LoF to rear arc issue

Everyone I've ever played with has played by intent. We don't argue about placement, we accept that an angle is possible, and a well stated and reasonably positioned model is good enough. (We also help with can that guy see here? Yes/No how about here?)

That being said, in my experience when playing against intent super jumpers, the best defense to to use prone more often. Being prone dramatically changes that steepness of the angle needed to aquire LoF. Super jump can still wall hack, but they need to be on top of a building you are prone next to, models without super jump need to lean out, likely giving mutual LoF.

I hope that didn't go too far off topic.

 

The problem is we don't know that position. we don't know exactly where it is or who can see them.

Here's the thing. I play with a form of intent. most of us do. But im not going to be pushed around by some dickhead because he wants to win a game of infinity. I'm not going to let him, or her, take away my or anyone else fun.

 

Nope. It actually makes the game more playable; how do you define a point strictly when most people can't hold a mini in exactly static position in midair?

 

Thats a little misleading.

The game prohibits pre-measuring distance.

The game explixilty endorses Line of Fire as open information.

A superjumper can try to see somthing, and run out of movement to get there, the super jumper can know where he ideally would want to be.

 

I think we are reaching the point that this issue and the intent debacle are converging...

 

Hold a silhouette in the air, replace the relevant models with silhouettes, have a basic knowledge of geometry. It's doable. The only tricky part is holding it in a precise position for an extended length of time. It's pretty workable to see who gets seen along a jump path; put your head there, with your eye at about the point of the model, and draw your head upward. What's more or less impossible is stopping at exactly a given height, but since you can use intent to define the limit of your jump you know that you see models A and B but not C along your path to jump to see model D, for example.

Well, I want my opponents to want to win, typically. It makes the game fun. What I don't enjoy is playing against someone with poor sportsmanship - and since your situation is "I refuse to acknowledge my opponent's ability to describe a point their model moves to, so instead I will insist that the model be moved to another point which is more advantageous to me" there's only one "dickhead" here.

 

Indeed, but in fairness the original ‘Spanish Game’ is pretty ballsy, and we’re not all blessed with the mighy swinging blocks and tackle of the game’s authors! Hence players attempt to control the game, make it feel safer, and remove the challenging and uncertain elements like estimating model placement and ARO.s.

So the intent players usually have the game nicely buttoned down, fairly sneering at those of us trying to live up to the Gallician standard of manliness. Instead, they can stand around the game table feeling pretty smug about their gentlemen’s agreement for exactly how many ARO.s their units will take before they even move them and generally singing Kum Ba Ya together.

Just not so much, in this particular situation.

 

Be careful with the intent and no intent stuff, forum users. You know this will escalate quickly.

So better go away from the keyboard and go paint some miniatures instead of starting insulting between yourselves.


Thank you.

 

@Koni Does CB have any plans to resolve this issue, or do they see it fine as it is?

 

Go back and read the example originally posted @theradrussian
his quotes implied the opponent would be pushy and dismissive.

 

There's a saying among developers: players never look up.

Until you teach them to, that is. It kind of makes sense that a trooper would be unpreoared for an attack from a vertical position. Once. Then they start looking up. Which decreases awareness from flanks. You know how it goes.

But in Infinity you can't look up...

 

His response was an implied reaction to someone doing the "Nuh-uh! If I admit you have LoF I get a tactical disadvantage so I won't!" response to a super-jump attack, by my reading. In that case telling someone to not be an ass is reasonable.

 

I'm not going to argue semantics with you hecaton.

 

Great! I'd suggest not arguing the rest of the points either, if you can't engage on that level.

 

You seem to be on a crusade to start fights with everyone lately. Are you ok?

 

I do love how issues unrelated to intent like this always get held up by non-intenters. As if its somehow actually hard to use hand eye coordination to do this regardless of if you play with intent or not. If you are unaware of the implications of this, or you are arguing that it doesnt come up in your games because you "dont play intent" its probably far more likely that you merely dont play the game at all, certainly not within the wider community.

Its fairly trivial put the opponent in these positions as soon as you start using silhouettes, and its even easier on anything that isnt on a 25 mm base.
This issue is actually one of the major drawbacks of the S4+ Rems who are typicallly not all that tough yet whose 55 mm base makes them incredibly vulnerable to this style of play.

I guess the ultimate take away is that unforunately this is what the game is, that is abundantly clear at this stage. CB can either change how LOF is drawn or adress it in some other means

 

@Koni, I don't think anyone on the international forum has asked you, so I will. Do you paint minis at all?

Yes, interactivity. Ask the opponent about what they are doing. "Why are you spending the extra order?" "To position my mini so that I may shoot yours without provoking an ARO." It is indeed unreasonable, beyond unreasonable really, to feel that something untoward is going on when the opponent is playing by the rules-- and not at all stretching them, and using sound tactics, even if the tactics used never occurred to the player. Out-maneuvering an opponent is tactics 101. Heck, it goes to the heart of this game.

This tactic is no different than pie-slicing-- using the terrain to block AROs-- other than it is in a vertical plane. If one thinks in 3 dimensions, it is something one does all the time. I've done it with the Lasiq, the Lasiq Sniper, and the Tikbalang. They are well suited for this sort of tactic.

Yes, I suspect that it is meant to be considerably harder to guard against. It benefits rooftop snipers quite a bit. We do know how CB likes their snipers, which makes me think it is deliberate, rather than a unanticipated consequence. That diagram with the Libertos in which CB seems to be pointing out that this sort of tactic is obvious, or ought to be, to everyone. ( A perfect opportunity to settle this quickly, squandered. C'mon CB. do better.) I'd also point out that in many cases, getting a mini in a position to do this kind of shooting will probably be very order intensive. Unless they have climbing plus... or super jump.

There is a reason why I had started building terrain that provided overhead cover, BTW. Awnings, pergolas, bus stop kiosks, etc all can give overhead cover.

It never occurred to me to do so, since I don't use Tarik or the Khawarij, but a playing aid to hold a super-jumper's silhouette in place to determine AROs would be fairly simple to make. We bring other playing aids to the game.

 

Guessing distances isn't the part of Infinity I find interesting.

 

what does it matter? you're just going to whine and tell me my opinion, and everything I stand for, and how I play the game is wrong anyway

 

Distance being hidden has no bearing on this.

Maybe they could stop derailing threads.
This is trivial to achieve placing models and i question the finemotor skills and perception abilities of anyone whose played more than 50 games and cant do this by eye and hand alone.