I have nothing against this. When you place minis to secure an area, then you just need to make the choice, on which direction is the most important for you, then place another to deal with the other direction. - And I’m generally not a fan of fireteams - this is supposedly a skirmish game, where every model counts - but its not as Vanilla are outclassed by sectorials from what I see.
I'd have to agree that it's not really a different issue. You are trying to cover both corners, and that's impossible (unless you move back from the wall). Choose a direction and face that way to avoid getting hit in the back and there is no problem. As long as people understand that they can't cover both corners of a building by pressing their face directly into it, they will change their play to accommodate. That said, I would be fine if the FAQ was reversed and anyone who was in front of your 180° arc is fair game through the mutual awareness clause. This would also get rid of the SJ for normal rolls shenanigans.
If you don't bother holding cover vs the guy who can't shoot back anyway this looks very easy to do by eye.
Talked about it with my warcore, if we stop doing this and implement this gimik there is going to be too much butthurt. Also it came out that you have to see no less that 3x3 mm to have LoF, and the diagrams shows that you only see exactly 3 mm horizontal.... so put it on realism, a firefight is messy, no one moves with such precision. The Superjump trick on the other hand can be legit and make some people really exited around here.
Wait I'm confused. You and your warcor want to ignore the published FAQ, but want to implement the SJ stuff?
not so much ignore as if nobody ask for that specific spot nor can point it out for themselves its all fine. SJ gimmick its a big meeeh for me, but there is much more surface exposed so seems easier, dont expect to come across it more than once a year, if even that.
In my group you do have to humanely be able to do what you intend to do and prove it if questioned or in doubt. The only thing Intent can do with us is speed up gameplay. However in the diagram posted here because getting that arc is trivial if you move just a bit away from the cover.
I would describe my usual play group's approach as more 'position by agreement' than full theoretical-positioning PBI, e.g. 'I'm trying to get where just this guy can see me' 'OK, just move back a touch and you have it'. As such, if it's not clear if a model can achieve a certain position, as in the examples, we wouldn't allow it. Personally I'd be in favour of defining specific agreements for PBI (e.g. you can only cover one corner, you can always pie slice models next to each other but not overlapping). Makes things a little more abstract, but quicker and more fun IMO. But that's a topic for a different thread..
I do not think we've really come across a situation in our meta where we've had to answer this origonal post's question. I presume that eventually somone will realize how difficult it is to guard two sides of a building and it'll start rolling the ball, but for now we're mostly covering one corner at a time and our buildings are seldom perfect rectangles enough to reward trying to cover seceral corners at a time. @GrantC please stay on topic.
The line I draw for Intent is that PBI only covers information that is verifiable through looking at the table and not anything that would require a mesurment. For example This is correct Moving to pie slice at a corner or moving in such a way to avoid LOF from opponents units, can be determined through looking at the table and using open information on what each unit can see. This is not correct Moving to within a specified distance from a unit, for example to just outside zone of control or to within an advantageous range band for a weapon. Can only be verified through a physical measurement and does not use open information. People can and have argued that using a laser pointer is a form of measurement and is no different to using a measuring tape or other distance aid. The difference is that using a laser pointer or line confirms an existing visual information parameter. It’s a yes or no to something that’s already there and involves no measurement of an unknown value. Using a measurement device for distance returns a value from an unknown and gives a value from a previously unknown and not visually verifiable parameter. You may think you are 8 inches away from that unit and you may have good enough range guessing to be sure of this but until you preform the physical measurement process this cannot be verrified.
