It is also allowed to see where there would be LoF between models or possibly future location of models. What I mean, is the rule allows you (although not explicitly) to look at the table. Using a laser is definitely not pre-measurement as you are not measuring any measurement at all. Unless you are using a distance-laser in that case that would be as illegal as a ruler. Also what you are checking with a laser on the table is not called LoS because as Regnator said, LoS only exist between models. What you're checking is the absence or presence of physical object that visually obstruct your sight (or the laser sight) from a point in space to another point in space. And as I said, the visual appearance of the game table, while not being Open Info per se, is something you are still allowed to see.
Using a laser pointer is tracing a LoS in my opinion and would follow the usual rules. In tournaments i would not allow you to do so except when an order allow you to it. Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
It's not that you can't it's juste you don't have any reason to outside using an order when you think of it (and play by raw). In play by intent it's another beast. Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
REMINDER - the gaming etiquette box that says that LoF is open information was written for Orders that would be disrupted by current LoF to the trooper's position, such as Cautious Movement and recamouflaging.
I don't know. It was under Cautious Movement initially, I requested that it be moved to the Open and Private Information section. EDIT - and in the files I was working from when building the wiki, it had been moved to Open and Private Information. Presumably the designers moved it again due to lack of space.
Thats funny, because how would anyone guess that it only applies to thing like recamo or Cautious Movement? I mean really, its in the book under Movement. And since it ended there, it should count for all movements or there will always be arguments all over the place.
"disrupt the declaration of a given Order before declaring it" The only Orders that can be disrupted in that way are Cautious Movement and regaining/gaining marker states. Anyway, apologies for taking the thread further off-topic, that was the exact opposite of my intention.
I am of the same mind as @Robock. The table is inherently open information. It honestly does not even need to be defined as such. No reasonable person would say that you are not allowed to visually inspect the table, which makes all this malarky about pre-measuring silly. Why should the ability to estimate distance be a skill needed to play the game well? Anyway, that's neither here nor there. Even without pre-measuring you can look at the table and see where ALL of the Lines of Fire are, excepting anything that isn't literally ON the table, like a Hidden Deployment model.
Pre measuring DOES change a lot. It change the way we play by allowing us to take risk free actions Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
You suggested it, though, based off of implying that players can't trace LoF from points where their models *will be* to other points on the table.
To be fair we are stumbling upon the core problem of infinity. Most of the rules are ok but some are poorly written in the sense that they are sometine open to interpretation. Or you need to refer to another rule to have a broad understanding. For exemple LoS rules never says that you can't check line of sight when you want, but combine them with the skilk order rules and activation rules and you realize there is no reason whatsoever to check line of sight outside a skill order that specificaly mention you need to. Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
Actually they can't, they can only trace LoS after they declared their order and made their move. This is why play by intent is by RAW illegal. Envoyé de mon LG-H815 en utilisant Tapatalk
The problem here is that people on both sides of the argument write in absolutes like this and they both claim to have rules backing them up. The point is that the intent debate is just that - a debate (though not publicly, anymore) - and people should stop writing things like this.
