thoughts on Play by intent

So does that mean I can use the fact that the enemy's Intruder with HMG also has grenades to check exactly what points he has line of fire to across the board, but can't do the same thing to his Intruder sniper?

 

So are you saying that in between orders you can check to see if an enemy model has LoF to any given point, because models can target points?

In regard to the "etc," *everything* in Infinity is a potential target, because targetless weapons exist. What the Blue Box is saying is that you can trace LoF to imaginary, hypothetical targets that might be created by the declaration of an order. The sentence you prefer to quote is merely an elaboration on the sentence with the "etc."

 

A Mão Esquerda, Stiopa, psychoticstorm, and Wolf
Do you all agree this part of the example is in violation of rules as written?

 

Since orders can move minis around, it is very much possible to check existing LoF to a hypothetical new position of a model. Any other interpretation makes that sentence utterly meaningless. I don't care what you *think* it says, because you're clearly misinterpreting it.

 

That's coming off as a very hypocritical statement.

 

Really? Because I've stated multiple times that my opinion was, and still is, that the whole issue is largely irrelevant, we won't come to an agreement and continue to play in different ways, and that while I believe that the rules support one of the interpretations, I see it only as an interpretation and I have absolutely no problem with other people having a different one.

What I do have problem with, is people devolving to name-calling, logical fallacies, and creative ignoring of rule wording, while shouting their way is the only true way. There's no true way here. And I find sexual references to be perfect descriptions of what is going on in this thread.

 

The challenge to find something other than distance being "measured" in the rules is still unaddressed. The whole "looking and checking is measuring argument" is Mickey Mouse, not genuine.

 

DO I really need to explain such basic rules?

 

Eh? Written in English first? By a Spanish company? Any and all other points 100% to the side, you are utterly and categorically incorrect in this statement. I am *not* saying that affects anything else you might be arguing, but you are 100%, unequivocally, categorically wrong in this statement.

 

No, because you'd only get them wrong again.

 

As far as people in this thread have been saying, the rules were written in English first, then translated to other languages. For N3, specifically (I know that wasn't the case before).

 

Hell the fact that this extended definition of premeasuring has been brought up and not retracted by people who continue to have a strong opinion on what the rules say and how the game should be played is a bit worrying.

And before anyone pulls me up on a fallacy, sure being dishonest and unreliable doesn't disprove your argument outright but it doesn't help either.

 

That's because they're trying to force it even though the rules don't support it.

 

Look people in this thread can say the earth is flat, it does not mean it is, do you honestly think people credited in the rulebook do not know how the rulebook came to be?

 

What definition of premeasuring?

 

Technically the rules dont define pre measuring they defone the points at which you can measure.

But thats irrelevant to a laser line as a laser line is not a form of measurement because it does not determine a quantity

 

The basic argument is that by defining a final destination with ultimate certainty is the same as measuring with precision the movement, its the one and the same thing.

 

Guys, was this mentioned in here? This is from 7th page of the pdf. rulebook. Cause I get that 'Exsisting LoF' argument and all, but this one introduces a 'potential target' to what a LOF also is... Might be getting something wrong. I am not a native spiker. Also I woke up to this thread pretty late.

 

This doesn't address what has been presented.

Please define Line of Fire.

If the table isn't a target, then targetless as a rule ceases to work. If table is a target, etc really does mean pretty much the whole table.

Your post also doesn't address whether putting a laser line and silhouettes on the table is allowed or not. Maybe you can't ask your opponent, but potential straight lines could be verified.

No matter how many times we beat this dead horse, people need to accept the rules are not explicit enough.

 

Except they arent, nor are they defined as such in any way within the rules.

Using tools to determine the relative positions of known entities on the table is and cannot

"DISTANCES AND MEASUREMENTS Distances in the game table are measured in inches, using a tape measure or ruler. When measuring the distance between two troopers, players must measure between the closest base edges. To determine what is the distance between two objects or scenery items, players must measure a straight line between them. When moving troopers around the battlefield, players must measure the complete route (including, for example, any detour to avoid obstacles) and must always use the same part of the base for their measurements.

IMPORTANT! As a general rule, the Skills that compose an Order must be declared before measuring (see Structure of an Order, page 28)."

Thats measuring.

Using a laser line to determine a position isnt measuring, and cannot be because you arent measuring, by any definition of the term.

As to arguments on "preciscion" such a relative and qualitative statement has no reason being in a rules set not the least in one that deals with quantitative distances.