9 hours ago, Taki said:

No, you're reading the rules far too narrowly. If firing arc wasn't supposed to be a line of sight issue, it would not be in that section. If a power allows you to ignore restrictions for a rule, you ignore them. Anyway, I have already sent an email. I ll post their reply when I get it, until then it serves no purpose going back and forth with this.

Firing arc is mentioned in the LOS section because that is part of how LOS is defined, by the firing arc. Areas that a unit has LOS to are a subset of areas that are in the firing arc of that unit. Again, there's a reason why the ranged attack specifically states that you need both Arc and LOS and effects like heartseeker are probably why.

I went back and found your argument on hopping over terrain, and its actually not the same as above, it's the same as your argument here. In essence both arguments are saying that something tells you to ignore X, and there is a part of the RR where X + Y are together, so clearly you ignore X + Y. Here its Arc + LOS, there its taking 55.3 and deciding that since colliding is a part of "overlap, sliding back and colliding" that you ignore the entire thing, not just the collision at the end.

48 minutes ago, GoblinGuide said:

Firing arc is mentioned in the LOS section because that is part of how LOS is defined, by the firing arc. Areas that a unit has LOS to are a subset of areas that are in the firing arc of that unit. Again, there's a reason why the ranged attack specifically states that you need both Arc and LOS and effects like heartseeker are probably why.

I went back and found your argument on hopping over terrain, and its actually not the same as above, it's the same as your argument here. In essence both arguments are saying that something tells you to ignore X, and there is a part of the RR where X + Y are together, so clearly you ignore X + Y. Here its Arc + LOS, there its taking 55.3 and deciding that since colliding is a part of "overlap, sliding back and colliding" that you ignore the entire thing, not just the collision at the end.

No it s the opposite argument. In both places it seems like some folks want to ignore or add lines of rules that are inconvenient. In the movement section, it specifically mentions that terrain you start the turn in contact with is ignored for collision, yet we have folks that say that that's not what that means, even though it's clearly written and spelled out. If that statement was simply not there there would have been no issue. As far as heartseeker, it would have been really nice if the thing had the extra line to say this doesn't ignore firing arcs, etc but it doesn't. And line of sight is a term with a defined section, part of which tells you what your firing arc is, so it's a line of sight issue, and the item tells us to ignore it, and cards trump book unless I'm mistaken.

All I'm doing is reading the rules as they are and trying to make sense of them and what they're trying to simulate. They could be much more clearly written. I try not to ignore parts of the rules I find inconvenient, especially when we dont' have enough clear examples of intent. For example, reform is unclear as written as to how they intend for it to work, as wheel along the center of the unit is still movement. In the learn to play book, on page 9 it specifically states that even though you're moving in the reform, you can ignore terrain that you move over

"Reforming and Obstacles If rotating a unit would cause it to collide with an obstacle, the player can pick up the unit and place it on the play area with a new facing as long as the unit’s center point remains in the same position and the unit does not overlap any obstacles."

This is not clear in the Rules Reference, and is made clear in learn to play. If we didn't have the learn to play guide, the narrow interpretation that you guys are espousing would make the rule as they intend it unplayable.

@Taki I think in this case, you're looking too narrowly at the line of sight rules. What is line of sight? In this game, line of sight is a line. The rest of section 46 tells us important information about that line. For example,

• it must be from the front of the tray of the unit resolving the attack or ability and must be touching the target tray
• it has no width (being just the edge of the range ruler)
• it must be within the firing arc
• it cannot go through obstacles like units or terrain.

These are all clarifications about this line we are drawing to determine line of sight. If you ignore line of sight, you do not ignore all rules about firing arcs. Rather, what you are ignoring is the requirement that line of sight points be within the firing arc, which make sense because there is no longer a line -- you're ignoring that line.

If we look at a ranged attack (65), we see three requirements: in firing arc, in range 1-5, in line of sight. If you remove line of sight. We are ignoring line of sight, but being inside the firing arc is still required. We never ignored firing arc for ranged attacks, we ignored the requirement that the line of sight line is draw within the firing arc. These are two very different principles.

2 minutes ago, Budgernaut said:

@Taki I think in this case, you're looking too narrowly at the line of sight rules. What is line of sight? In this game, line of sight is a line. The rest of section 46 tells us important information about that line. For example,

• it must be from the front of the tray of the unit resolving the attack or ability and must be touching the target tray
• it has no width (being just the edge of the range ruler)
• it must be within the firing arc
• it cannot go through obstacles like units or terrain.

These are all clarifications about this line we are drawing to determine line of sight. If you ignore line of sight, you do not ignore all rules about firing arcs. Rather, what you are ignoring is the requirement that line of sight points be within the firing arc, which make sense because there is no longer a line -- you're ignoring that line.

If we look at a ranged attack (65), we see three requirements: in firing arc, in range 1-5, in line of sight. If you remove line of sight. We are ignoring line of sight, but being inside the firing arc is still required. We never ignored firing arc for ranged attacks, we ignored the requirement that the line of sight line is draw within the firing arc. These are two very different principles.

This is sound rules wise, but I don't believe it's the intent. I'll play it this way until I get a direct answer.

Line of sight only mentions that you need to be checking line of sight in the arc. Checking the arc happens first, then being in arc is a prerequisite to checking line of sight. They happen separately and heartseeker only ignores LOS.

Edit: Posted this in the wrong thread and by the time I fixed it budgernaut already explained it much more eloquently than I could have. I'll just leave this here as adding my voice to the still need arc side.

14 minutes ago, Taki said:

For example, reform is unclear as written as to how they intend for it to work, as wheel along the center of the unit is still movement.

It's clear that by the rules a reform action is not movement. You are physically moving the tray but for the purpose of the game, it is not considered movement. Presently, only March and Shift are movement.

RRG, pg. 14:
"A unit can move when it reveals either the march or shift
actions during the Activation Phase."

RRG, pg. 14:
"Movement modifiers allow a player to alter the movement
template he uses when his unit is performing either a march
or shift action"

You can only have a collision if you are Marching or Shifting:

RRG, pg. 9:
"After a unit performs a march or shift action, if it is
touching an obstacle that it was not touching before performing
that action, it has collided with that obstacle"

The section on Reform also doesn't mention that it is a form of movement. The Reform section does tell you that to perform a reform you pick up the unit and put it back down in any position that you'd like as long as it's final position doesn't overlap or touch any obstacles. It's irrelevant that if you were to rotate the tray that part of the tray would cross the obstacle because the unit isn't actually following the path of the rotation.

RRG, pg 16:
"Reform is an action. When a unit performs a reform
action, that unit can be picked up, rotated, and placed on the
play area facing any direction as long as the unit’s center point
remains in the same position and the unit does not overlap or
touch any obstacles.
68.1 When a unit performs a reform, it must rotate around its
center point such that its center point does not move.
• A unit’s center point is determined by drawing a rectangle
around the outer-most edges of the unit’s trays and finding
the center point of that rectangle.
68.2 If an active unit performs a reform action while engaged
with one or more units, the active unit can rotate around either
its center point or the center point of any of its individual trays.
• After performing the reform action while engaged, the
active unit must be touching the same enemy units along
the same contacted edge of the enemy unit that it was
touching before performing the reform action."

7 minutes ago, Taki said:

This is sound rules wise, but I don't believe it's the intent. I'll play it this way until I get a direct answer.

It is the intent. Trust me.

By virtue of my last match I played, I can assure you that it's still worth the points. Parked Kari just behind the crumbling wall and took out scores of reanimate archers with no reprisal. Couldn't even get blighted since the worms didn't have line of sight till a good bit later. then when stuff did start to swing towards her, I hopped into the terrain and out the other side. Kind of felt sleazy, but it worked.

1 minute ago, TallTonyB said:

It is the intent. Trust me.

By virtue of my last match I played, I can assure you that it's still worth the points. Parked Kari just behind the crumbling wall and took out scores of reanimate archers with no reprisal. Couldn't even get blighted since the worms didn't have line of sight till a good bit later. then when stuff did start to swing towards her, I hoped into the terrain and out the other side. Kind of felt sleazy, but it worked.

With all due respect, why would you make a statement on the intent of the design and ask for trust in this matter when that's caused fights for you in the past. And cheers for the great demos but you yourself have said that guys doing demos don't get any more resources than the rest of us to make up our minds with. And finally, why keep fighting with me after I said I'll play it the way folks here are suggesting?

I'm not fighting, I was trying to help you get your answer. The smiley was specifically to show that I was coming from a place of help and wasn't fighting. You coming at me in a hostile manner however.... you ever think that maybe people talk to you the way they do because they are just repaying in kind?

And I never said that demo team don't have access to things the general players don't have access to. How else do they know the rules before they are released? I said don't always put the things they say during a demo as gospel because things can change over the course of production, and not all demo people learn the game straight from the source. Some of them that live in the twin cities do.

Dude, seriously where was my hostility in that post above? I started by acknowledging the respect you re due, then ended it with a plea for you and others to stop fighting me on the topic after I grudgingly accept the ruling which I think is near sighted. This is really frustrating and disheartening because I've tried really hard not to lose my temper or yell at anyone even when I think they've treated me in a way they wouldn't appreciate being treated.

25 minutes ago, Taki said:

why would you make a statement on the intent of the design and ask for trust in this matter when that's caused fights for you in the past. why keep fighting with me after I said I'll play it the way folks here are suggesting?

Accusing me of trying to start a fight when I obviously wasn't is a start. Cause fights for me in the past? +867 on 683. Never a single warning point. I get along with people just fine on here.

But, since it seems like at this point you don't want answers, you just want to be contrarian, I'm out. There was no fight here except in your mind.

Just now, TallTonyB said:

Accusing me of trying to start a fight when I obviously wasn't is a start. Cause fights for me in the past? +867 on 683. Never a single warning point. I get along with people just fine on here.

But, since it seems like at this point you don't want answers, you just want to be contrarian, I'm out. There was no fight here except in your mind.

I shouldn't, but I'm going to interject. I did not get any impression that Taki was accusing you of trying to start a fight. It's just that the last time you tried to leverage insider knowledge in a conversation, it didn't work out so well, and both Taki and I would rather not see a repeat of that last discussion. That's all he was trying to say. Saying you have inside information when you can't talk about that information in detail can be frustrating for other people, so sometimes it's better just left unsaid.

I figured when there was a real fight going on over it that I could put to rest it wasn't best left unsaid. Obviously I was wrong.

47 minutes ago, TallTonyB said:

I figured when there was a real fight going on over it that I could put to rest it wasn't best left unsaid. Obviously I was wrong.

I appreciate knowing the intent and am grateful for your input, but I know others don't see it that way and would rather have something in writing rather than word-of-mouth.

I guess so. Helping out with rules with what little I am allowed to say is something I've been doing since last gencon last August and everyone seemed to be cool with that. Not surr how it got so bent out of shape here, but I guess I'll just chill with it.

4 hours ago, TallTonyB said:

It is the intent. Trust me.

By virtue of my last match I played, I can assure you that it's still worth the points. Parked Kari just behind the crumbling wall and took out scores of reanimate archers with no reprisal. Couldn't even get blighted since the worms didn't have line of sight till a good bit later. then when stuff did start to swing towards her, I hopped into the terrain and out the other side. Kind of felt sleazy, but it worked.

Seems like your opponent should have just jumped into the terrain first!

7 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

Seems like your opponent should have just jumped into the terrain first!

His main unit had too many trays to fit. And I'm not sure he understood how he could have engaged her in the terrain to make it harder to run

Just now, TallTonyB said:

His main unit had too many trays to fit. And I'm not sure he understood how he could have engaged her in the terrain to make it harder to run

Ah. That makes sense. The game is new enough that I forget which terrain piece is which. I charged a piece of terrain containing Kari last week with a 4x3 unit of Reanimates and then got flank charged myself. Kari died quick, but then I found myself 'stuck' in position. Due to the terrain positioning and the fact that you can only rotate around an engaged tray, I couldn't actually reform and had to fight the rest of the game with a threat of 2 (due to losing a tray on that side of the back row). It was educational. Dealing with terrain placement is no joke.

15 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

Ah. That makes sense. The game is new enough that I forget which terrain piece is which. I charged a piece of terrain containing Kari last week with a 4x3 unit of Reanimates and then got flank charged myself. Kari died quick, but then I found myself 'stuck' in position. Due to the terrain positioning and the fact that you can only rotate around an engaged tray, I couldn't actually reform and had to fight the rest of the game with a threat of 2 (due to losing a tray on that side of the back row). It was educational. Dealing with terrain placement is no joke.

You've got Reanimates engaging you on your flank and empty terrain touching your front edge? You don't have to rotate around one of the trays that it in contact with an enemy tray. If a unit is engaged (units are engaged, individual trays are not) then it has the option of either rotating around the center point of the entire formation of the center point of any of the trays in the formation. It must remain engaged to every enemy unit that it was engaged to before it reformed and it must be touching the same edge of the enemy that it was touching.

You should almost always be able to reform by turning either 180 degrees or 90 degrees either way. It missing trays may keep you from being able to reform but you'd need to be engage with multiple enemy units or pinned against another obstacle just right.

Am I missing something?

RRG, pg 16:
"68.2 If an active unit performs a reform action while engaged
with one or more units, the active unit can rotate around either
its center point or the center point of any of its individual trays.
• After performing the reform action while engaged, the
active unit must be touching the same enemy units along
the same contacted edge of the enemy unit that it was
touching before performing the reform action.
• The active unit cannot be touching any new enemy units
or other obstacles."

30 minutes ago, KrisWall said:

Dealing with terrain placement is no joke.

It really isn't in this game. One of my first full games I had a 3wide spearmen formation that didn't attack the entire game because I got them in a crap position inside a Bermuda triangle of Rocky outcroppings and the ruined wall. I'm used to xwing where you can just slip right through those cracks.. Not so much here.

5 minutes ago, WWHSD said:

You've got Reanimates engaging you on your flank and empty terrain touching your front edge? You don't have to rotate around one of the trays that it in contact with an enemy tray. If a unit is engaged (units are engaged, individual trays are not) then it has the option of either rotating around the center point of the entire formation of the center point of any of the trays in the formation. It must remain engaged to every enemy unit that it was engaged to before it reformed and it must be touching the same edge of the enemy that it was touching.

You should almost always be able to reform by turning either 180 degrees or 90 degrees either way. It missing trays may keep you from being able to reform but you'd need to be engage with multiple enemy units or pinned against another obstacle just right.

Am I missing something?

RRG, pg 16:
"68.2 If an active unit performs a reform action while engaged
with one or more units, the active unit can rotate around either
its center point or the center point of any of its individual trays.
• After performing the reform action while engaged, the
active unit must be touching the same enemy units along
the same contacted edge of the enemy unit that it was
touching before performing the reform action.
• The active unit cannot be touching any new enemy units
or other obstacles."

It's the last bit. No matter which way I tried to reform, I would have been touching other enemy units or obstacles. I was locked in place because I had no legal reform options. I suppose I could have done a straight 180, but then he would have just flanked me from the other side.

Guys, at this point, can we all just agree that arguing with Taki is a waste of time?

I mean, I try to be an understanding guy and all, but I don't know how many times I've seen this particular poster simply deciding to ignore all counter arguments and carry forward with how they would LIKE the rules to play, with the attitude of "Well if FFG doesn't call me on the phone and tell me otherwise, I get to be right".

On multiple occasions, after frustrating the person they were talking to, this poster then proceeded to level personal insults while quite ironically complaining that the other person made it personal.

It's boring, it's predictable, and it's non-productive.

Let's stop.

46 minutes ago, Tvayumat said:

Guys, at this point, can we all just agree that arguing with Taki is a waste of time?

I mean, I try to be an understanding guy and all, but I don't know how many times I've seen this particular poster simply deciding to ignore all counter arguments and carry forward with how they would LIKE the rules to play, with the attitude of "Well if FFG doesn't call me on the phone and tell me otherwise, I get to be right".

On multiple occasions, after frustrating the person they were talking to, this poster then proceeded to level personal insults while quite ironically complaining that the other person made it personal.

It's boring, it's predictable, and it's non-productive.

Let's stop.

Agreed. FWIW, I apologize for stirring the pot. That was not my intention, I really was just trying to settle things.