N18 Sentry rules conflict

Glyn

Heckin Provost
Honored Tribesman
Nov 27, 2017
262
364
133
London, UK
Having some trouble interpreting the following:

After a sentry has moved, roll 2D6. If there are any attackers within that many inches of any sentry and within their vision arc, they may be spotted.
Which then calls for a D6 against a table to see if they are spotted where the first two results are:
  • Within 3", regardless of the sentry’s facing [2+]
  • In the open, regardless of the sentry’s facing [2+]
This is leading me to think that If the attacker ends a move within within 3" of the sentry, that they are seen on a 2+ regardless of facing. But if they are not within the sentries vision arc, then I wouldn't even be rolling on the table. So what is the meaning/intention of stating "regardless of the sentry's facing"?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thorgor

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,124
6,741
138
34
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 France
Wow, you're right, it doesn't make much sense.
In GW1, this used to be 'If they are in the open, or are within 3", they are spotted on a roll of 2 or more'. No mention of the sentry's facing.
So, we have to assume it was added on purpose.
Then again, that wouldn't be the first time they 'purposefully' change something for the worse (remember when they FAQed that a charging fighter had to move in b2b contact with prone ennemies (instead of just pinned ones)?)

I think it's best to just ignore the 'regardless of the sentry's facing' part
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,124
6,741
138
34
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 France
If they are within 3", you spot them on 2+ even if the enemy is in the back arc. This represents smell/sound.
That's also what I thought before the question was asked, but neither the GW1 wording nor the current one supports this (you only get to roll if the enemy is in the sentry's FoV, so any subsequent mention of their facing is moot.)
Now, that may be what they tried to write, but then why is the sentry's facing mentioned again for attackers in the open?

Also, i just noticed it's possible to get a 2 on the 2D6 roll, in which case attackers 3" away cannot be spotted (regardless of whether they are right in front of the sentry or sneaking behind them). I guess it represents the sentry finding some very interesting shiny thingy right at their feet or something.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Champion
Apr 4, 2018
280
226
48
Bristol, UK
I still think that the within 3" but is meant to be an exception to the normal 2d6" vision arc spot.
I think the Devs changed the wording to make the 2d6" vision arc slot clearer, thinking that the 3" but was already perfectly obvious.
Of course, as they've done so many other times, things that are obvious to them (the guys writing the rules) are not obvious to us mere peasants reading the rules.

That's not even encroaching on how bad the sentry rules are ATM either.
 
Last edited:

TopsyKretts

Gang Hero
Dec 29, 2017
1,840
1,553
138
Kristiansand
Yes my initial interpretation was this was clearly an exception. Either there is some enemy in LOS front-arc within 2D6", or the enemy is within 3" regardless of facing. RAW is certainly bad, but I'm feeling pretty confident on the RAI.
 

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,124
6,741
138
34
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 France
What would be the point of adding the "regardless of facing" to the "in the open" condition then? Logically, it means the sentry can also "see" attackers in the open up to 2D6" even if they are out of their FoV. Then, why would cover hinder sound or smell?

Assuming what they wanted is to have an omnidirectional 3" detection zone at 2+ on top of the 2D6" normal FoV detection zone (at 2+/4+/6+ depending on cover), then it means that they:
  • forgot the check only happens if the attacker is in the sentry's FoV in the first place
  • added the 'ignore the sentry's FoV' to the first clause
  • realized that they only wanted it to apply to the first half, and separated it into two clauses
  • forgot to remove the 'ignore the sentry's FoV' from that second half (even though removing it was the very reason it was separated from the first one)
That's a lot, even for them.

The GW1 rule was simple: you can only detect an attacker if they are in your FoV, and cover gives bonuses that you ignore if they are within 3". I'd stick to it.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Champion
Apr 4, 2018
280
226
48
Bristol, UK
The devs removed the part where it is explicitly stated that attackers within 3" risk being spotted regardless of facing. I honestly believe that was to save space in the wording. The whole "spotting attackers" section in the new book is half the size of the old book.
They broke within 3" and in the open into two separate brackets, both specifying regardless of facing.

Why would they do that? They needed to save some space, so that the picture of the tentacle monster fitted nicely.
So, they save themselves two lines of text and just put it in the box telling you what result you need.
They split out in the open because they also think that defenders should be able to spot attackers in the open behind them.
Perhaps they realised sentry rules basically had the defender just bend over the table and take it, so decided to give them a little something.

I don't think it needs the long list of incompetance that you've written above. They just forgot that they specified you only ever rolled when a fighter was within your vision arc.
This isn't remotely out of character for them. Old Toxin is a great example. They said that you only ever take armour saves when you suffer a wound. But said that we were all wrong for saying that Toxin skips armour saves because it doesn't cause wounds.
Here, we're saying attackers skip being spotted because they aren't in the vision arc. Except the devs said that the vision arc is required.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SoothSayer

Thorgor

Of The YAQ
Oct 12, 2015
3,124
6,741
138
34
Issy-les-Moulineaux 92130 France
Oh, I missed the extra sentence in GW1 that said sentry can also spot any attacker within 3" even out of their FoV. So it would not be a functional change for this one, only a failed rewrite.

So you do think that allowing sentries to spot attackers in the open regardless of facing is an intended change? I really don't see how it can make sense.
If it's supposed to represent sound or smell, then why would being in cover completely negate it?
Or does it represent the sentry doing a quick 360 but only focusing their attention in a particular direction? But then 2+ seems a bit too generous.
And even if you leave the simulation aspect aside, that means the only difference facing makes is for attackers in cover in the ]3";12"] range (who are only spotted on a 4+ or 6+), so is it really worth bothering?

Btw, I seems that RAW hidden fighters (prone and in cover) can be spotted if they are in partial cover (full cover would be a 7+), even though they can't be shot at.
 

Kiro The Avenger

Gang Champion
Apr 4, 2018
280
226
48
Bristol, UK
I imagine it representing a quick scan of the battlefield. It makes sticking to cover more important for the attacker.
And given how specifically they called out that standing in the open is regardless of facing, I don't really doubt that is how it's supposed to work.

Not do I really see an issue with being able to spot someone when you can't necessarily shoot them.
 

SoothSayer

Juve
Jul 21, 2018
43
23
23
Lisle, IL, USA
Yes my initial interpretation was this was clearly an exception. Either there is some enemy in LOS front-arc within 2D6", or the enemy is within 3" regardless of facing. RAW is certainly bad, but I'm feeling pretty confident on the RAI.
That's how we play it. Makes narrative sense and works without issue game mechanics wise.