Indeed though if we are to be nit picky then from what I can see that the Fair play box refers to requirements and the only place referring to requirements seems to be step 6 resolution. Now I could be wrong and if someone points it out politely then I’m happy to admit my mistakes.
My opinion on this matter. I see wrong to be stopting the game every little while to be checking LoF for any reason, but. .. ... I don't have switches in my eyes and I can't stop watching, and knowing, that if a troop is faced in one direction it's easy to know what is seeing and what not.
I do think CB needs to answer whether this question is okay; "If I move my trooper here, who will have LOF?" (It is a question I'm getting tired of answering more often than my opponent spends orders)
That sounds like it might be more of an opponent problem than a rules problem? We could have the Chess Clock Debate again, it's less fraught than having the Intent Debate again :-)
Possibly. The absolutely best players in my meta don't ask me that question except those two or three orders that will be decisive for utterly demolishing my force, but it is a way that most people in my meta has adopted to reduce their own cognitive load and speed up time when on the clock :(
Huh. Might be a meta thing, yeah. I'm not sure that either civility or intent allows a player to make their opponent to do their thinking for them. My preferred approach is to first decide what I think I want to do, then ask along the lines of "I think that if I move here, I'll see A and B and nobody else. Do you agree?" 95% of the time the opponent agrees and I make the move. The other 5%, either we talk about it and come to an agreement about what the LoFs would be, or I just say "ok" and do something else instead. If your opponents are instead asking you to tell them the LoFs for all the different moves they might make, without first thinking about it themselves, yeah that doesn't sound cool. Still sounds to me like a time usage issue for the TO to deal with rather than a rules issue, but if it's become accepted practice in your meta, yup that sounds frustrating :-(
My perspective is that if the rules plausibly allow for an interpretation, the rules are at least partially at fault and that is the only variable we can reasonably control. Certainly what is "plausible" will change from person to person and in many situations the previously mentioned opponents will take the lion's share of the blame, but we can at least work to minimize how much of it is a result of some omissions in the rules. For some it may be enough to change their behaviour, for others it may prevent it in the first place.
Strictly RAW, it looks like you only actually measure LoF at 3 points: Steps 2 and 4 of the Orders Expenditure Sequence when the Reactive player checks for ARO. Step 6 during Resolution like with any other requirement. You can eyeball it beforehand just like you can eyeball distance, but the rules only say to actually measure it at 3 points. Well, more like 2, but then the third place is required but not actually stated, but given that other measurement is also done in Resolution, and LoF on most skills just lumps it into the Requirements section, that's pretty clear.
True, but in this scenario it sounds like maybe the opponent is doing something that is allowed (indeed, encouraged) by the rules, but doing it over and over again in a way that wastes time and is massively annoying. The only rules-based solution I can see to that would be chess clocks. I've never played with them so I don't have an opinion on whether they improve the game. But in theory, they provide an objective rule to deal with time-wasting behaviour: yes, you can ask about LoF as many times as you like, but you do it on your own time. LoF isn't a measurement. There are various points where you have to check who has LoF to see whether they have AROs, but that doesn't stop you from checking LoF at any other time you choose.
On what page does it say I can look around the room to check where the bathroom is so that I can go take a pee? LoF is visible on the table. You can check it any time you want.
There is no need to be facetious. Eyeballing things is not the same as measuring them. I can eyeball distances all I want, but I only actually measure them when the rules call for it. The rules only explicitly say to measure LoF in two spots. It's not even remotely the same as saying "I can just check it whenever and however I want!"
I think the problem (at least for me, that English is not my native language) is the use of the word «check». If «check» means «stop the game and verify if there is LoF or not», then no, it cannot be done outside of the established times. If «check» means «looking at the table and looking at where the different troops are facing, knowing, with a high probability, who sees whom», then yes it can be done In short, you can eyeball LoF whenever you want, but you can only verify LoF on the specified occasions. [I hope I have explained myself well]
Again, you don't measure LoF. You check it. By looking at what lines can be drawn, and checking that your opponent agrees. You can do that at any time. I assume you're playing devil's advocate, since nobody actually plays the way you're suggesting. If a player were to actually refuse to confirm LoF with their opponent when asked, they would very quickly run out of opponents.
You're trying to add in the ability to measure where the rules do not allow for it. They are quite explicit when you check LoF, and nowhere does it say that you can check it at any time.
Well, using the term "player" is a bit generous, since from my understanding the people who are against intent don't really interact with the rest of the community to, you know, play games, but yes.
Mmm, the problem is that skills like Berserk don't work if you're only allowed to check LoF at those points and those points only.
Berserk makes a specific call for checking for LoF at the time of declaring the skill. All other skills just have it as part of their Requirements. Requirements are checked during step 6 of the Order Expenditure Sequence.