Hell, if you’re going to try to fix problems with the line of sight system, changing it so that line of sight is drawn to and from 2mm “square” sections would probably help out a bit, too.
im saying this almost never comes up. but that doesn't matter because we don't do this to one another anyway. because that's the way we play it. CB, god, or stone tablets don't dictate our fun. still wrong. by this logic tournaments wouldn't function, they would fall to pieces the first time anyone encounters a rule they don't like or play wrong or understand.
In cases where you are jumping to tag someone on the other side of a small wall the super-jumping model is next to, yeah. Otherwise for longer distances the difference is minimal, though might still be enough for your overmatching models to get an ARO.
This is not theorycrafting this is literally how it goes every time i have a new opponent that i have not played against before: We have to go through all this before a game: How do you play climb? How does NFB apply to limited camo+mimetism or a TO trooper who deployed as a camo marker? How do you play crits with impact templates for secondary targets? (in case of Yujing) Can a hacking device detect a holoprojector hacker? And these are only the ones i actually ask before a game because they come up regularly in a game. Now i also have to add this new thing. Do you think there is a point where you can't shoot back at trooper higher than you? I usually do not even argue any of these points. I just want to know how to do this before the game starts because it could influence my deployment and what i'm doing. How is this not a hassle? I don't see how you can be so condescending about this.
different strokes for different folks I guess. I'm a pretty easy going guy. The only conversation I've had before a game with a new opponent is "hey, intent?" then the proceeding yes/no. I know you think that those four bullet points come up every game, but they don't, and they have an even smaller chance of actually effecting the outcome of the game if they do. If something like this does come up while we're playing, we discuss it. If I am convinced one way or the other, or, I convince the other player one way or the other, great. we move on. if we can't come to an agreement, we just ask the TO. (assuming this is a tournament scenario, if its not then it doesn't really matter).
If it's not a tourney (or even if it is, just to speed things up) my opponents and I will ofttimes roll a die, with the active player rolling, and the reactive calling even/odd or high/low. Whoever wins the roll, that's the interpretation for the rest of the game.
Too much incentive for people to cheat. I've already had people tell me "the judge said this" when they said nothing of the sort with respect to tournament rulings.
It was resolved to my satisfaction. My point is you've got to know the rules, and you've got to insist on playing by them, not just rolling a die, otherwise it incentivizes dodgy rules interpretations.
Ah, I didn't realize that the proposal was to be able to draw LoF through their silhouette. I agree that it should not do that. I also don't see much of a problem with an S2 model gaining an ARO against a larger (read: taller) model in the FAQ situation. Lastly, I actually don't mind your "prone can't do this" solution, as clunky as it is rules-wise... considering how much harder it is to look up when you are actually prone. The first order of business, however, is to find out if Super-Jumping/Roof-Crawling/Large-Silhouetting into a no ARO situation was intended by CB or not. Only with that question answered can we move on from here. IJW seems to think that was not the intent, but at best we are unsure about CB's intent.
Well this has all got a little strange eh? This has gone from an honest question about LoF interpretations based on the rules and FAQ1.2, which was intended to provoke a discussion, to I’m not sure what.... Guess I should feel honoured that my diagrams are now part of Infinity history, although i’m not so sure if the intention was to make light of the question or to reverse the current rules. IJW one of the most knowledgeable Infinity players I know (and a good sportsman as well) has stated that to the best of his knowledge, my diagrams are the way the FAQ1.2 etc shows how LoF works. I think our key issue as a community is to identify rules issues and diffuse/clarify them so that in tournaments we don’t need to challenge each other’s interpretations of the rules. It’s not right to declare that people are showing bad sportsmanship because they are following rules that are officially written. That being said, there is precedent that the community as a whole can collectively “house rule” before a FAQ, the best and most recent example of this is the XenoTech causing ARO issue. Honestly, the horizontal LoF issue is not a serious thing. It just means if you want to guard a corner you have to have rotated your LoF to face that corner, so you can’t cover 2 corners at once. I guess the gameplay issue is summarised nicely by the friend I was playing when this cane up. He’s thinking that he will have to ask each player he faces, before the game, the clarify the situation on LoF and facing. The issue is that we done want a game that requires 10 minutes before each game to define How LoF works, How Doors Work in addition to How Scenery Works (which is essential) and if people are playing with intent. A good game system should not need to be clarified and patched up by house rules before each game. BTW Infinity is a great system! Every player I have player I have always found to be a good sport, but the times I have come into conflict with players are always in those grey areas, Doors/Windows/Railings giving cover etc There have also been some recent successes for the game in the FAQ. Fixing Engaged/Unconscious (playing JSA this was a huge one for me!) and fixing quantum dodge. We have a great and complex game, with a loyal and passionate following, and it would be great if we can work together to identify potential issues and deal with them (or make suggestions to CB), and not to question the sportsmanship of players we don’t know or haven’t played. Just to remind everyone, this was a live question from a friendly game. I pointed out the questions/issue to my opponent as it was a bit unusual, my opponent said sure, I think that’s how it works, but in the end I did something else and said i’d post about it. This has generated a lot of useful and positive points, but also a lot of flat denial of the rules, or at worse outright abusive statements. We either decide these rules are as intended by CB or not. If I was a TO, I would clarify this at the start of tournaments (alongside rules for Doirs/Windows and resolving timing) before game play starts just to help ease any tension ms about the rule and make for smooth gameplay and positive experiences. No one wants a gotcha moment with the rules but they happen. Last tournament an enemy Interventor couldn't ARO my Crane Rank who moved with stealth then dodged, because a Celestial Guard with Control Device (coms equipment) was in a link, so he had to ARO vs that using blackout. It was kindof a gotch Rules moment, but after discussing the issue we both accepted that’s how it worked. Be nice people, have constructive opinions, and clear arguments, and then CB/WarCors/TO’s can make informed decisions. I’ve made lots of rules queries in tournament games, some I was right about, some I was wrong, some I was ruled against and the TO later said he was wrong, but at the time I always respect the TO’s ruling and try to move game play on. The worst thing that’s happened in a tournament was when a guy had made an infiltration roll while I was away from the table, and I had to ask him to make it again in front of me, which I felt really bad about doing, because it felt like acusing someone of being dishonest. That’s why I think clear sequences and common practices e.g. recording hidden deployment by photo or diagram are so important.
Irrelevant here, that's meant to point to other games where mutual awareness doesn't exist. See the first page of the FAQ:https://assets.infinitythegame.net/downloads/faqs/en/v1.4/faqs.pdf "180º front half base, but without LoF from the 180º front half base? A troop have a LoF angle of 180º, that is, they can see with the front half of their base. LoF can be drawn from any point in the troop’s volume to any point in the target’s volume. Because of this little nuance of troop / target, “If I can see you, you can see me” the target can draw LoF to the attacker troop when the attacker is within the 180º front half base of the target. In summary: For a miniature can ARO must be within its 180 front half base and be able to draw the LoF from those 180º. As we can see on the graphic, the Fusilier can draw a LoF from any point of his volume to any visible point of the volume of the Reverend. The Fusilier is within the 180º front half of the Reverend, but she can’t draw a LoF from her 180º front half, because the scenery block the line, so she can’t shoot." The clarification is that LoF must be drawn from the front half of your base in order to shoot.
Yep, that’s what I understand it to be, and in reality all of these examples i’ve given are extrapolations from this diagram
Funnily enough, this clause actually means nothing after the FAQ. I used to think it was there specifically for the situations you show but that seems to be wrong. It must be a good over from pre silhouettes days
