The text for Line of Fire reads as follows: The Line of Fire (LoF) is an imaginary straight line that joins any point of the volume of a Model, Token, Marker or valid target to any point of the volume of another. And there has been some disagreement on this. Some read this as meaning Line of Fire is only drawn to models, tokens, markers, etc, and not simple points upon the map. On the other hand, the existence of weapons that can target points on the map also exist. Does this imply LoF can be drawn to any location, that it can be drawn only to any location if a given trooper has equipment to allow it (in a similar though not identical way that a trooper with a 360 visor can draw LoF entirely around them, rather than only 180 degrees,) or can it only be drawn to the specifically listed things? This could render weapons that do not draw targets technically unusable based on the rules, or that all their attacks are speculative if so, in which case it would likely be similar to how Berserk had issues and there had to be clarification on when LoF was checked for it. A pedantic part of me notes that a random points do not have volume, and so there can be no volume of another, but that is, as I say, mostly pedantry and not really something to hang any argument on. I personally err on the side of it being to the listed things and, if any, at most to specific points if and only if the model in question has equipment that can hit them, but I admit my bias is likely leading me that way.
A point on the table is a valid target for targetless weapons. For those weapons, yes, LoF can be drawn to a point on the table. A weapon without that trait requires a "valid target" - a model, token, marker, silhouette, etc. - placed in a clearly defined and measurable position.
Trying to lawyer the specific meaning of single words is going to lead to anguish. Line of Fire is an imaginary line between one game element and another. This is specifically trying to be as permissive as possible to provide the rules breathing room to use LoF in many different ways. Why you would try argue it is limited in anyway I can't really fathom? What benefit is there to the game?
Its and intent vs not-intent thing and I won't pretend otherwise. My goal in this case is to basically work down the list of things I can think of that allow or disallow a given argument. I like precision and clarity here, if only for settling any potential argument, including my own, which I wouldn't be surprised to be wrong here. Even under your own wording, would a random point in space be a 'game element?' Depends on your point of view, arguably. Edit: To answer the question of what possible benefit, which I realize I never did, The argument is that if you cannot draw a LoF to a random point, you can't have someone who asks over and over to get the perfect exact position needed to get their perfect angle, avoiding that mechanical slow down. Edit 2: Basically I’d rather a conclusive answer that proves me wrong then no answer at all.
Good luck with that. If intent arguments are shitting you up that much that you're hoping to get a ruling on it to 'win' that particular argument, I think you've got bigger problems with your gaming partners. Trust me when I say this ground has been well well well trawled for at least 5 years, if not longer. N4 hasn't changed it fundamentally and CB don't appear to have any real impetus to resolve this for you. Edit: to be atleast a little more positive. Are there particular situations you are finding frustrating that we can maybe help you with rather than talking about this 'issue' in hypotheticals.
Nah, actually playing we just roll with it right now. These questions are somewhat academic, one might say, rather than imminently practicable for me. Well, can’t hurt (for me, at least) to try.
Targetless weapons exist, therefore any point on the game table, along with the aforementioned troopers, deployables, etc. are all valid targets. Hell, as far as I'm concerned you can draw LoF from a tree to an objective marker. It doesn't mean anything, but it still exists.
I understand that you don't like people playing via partially abstracted placement mechanics, but they don't fundamentally change how LoF works in the game. It's an orthogonal discussion.
Only for targetless weapons. Not for a combi rifle. Not really, no. The game specifies limitations on what LoF is and what it is drawn between. My preference is beside the point. People refuse even considering that their N3 approach no longer applies under N4 ruleset's stipulations. So, I'm trying to show the issue from different angles.
Whether or not something is a potential target is covered by the definition of “target” in the glossary. Whether something is a valid target depends on the weapon, skill, equipment, etc. in play, arc of fire, level of cover, etc. For example, an unhackable LI is not a valid target for Oblivion. Line of Fire just either exists or doesn’t, and strictly speaking you either have it or don’t, meaning you are or are not able to draw it. What causes you to qualify as able to draw LoF is where it gets weird, although we now know that LoF is explicitly Open Information, so that cuts down the range of edge cases to be addressed. I know the intent/not side of this question boils down to “Is it acceptable to plonk down silhouettes where there aren’t models and ask about hypothetical LoF to/from there, before deciding on position during movement,” and seriously, the answer is “the rules are ambiguous, so if both players agree to it, sure.” Remember that N4 allows premeasuring the path of movement, which necessarily has to include checking to see if the intended path is legal based on Silhouette size, as well as checking clearance and displacement during vaulting, so measuring movement may include getting out a Silhouette template. N4 treats checking LoF as a form of measurement/checking per the Fair Play box. LoF is Open Information; and when you declare movement you are declaring and measuring the path of movement of a silhouette volume that has 360° LoF arc throughout the movement path. The absolute strictest answer I can think of per RAW now that we know LoF is Open Information is: LoF to/from a model exists and can be checked based on any point its Silhouette might occupy while you’re pre-measuring movement. Once the actual movement path is declared, the possible options collapse to just the volume of the Silhouette at all points along the path of movement, which is Open Information so possible LoF can be checked to/from that whole area with regards to the moving Trooper. Outside of movement declaration and measurement, the rules only explicitly specify LoF between potential targets, but since LoF is open information...
As @wes-o-matic astutely points out, the LoF exists regardless of the weapon being used. A model with only a combi can't use LoF to the ground in the same way as a model with a smoke grenade can. However, LoF is a property of the model, not of the weapon. I.e. the smoke grenade isn't what's drawing LoF, the Daturazi is.
I’m inclined to probably agree with Wes, though it leads to further implications I don’t like. But as I said in another thread, looking for the truth is not looking for what is desirable. That being said, an explicit definition would be nice.
Well, what about the part where the ground is not "a valid target" for a non-Targetless weapon? It has to be drawn to "from a Model, Token, Marker or valid target to any point of the volume of another". There's no LoF between a scenery tree and a point on the ground. There's no LoF between a Combi user and a point on the ground. Those do not satisfy the LoF requirements.
Or a point on the ground for a combi rifle, like I said before. I'd rather say the intent/not question boils down to "Is it required to plonk down silhouettes in the extreme spots of the fully declared movement path, at the request of the Reactive player, so that they are able to check and and all ARO they might have". And to me the rules are clear, "yes, you have to, if only to facilitate the Open information status on all existing LOF/ARO". Some of the new rules are really not that ambiguous anymore. Yes, absolutely yes. This means that I can ask the Active player to place the SX at any point of the path, for me to check LOF/ARO. It can't be merely declarative on the level of "I just poke out enough to see him". Show the path, show the extreme point, I can ask you to plonk S2 on the extreme point and I'll use my tools to check LOF/ARO.
As I’ve said a bunch of times, this is a matter of etiquette, not rules. If you need a marker to explicitly show the position, that’s between you and your opponent. If, after a brief verbal description, I’m confident I understand the position and that I’ll be able to measure it with adequate precision, that’s between me and my opponent. It’s not necessary for you to try and campaign for CB to tell me that I have to play the way you want me to.
This is an opinion and that opinion does not have direct reflection in the rules. That's effectively a home rule. The N4 rules say that you must measure. Can't measure without exact positions on the table. I'm not campaigning a thing. I have an opinion myself and my opinion is strongly supported by strict wording in the ruleset. I would want CB to declare on either side of the intent debacle, because the only untenable situation is the current one with both options being in the limbo.
Infinity range bands have increments of 8”. I can measure to sub-1” precision based on an indicated hypothetical position. This is adequate for most purposes, and if either I or the other player feel the need for more precision, we will of course place the model down in the exact spot. It’s about streamlining the experience, rather than wasting our time on little fiddly details that aren’t important to the outcome of the game. Note that with the new terrain squeezing rules, in addition to the previously existing vaulting rules, plus stuff like super jump and climbing plus, that it’s possible to be drawing LoF to/from board positions that can’t actually support the model in question. You have to do your best to sort of hover the model or a marker in the position that was described as part of the movement while the other person measures range to it.
