After reading play by intent ( https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/thoughts-on-play-by-intent.724/page-51 ) thread, I got confused. I the following situation legal? (we played it localy all the time): "One player asks another player if his figure can see a specific passage, or place on ground"? Thank you for answering! :)
That kind of sight out of the front arc to any point is not defined by the rules. Your question hasn't been resolved. Most probably you can ask, but your opponent has no obligation to answer (although provision for lying is not granted either). Given you can check this information by yourself, the vast majority of opponents will help you check to speed things up, and agree on what models on the table will be able to draw a Line of Fire if you move along that path before you commit to it.
"shrug" LOF is open information, and honestly unless you want to waste ti,e just man up and tell your opponent or work it out with him what can see what, the troops on the table a necessarily open info so...
What do you think the following text means? "Gaming Etiquette Checking all possible Lines of Fire for all figures and Markers on the table can be cumbersome. It is perfectly acceptable for a player to ask their opponent whether existing Lines of Fire could disrupt the declaration of a given Order before declaring it. Players are expected to share this Open Information in a truthful and sportsmanlike manner. Honesty and fair play are conducive to a better gaming atmosphere, and all players benefit from that." It's the blue box on http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Open_and_Private_Information
@sorniak I think what Solkan is trying to say is that the wording of the much-abused Gaming Etiquette section is actually very clear. Because Line of Fire is defined very tightly as the line between models, and the word 'existing' was used by the authors quite deliberately. So the straight answer to your question is that you can ask your opponent which models currently have LoF; but you can't ask which models would have LoF at a particular position. In fact, many players will probably try to help out with that sort of speculative question in a general (not precise) way, but thats absolutely not the same thing as being required by the rules to provide such information in precise detail, which is the basis for the 'play by intent' meme. (Nice to see you made it out here Solkan, and we can assume the rumours of your death were exagerrated as usual?) ;-^
Exactly :) The definition of the Line of Fire : " (LoF) is an imaginary straight line that joins any point of the volume of a model or Marker to any point of the volume of another." But that definition together with "Gaming Etiquette" paragraf don't make sense. Because that would mean I can't watch at table at positions of enemy figures. Because that would mean I'm trying to check the figures LOF to specific location, trying to guess whenever i'll get ARO or not. It's a mindblow for me. I didn't see ANYONE who played it that way.
I'm pretty sure you can look at the table all you want, but the final placement of your model is your choice, not your opponent's. You can ask whatever you want, but unless there is a line of fire there's no obligation to answer, and by the definition of line of fire, there needs to be a valid target at the end. However even in this case, potential lines of fire are not defined as private or open information,though it should perhaps be noted that while it doesn't specifically make it open information, private information is fairly well defined and doesn't include potential lines of fire. There was a suggestion that anyone with a targetless weapon would be forced to declare line of fire to any point on the table, but personally I'd say that the marker or template is the target, and since it doesn't exist until the shot has been declared, there isn't a line of fire until then. The FAQ writer(at least I think that's one of @psychoticstorm 's hats) didn't like the idea of adding a bunch of design notes to clear it up, so I suggest we phrase the questions as such: Are potential lines of fire from a model to any point of the table open information? If the answer is yes, then we're done here, but if the answer is 'potential lines of fire are not open information beyond what the players can see for themselves. " (which is really the only way I can think of to phrase it as no without creating a logical headache) the second question is: Are targetless weapons considered to have an existing line of fire to any point of the table in range? The answer to which has to be 'targetless weapons only have line of fire once the shot has been declared' in order to remain consistent with the first answer, and to avoid another logical headache...
Ultimately you will need to discuss and agree with your opponent. There's at least two views on this and the discussion got to 50 pages without resolution. Make of that what you will.
So where I get lost here is the reason for an unobstructed line between two points in space being open information if each space lies within a silhouette, but not being open information if one of the points doesn't lie within a silhouette. They are both based on the same 3 pieces of (IMO) indisputably open information: 1.) The Silhouette of a model(s), which creates a series of viable starting (and ending) points for a line 2.) The models' facing (180 degree arc) 3.) The shapes of all terrain features The negative of #3 defines all open space on the board, and the rest of the information needed to construct LoF is manifested from creating two points in space using #1 and #2 as limits. How is using this information to draw a line between two points on buildings any different than 2 points on silhouettes, all I've done is change my limit conditions. I'm not going to argue that the Etiquette section, RAW, Solkan is absolutely right. I just feel like the combination of me never having seen it played that way and that there isn't a clarification means that CB thinks it is so basic that they don't have to clarify it.
Your question is legal. You're not asking about LoF; you're asking what a mini can see. There is the thing called LoF angle in the N3 rulebook. (p.18) This is the 180 arc in front of the mini, its field of vision. It is open information-- since it is not specified as private. There is no problem in asking your opponent about what may be in the LoF angle of any of said opponent's minis. LoF angle is not the same as LoF. However... ...unfortunately, as seen in the thread you cited, CB did not maintain any sort of consistency in its use of terms. For example, on the same page, "For the entirety of its Order, a troop that declared Movement can draw a 360º LoF." This should probably say, "For the entirety of its Order, a troop that declared Movement can draw a 360º LoF angle." Things would less contentious if CB maintained the distinction it made at the start of the section. Or renamed LoF angle to something else.
Follow the etiquette rule and and share open information truthfully. As to the argument about "points on the table", LOF must include points on the table or targetless weapons would cease to work. The alternative is that targetless weapons are able to act like laser guides and draw LOF to any point on the table but every other model in the game is not. When you have an instance of a questionably defined rule like LOF restricting the gameplay and twisting it non nonsensically (targetless being able to check LOF to any point and everyone else not too) the reasonable conclusion and the one taken up by the majority of the community is that LOF can exist to any point on the table. As such it can be checked at any time, at any point as per the etiquette rules. For added evidence of how the community expects you to behave in the above situation: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/poll-what-does-lof-being-open-information-mean-to-you.1181/ therefore yes it is legal and you are expected to answer truthfully
Do we really need to rehash exactly the same conversation that can't be resolved without input from CB?
Unless you only draw line of fire when you declare the skill, and it's drawn to the template blast focus, which wasn't on the table until you declared it. Which if we follow the order of how an impact template(which so far all targetless weapons basically are) is fired, you place the template (or marker for a pitcher etc) then check for line of fire and range. You can look and see were you think you'll be able to draw a line of fire to, or were you'll be in the right range band, but you only ever actually check *after* placing the template/marker, so it makes sense in that it has a line of fire when it's declared, but not until then. Now it might be the case that it's not how it works and everything has line of fire to everything all the time but the fact is that there is a way within the existing structure of the rules for targetless weapons to work without drawing line of fire to the table, hence the two questions in post #7 which if answered in FAQ will solve the issue in a nice neat way...
No...because to put the impact template down at all you need LOF to a target point on the table. Furthermore the strongest reading of the silly "can only check existing LOF" means you can ask before declaring the order. An FAQ isnt needed when 80+% of the community agree on the rules
Yes it is when some senior members of the community (who will be teaching new players) have issue with it and the rest want to put the issue to bed.
I think point 3 is in the same category as asking the time or how long you guys have left to finish the game. It can be debated whether this is "information in an Infinity game" but I believe it is, therefore: 1) It has to be either open or private, and 2) It is not listed as private information 3) It therefore has to be open information The rules say this kind of information has to be answered truthfully, or in some cases volunteered. I'm not sure how enforceable a rule that would be though. If you ask your opponent how much time you have left to finish a round and they don't have a clock, are they really obliged to find out for you?
This is a mischievous post that deliberately contradicts what the Forum Moderator has already clarified in regard to this specific claim.
The forum moderator is a valued member of the community. He is not the rules designer (gutier is) Nor is he an employee of cb. He has no authority beyond a regular poster into interpretation of the rules. Please do not be disingenuos or misleading again.
