I have usually operated under the agreed upon line of fire approach in N3 play, where my opponent would say something like “I’m going to move to this corner to gain LoF on that model, but not those two” which (assuming we agree that the movement can happen as described) then I would respond to with the appropriate ARO. So, this grows out of the intent and valid ARO conversations, but I think merits a separate discussion. In the intent thread there was a good reminder that LoF is a pyramid, drawn from one model to another, where the vertex is a point on the silhouette of the first model, and the base tangent with the silhouette of the second Model projecting at least a 3x3mm square on the surface of the silhouette. This creates a couple interesting interactions. Let’s say Model 1 declares Move, and from about 14” away edges out behind a corner to see Model 2 presumably to project the pyramid as described above. However, not enough of Model 1 is exposed for Model 2 to draw LoF and see it, during Step 2 of the Order expenditure sequence on Page 23: 2. Declaration of AROs: The Reactive Player checks Lines of Fire to the Active Trooper, and declares AROs. Troopers are not forced to declare the AROs, but if a Trooper can declare an ARO and fails to do so, the chance to declare an ARO is lost. Note that Model 1 has not checked (and indeed doesn’t have to check) LoF to Model 2 up to this step, as far as I can see. It’s specifically Model 2 checking for LoF against Model 1, which it does not have. Then, if Model 1 was to check LoF at the declaration of his second skill in Step 3, BS Attack, Model 2 now gets LoF by the reciprocal LoF rule on page 26: ► As long as any Trooper can draw LoF to its target, the target can draw LoF to its attacker as well, as long as the attacker is within the target’s front 180º arc So, it looks like it's only upon having been a target of the BS Attack skill that Model 2 draws LoF, as above. As a result, Model 2 gets an ARO at Step 4 in response to that second skill declaration. This advantages the reactive player a bit in most cases. However, if Model 1 was only 7” away, and things played out as above, it looks like this would result in Model 2 having to declare a valid ZoC ARO in response to the first Move skill at Step 2. Is this intended? Am I completely off base here?
I don't think "attacker" in that sentence means that the rule only kicks in once a skill with the "attack" label is declared.
Yeah, I want to agree based on N3. But I kinda think it does mean "attacker" based on the context of the sentence, which also includes the term "target" which only exists, I think, in relationship to an attack. So it would mean that if any trooper declares a valid attack (thereby making the other model a target of the attacker, and requiring unidirectional LoF) that target also has LoF back if its within its vision arc. There are two interpretations I see. I think the one both you and I would favor is that the _ability_ to declare an attack from one model to the other creates LoF, not the actual declaration. In which case, LoF just exists at all times, and is either present or not based on the position of the models and the ability to project from one to the other LoF. The alternative (and again, this is why I'm asking if its intended) is that you follow the Order Expenditure Sequence, which specifies that you check LoF from Reactive to Active trooper in Step 2, in which case it suggests that (per my example scenario above) the reactive trooper LoF only happens when an Attack Skill is invoked in Step 3 of the Order Expenditure Sequence by the attacker.
I don't think the discussion really needs to be had, though. As someone (@toadchild ?) pointed out in the other thread where this was brought up, all the active player is doing is handicapping themselves by not exposing a 3x3 mm cross section going by your proposed interpretation. Therefore, they wouldn't do it, and the situation never comes up. I can't think of a situation where it would be beneficial for the active player to not have the reactive player declare their ARO after the first skill, if possible.
The situation that I describe above inside of ZoC seems relevant. You get a ZoC dodge or reset (as per Page 27), I get a shotgun within 8". But I agree, outside of 8", you would want to force the ARO following the first skill. And while I know the Dodge skill box on page 14 says it requires LoF, this is at odds with the ZoC dodge described on Page 27, and the Page 64 Dodge skill box (which of course is different than the simplified page 14 one). Perhaps we can clarify that in the process.
1. I don't like Infinity plays that rely on millimeter-level placement. I especially don't think it should be the focus of the introductory product. 2. I don't think the active player needs even more ways to force the opponent to make sub-optimal ZoC ARO choices.
1. Totally agree, as per my first paragraph in the thread. However, this isn't about what I like, it's about what the rules ask us to do. As it stands, it looks like we're being asked to base decisions of Line of Fire based on the point of view of the model making the declaration (attacker) at the time of declaration. That gives the Active player the option to position so that he has just enough showing to draw his line, but not expose for the Step 3 BS Attack ARO. As you (and @Sabin76 ) and I in the OP all point out, this usually would be to the disadvantage of the active player. But not always, particularly when he can force another, non-BS Attack Step 3 ARO. 2. Sure, but the sub-optimal ZoC ARO choices (and ability to force your opponent to make them) you are referring to are in the N3 rules, and that's why I'm interested in whether or not this is an intended interaction for C1. This is why I brought up the valid ARO thread, too, b/c the sequencing seems relevant to that as well. If you declare an ARO BS attack in Step 2 but don't gain LoF until I shoot in Step 3, does it become valid, or did you just Idle? If LoF is only present following declaration of a skill that makes use of it, does it go away at the end of the Order, or persist indefinitely once it starts, or until the models move? I think there are ways to fix this (my favorite is that LoF is measured between the active and reactive models at all times, and is always present) but that's not how it's laid out in the book, as far as I can tell. Edit: fixed step numbers
As stated in the other thread, poor word choice is a common CB issue. Compare the Code One text As long as any Trooper can draw LoF to its target, the target can draw LoF to its attacker as well, as long as the attacker is within the target’s front 180o arc. to the N3 text MUTUAL AWARENESS In Infinity, Line of Fire always assumes reciprocity, following the rule of thumb “if I can see you, you can see me”. This means that as long as any troop can draw LoF to its target, the target can draw LoF to its attacker as well (assuming, of course, that the attacker is within the target’s front 180o arc). For that matter, the description of mutual awareness in 2nd edition was: In Infinity, the LoF is reciprocal, applying the rule "if I can see you you can see me". If a figure can draw LoF to its target, then the target can draw LoF to the figure as well (if it is inside of its field of vision.) In other words, CB has been consistently using "target" in this context to mean "the figure you're drawing line of sight to", not "the receiving end of an attack". Likewise, "attacker" has been consistently gotten used in places where an attack is merely expected, not required.
I'm aware of the N3 text, but it's worth remembering 1) this isn't N3 and several things have changed and 2) the Order Expenditure Sequence has been changed to be quite specific in what way LoFs are determined during the ARO steps (from reactive to active). Change "from - to" to "between - and" or something indicating mutual LoF, I think we're good. Or add a sentence that LoF is always mutual and present or not depending on the position of models on the table and not on skill activations, we're good. What we shouldn't do for an intro rules set is expect new players to make comparisons with two generations of previous rule editions to determine what's going on. If this is a poor word choice issue, and we all agree it probably is, then now's a great time to get it fixed since we're live-updating the rules.
I do think that N4 is relevant, as C1 is based off of that, and should not produce contradictory rulings. However, we don't have N4 yet.
The really funny/frustrating thing is that if the 2nd edition era forum were still accessible, everyone could get to see the old threads about 2nd edition pie slicing and "By god, I demand the right to not have reciprocal LoF". I could be remembering wrong, but I'm pretty sure even the 2nd edition wording was used as justification for the argument. I'm not sure how anyone can claim that the previous editions are irrelevant when large sections of the rules text are copy/pasted or identical between editions. It's the same authors, repeating the same mistakes over the years. They make improvements, but they've got writing inertia.
Relevant? Absolutely. But I think given the number of things that _have_ changed, we need to know whether the changes here imply a change to how things work in game. I think we also have a requirement to be even more clear in the starter rules, and not rely on old forum posts from us grognards to sort it out, b/c I suspect that new players aren't going to come here first like we might. That's what's exciting about CB updating the rules text, and I think a minor change here could certainly help.
