It is the case if you believe the people claiming to be familiar with CB's intent in the previous shitshow. They have stated that CB intended for players to choose destinations for movement without being certain of which models and markers on the table will be able to draw LOF during that order. They also said it is fine to examine the board thoroughly before declaring. Somewhere, they seem to have envisaged a process by which the active player may then choose a position contrary to their intent for which they should incur in game consequences, possibly taking more AROs in than expected. The process by which models end up in a position contrary to their intent is either clumsy choice of the intended destination due to poor observation or clumsy placement of the model due to poor memory of those observations or poor motors skills. The likelihood of all these mistakes is reduced the more time the active player spends on placement, therefore an active player who is winning has no in-game incentive not to maximize the amount of time they spend choosing destinations and placing models, causing the game to break. The game can be unbroken in two ways: Incentivising the active player to hurry up, or helping the active player achieve their intended placement. Both of these methods to unbreak the game are inventions of the player base, with almost no basis in the rules. One is belligerent, the other is cooperative. Guess which most adults choose.
The ZOC measurment faq didnt solve anything for 2 iterations. The problem isnt the wording its the fundamentally different perception in gameplay. CB could state any number of things about LOF or movement in an FAQ and the same posters would likely come down on the same sides with largely similar arguments in all likely hood. Theyve written how they expect you to behave directly into the rulebook from day 1 and we still have a hardcore segment of the community arguing that it either doesnt apply or has a niche interpretation thats completely at odds with the general understanding of the text
@daboarder Based on what's in the rulebook and what @psychoticstorm says it seems to me that there's some sort of divide at CB itself, or CB is trying to have their cake and eat it too by not making a call either way. Obviously the rational path out of this mess is as @the huanglong describes, considering we've got people in other threads saying that if someone takes too long being careful with their minis placement its bad sportsmanship.
Maybe we can find consensus in the uncertianity. - "Do you have lof here?" - "I think so" Option A: - "Well I think you don't let's spend the order and check if I'm lucky". Option B: - "Well I think you don't but let's play it safe. I spend the order to throw a smoke granate". There are situations, and thery are most of the cases, when you are 100% sure if there is a line of fire. Those couple of situations, in my opinion, can be left with this "I think I will be able to see you" , or "I think I won't be able to see you". Then the active player has to make a decision - to risk it or not.
I prefer the oposite way. When doing an action, I often check LOF and if there is any doubt I ask my opponent for a firm confirmation so we can be sure we agree on LOF before I do anything, using laser and silhouette if necessary (as adviced in the rules regarding LOF : "it is up to the players to reach an agreement") This way, we avoid any debate/referee call after the action. Doing like you said is against the rules : if my oponent tell me at once that "he think" he has a LOF and latter that he doesn't, he is cheating : LOF are public info.
I would honestly not put a label of "majority" on any camp, there is nothing that indicates one way of playing is supported over the other especially to indicate a majority. Even then, a majority can, even in overwhelming numbers, play a rule wrong as is the booty/ metachemistry (even after the FAQ it is still played wrong) because playing it wrong is in the benefit/ easier/ more logical of the player that has such skill. So lets leave majority/ minority claims out of it, offer no real value to the discussion and distort perspective. Rationality is also subjective, what one thinks is rational, it is irrational for someone else, so that is not a good metric either to determine something. What is the discussion again? restarting the previous thread is kinda pointless as the trenches have been drawn two years ago.
How about i change majority to "most metas i have interacted with. Including the online one and leave it with a qualitlfier that your meta may vary. Note however that infinity australia wgc infinity the online forum and by all accounts interplanetary have all come down strongly in the side and argument that lof is open info. That it can be drawn to any point on the table and that it can be checked at any time edit: As to the booty rule, I doubt the top players at inter were collectively and consistently getting rules wrong.
You mean apart from the poll where 80% or so of poll respondents answered a particular way, and apart from the experience of very many experienced players from many metas around the world who overwhelmingly report the game played a particular way? Also, can you clarify whether your opinion on the rules is an official rules clarification, and whether disagreeing with your stated opinion is in itself "mischievous"? Or would that be a mischaracterisation? To me it seems likely CB play a certain way, but they also know the majority of players internationally don't play that way. And they've been more or less Ok with that up until now, because ruling one way or the other would open one or another of a different can of worms. Lets see if it stays that way.
The short version would be 'Does line of fire exist between a model/marker and any point on the table, or does it only exist between models/markers including the blast focus of a template, only after a targetless weapon is deployed.' The first one is simple and easy to use, but it allows you to check line of fire to any point on the table any time, using whatever tools etc you have available, which is possibly the dreaded 'premeasure' since you can measure angles, volumes, weights etc other than simple distances. The only defined examples of measurement in the rules are distances so it's possible in game terms only distances may not be measured before declaring an order/skill, and angle, volume, barometric pressure and light levels etc may be 'measured' at any time legally. The last two I don't think are likely to be relevant, and anyone who has a lumin meter is either wasting time or using some kind of string theory based probability prediction and should be reprimanded and/or burnt as a witch. The second is demonstrably more complex, and introduces several scenarios within other rules which are either poorly defined exceptions or at worst contradictions, but with a little bit of definition of a couple of other terms (etc and disrupt)and the application of common sense that looking at the table isn't 'measuring' line of sight it becomes possible. But as @daboarder pointed out it's the least commonly adopted method, so even if it is the intended method, it is not the common method. Like superglue on cuts. It's not what it was invented for, but people will tell you that it was invented by the US in Vietnam to fix broken soldiers. It was actually invented twice once in the late 50s or early 60s as an alternative fixative for developing photographs, and once in the 40s for fixing gunsights to barrels - anyone who's ever applied the slightest amount of heat to superglue will know why that didn't work... But here's the thing, cyanoacrilate, was used as a wound dressing in Vietnam, and most of us have probably used it when we slipped preparing a model etc since we had it on hand(pun intended) . Sometimes the 'wrong' way works... Edit: I realise the irony of starting this post with 'the short version'....
Unless your laser include a protractor, you don't measure using a laser, you just trace a line. Measuring means using a tool to "transform" real thing (distance, weight...) into numerical data. I don't think you measure anything in an infinity game other than distance, so they only forbid that
The only angle that matters to the rules is 0degrees, which can be measured without a protractor, but again the only thing given as an example of measuring in the rules at any point is distance, so that is the only thing we know for sure when it is and isn't allowed. The idea that something is allowed because it's not specifically disallowed, or disallowed because it is not specifically allowed is a huge part of the problem here and both sides will most probably drag out the ridiculous straw man arguments around it. EG 'it does not say in the rules when we're allowed to breath so we have to hold our breath' or 'it doesn't say I can't lick your doughnut to claim ownership' but people are expected to use common sense. (yes you can breath, and no you shouldn't lick your opponent's doughnuts).
My fellow Infinity players, Sorniak asked not about LoF, but about what a model can see. The LoF debate is peripheral to the question, not central to it. A model can see anything in its front arc-- barring obstructions -- and this arc is supposed to be clearly marked on the model's base. It is open information, so yes, it is something that a player can ask about. What a model can see is not the same as LoF. Although the book includes some confusing statements, it does at least make the attempt at distinguishing the two. LoF is narrowly, and incompletely, defined for now. Also, and it is off topic from the question, the rules (p.18) allow for the use of a 'game aid' to determine what a model can see, and thus establish a LoF. It would seem this happens before measuring for range, given that there is no point in measuring for range if there is no LoF. (because the model cannot see.) The blue box mentions a tape measure, but a laser pointer works too. Or for that matter a length of string, or a stick or...
Well line of sight isn't defined at all in the rules so the question is really about line of fire, which is defined, as between a model and it's target, only "target" isn't defined either and so the last 3 pages, the 50 something pages of the Last thread, and the couple of years of arguments on the old forum happens...
When I first started playing infinity at the start of Tagline I noticed the game itself was remarkably casual and I am not a casual player nor do I play with a casual group. A poorly defined meta, some sacred cows like "It's not your list" or "play what looks good" had me very concerned but at the same time kind of exited as most people still had little clue as to what is good or bad, a fun bit of discovery. With ITS giving a taste of meta info I think a lot of people wanted this more competitive and less beer and pretzels game and are still pretty hungry for it. However we are running into something of a wall... Right now I would say the game is 50% skill 30% Luck and 20% knowing the rules better then your opponent or at least arguing the rules better. The game has so many odd or inconsistent rules at this point that we really just have to be patient for the FAQ's and tell then e have to accept that the rules can change from meta to meta. No one is happy about it but there it is.
It is defined, page 18. It's not called Line of Sight. CB refers to it as LoF angle. It should be called something different, IMHO. One's model needs to 'see' the target before it can draw a LoF to the target.
Yup, the weird definition of the 180 to the front of the model is part of the issue. Is it deliberately not called line of sight for a reason or was it overlooked? Regardless, line of fire angle is the angle within which it's possible to draw a line of fire, which isn't the same as every potential line of fire.
See cazboab. Thats why this wont be resolved by an FAQ. Your looking into it way to hard, asking CB if they meant something other measuring distance in a paragrah whose context is only measuring distance. Asking about the lack of the use of the word sight in the rules.... The rules dont bear that kind of scrutiny. They never have. CB can't even keep the use of the term face to face 100% right. And nevermind ss and attacks from outside LOF. Point of the matter is, this is a wargame, you are supposed to be looking on the tsble and on that table there are models with determined arcs of vission and interaction. Most people take that and couple it with being told that what models can see is open information and get on with it. As they should in my opinion
