Line of Fire

[dataentity]

So on WGC, there was discussion about Line of Fire and fire arcs. Specifically, the rules were about the first FAQ question in the line of fire wiki page http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Line_of_Fire_(LoF)

 

To summarize it, if someone can see the back half of your model's base / silhouette, but cannot see the front half, your model cannot fire back as they do not have line of fire. You cannot draw your line of fire from anywhere on the model, only the front 180 degrees sees.

In essence, every time we've tried to cover two corners by staring at the wall doesn't work. You can definitely slice the pie to shoot the model's butt that's sticking out and not be shot back.

[Exile]

3 hours ago, dataentity said:

 

In essence, every time we've tried to cover two corners by staring at the wall doesn't work. You can definitely slice the pie to shoot the model's butt that's sticking out and not be shot back.

Can? Maybe.  Should?  Hell no.

[Sgt. Rock]

4 hours ago, dataentity said:

In essence, every time we've tried to cover two corners by staring at the wall doesn't work

See, I've always thought that was dumb. Its' a limitation of putting guys on such big bases. In real life, it would be super easy to put your back against a wall and cover both directions, but because of that little quirk, you can't. It's pretty stupid, I think.

[Natetehaggresar]

1 hour ago, Sgt. Rock said:

See, I've always thought that was dumb. Its' a limitation of putting guys on such big bases. In real life, it would be super easy to put your back against a wall and cover both directions, but because of that little quirk, you can't. It's pretty stupid, I think.

To be honest, I just stood with my back to the wall and couldn't see the wall in either direction, while looking straight ahead. I realize that it doesn't take long to avert my eyes to look either way, though it wouldn't take someone very long either too pull a trigger and put me down if they snuck up on me. The game is an abstraction, and the rules are an abstraction with a basis in real life, its not a perfect simulation. (I assume changing my orientation is change facing.) In the end if facing is to matter in the game, and arbitrary cut off needs to be picked for what can and cannot be seen.

That being said I was not a fan of this errata when first published, and I continue not to be a fan of it. It does open up some gamey options, at the same time, it is a game. The end effect is that you can only really ever safely cover one corner ofa building, and you need someone else to watch your back. You haven't really discussed this rulings effects on this game in 3 dimensions, its really easy to shoot someone in the back from the front as you come at them from a ledge above or use super jump, those are the more "degenerate" uses of this eratta.

For all those peeps who howl that mutts are over powered, this ruling helps keep them in check, they can't be sure to cover both sides of a builing with a emarat+chain rifle. The mutt can only cover 1 direction with those weapons, and a B2 shotgun in their back, or a B3 or 4 rifle etc is very likely to beat their jam ARO.

Anyway I play the game as CB writes it, because it causes less problems when you meet up with peeps from other metas. IF you don't play the same game, its hard to play the same game. 😕

In the end I don't particulary care how it is played so long as everyone has the same expectations, thinking you can/can't cover 2 corners at once and finding out the opposite is what causes games to suck, not the consistant application of either rule. You can always plan and play appropriately.

For what its worth the wiki SHOULD (but won't) be updated to incorporate this eratta LoF. The application of this errata would mean the underlined text should be added.

 

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 front 180 arc volume to any point in the target's volume.
• LoF can be obstructed by figures—friendly or not—and pieces of scenery.

[Exile]

Perhaps I should clarify my statement.  I find the action of abusing super jump or microscopic pie-slicing in this manner (to see the back of my arc) an abusive and underhanded tactic, that has no place in a gentleman's game.

[Natetehaggresar]

@Exile that's precisely the issue though, its a matter of expectations. I don't care how this is played, I can alter my model positioning and ARO strategy and play the game fine under either RAW, or the "gentlemanly disregard of RAW." I don't care.

I find RAW is a better gameing experience when I run across other people, because then we have the same expectation. 

At the same time you seem to take issue with microscopic pie slicing, but I assume you don't take issue with the general concept of pie slicing? Thats a judgement call where reasonable people with disagree with what is or is not microscopic. I just allow any pie slicing, there is no judgement call for my opponent and I to disagree about what is or is not too small.

You can still play gentlemanly RAW, Andrew and I have played games at Adam's tournaments where we put an S2 up in the air to see what the rodok can see. In my opinion its only ungentlemanly when people are violating each other expectations, the game works fine when both players are playing by the same rules. (Which still can use cleaning up and clarification, and I wouldn't at all be opposed to a retraction of this "erratta"). Adding unspoken or ambiguous expectation on to the gaming experience is one thing that can cause breakdown.