maybe i didn't understand the issue at hand and that's another thing .

    Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
     
  11. Regnator

    Regnator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    52
    Ok i've reread the last messages and facing is irrelevant in drawing line of fire (well not irrelevant precisely but incidental). If a model on lower elevation try to draw LoF to a prone model in higher elevation wich is not in contact with the ledge, he actualy can't, because he cannot see the required 3 by 3 mm.
    The exception being if the prone trooper use an order requiring to draw LoF to the model in lower elevation (mutual LoF rule).

    Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
     
  12. Regnator

    Regnator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    52
    And if i happen to be right, it means that in the same situation but with 3 troopers in lower elevation, the prone trooper can shoot on one of them without getting ARO from the other two. It would be strict application of the rule, but quite weird.

    Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
     
  13. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    The issue is that if you read that rule too closely you end up with subjective LOF (IE it's dependant on what actions troopers take, that is dependent on the subjects actions) instead of objective LOF (LOF doesn't change just because someone declared an attack, that is it is not dependent on the subjects actions) and the game gets a lot harder to parse.

    Take the example that started this thread. In the strictest reading, the prone trooper on a roof is immune from BS Attack unless they declare an attack against the trooper which wishes to attack them (creating an 'attacker' and 'target' relationship and thereby establishing mutual LOF).

    It's worth noting the FAQ ruling for Dodge, which makes it explicit that in that case that an attack is not necessary even though the rules as written require it. While it's not definitive, it is instructive. 'Attacker' in that case is used as a description based on the context but is not intended to be a requirement. I would argue the same is true in the case of mutual LOF.

    Moreover, the ruling for Dodging in ARO to open up LOF to a previously obscured trooper indicates to me that CB's intent is objective LOF.
     
    BLOODGOD likes this.
  14. Regnator

    Regnator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    52
    "the prone trooper on a roof is immune from BS Attack unless they declare an attack against the trooper which wishes to attack them"
    Not trying to be nitpicking but this is circular. The trooper cannot wish to attack a target. He either can or cannot. Active or reactive turn, he can only draw LoF if the prone trooper grant him access to the mutual LoF rule.

    Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
     
  15. Regnator

    Regnator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    52
    Sorry for all the double posting but i'm on my phone, and i cannot read previous comment and type an answer, so i prefer to separate my answers in order not to misinterprate your post. Also note that this entire post is an opinion, contrary to what i stated in the previous one, which i consider strict application of the rules as i understand them.
    Relative to the aro FAQ, i would argue that dodge is a special case. Dodge is supposed to be either reactive of predictive, that's why they allow a trooper in aro to dodge without being the object of an attack.
    For the dodge not opening new LoF during the same order i attribute it to the fact that order are simultaneous, hence a trooper cannot use his target dodge to allocate a burst to a model he couldn't see before.
    The problem with FAQ is that it's difficult to know if they are issued to demonstrate the intent behind the design of a rule, or to correct an oversight. That's why i don't feel at ease using an faq on relation to other rules, too much incertainties for my brain.

    I think the LoF rule need a review, because it's at the center of many debates, technicaly play by intent cannot be valid because the line of fire can only be drawn between models (i won't get in the specifics and it's a short version but that's the core of the issue), but in a way it has to be that way because otherwise it conflict with other rules such as mutual LoF.

    Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
     
    #55 Regnator, Jan 4, 2019
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2019
  16. inane.imp

    inane.imp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2018
    Messages:
    3,740
    Likes Received:
    4,224
    You can desire to do something you can't actually do.

    Trooper A moves into a position where Trooper B, prone on the roof, can see 3mm X 3mm square.

    Trooper A does not have LOF to Trooper B.

    Trooper B has LOF to Trooper A.

    Until Trooper B makes an attack against Trooper A - by the strictest reading of RAW which as I understand it you're advocating - mutual awareness does not kick in.

    So despite the fact that Trooper A desires to declare a BS Attack against Trooper B they cannot unless Trooper B first declares a BS Attack.

    It's the same set up as an MSV2 trooper AROing through a low vis zone.

    I categorically don't think this is intended. I think mutual awareness applies irrespective of there actually being an attacker and a target. All that's required is one part to have LOF to the other and for it to be within facing.
     
    Hecaton likes this.
  17. Regnator

    Regnator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    52
    You can wish, but it has no effect on the actual sequence of gameplay.
    Don't get me wrong if i'm actualy right this is weird interaction. The positive aspect of the rule is that it leaves no room to interpretation, which allow for a clear and final decision. Aside from that i wouldn't touch this application of the rule with a ten feet pole.

    As i said before, with my fellow player, if a prone model is not in contact with a ledge, he is not able to draw line of fire to a model in lower elevation (just to be exceedingly precise, by lower elevation i mean that the lowest elevation of the base of the prone model MUST be higher than the highest elevation of the top of the silhouette of the opposing model).

    Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
     
  18. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    6,290
    Likes Received:
    7,846
    Line of Fire requires a target to exist
    Line of Fire is a requirement to declare a BS Attack
    You have to evaluate Line of Fire before you declare BS Attack at all, meaning that the "target" can not possibly be evaluated by which skill you declare because if you read Line of Fire that strictly it becomes impossible to declare BS Attack at all because it gets obstructed by a catch 22.
     
    DukeofEarl, Hecaton, BLOODGOD and 2 others like this.
  19. sorniak

    sorniak Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2017
    Messages:
    221
    Likes Received:
    109
    "the prone trooper on a roof is immune from BS Attack unless they declare an attack against the trooper which wishes to attack them"
    I think that is one of the reasons why 3x3mm should be mutual :(

    Which is, unfortunately, a house rule ... though, I must admit we play the same, and on tourneys I propose the same to my opponents all the time ...
     
    Regnator likes this.
  20. Regnator

    Regnator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2018
    Messages:
    71
    Likes Received:
    52
    Yeah it's clearly house ruling in order to avoid having endless discussion about LoF between models, now that i realised that there is even weirder situation lime the one discussed in this post, i'm honna enjoy the lack of drama and the time gain even more ! I've never done a tournament and only play with friend so usualy play by intent and a few house rules are in effect and we avoid drama.

    Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
     
    WarHound likes this.