No, not really. Some adjacent topics as well, which we'd ask not to be dismissed. They've been separated into their own threads in this subforum. Stuff like various kinds and styles of "intent play", which should really be adressed by the Studio after all this time.
Everyone agrees that LoF is open information. The question became "When can LoF be checked?" Is it only checked when specifically called for by the Order Expenditure Sequence, or can it be checked at any time?
As far as I know open information is checkable at any time you please. It's not like you're disallowed from asking about open information on a profile until you've completed a current order.
Seriously dude? Helllois himself came in to tell you in detail why you're being ridiculous, and you're still on about this? Just give it a rest.
Because thats not what it says, and there is a vast difference between any time needed and any time wanted, as well. Yes yes, the terrible anti-social anti-Intenters. Honestly, beyond any merits the malice of the folks arguing like this turn me off from the position so much. And yet the question remains unanswered...
"You must share Open Information about your Army List while you deploy your Models, Markers and Tokens during the Deployment Phase, and also any time your opponent asks during the game." Now I realise that this doesn't say LoF specifically, but a ruling has been made to say LoF is Open Information. Given the principal of the hightighted section in the above quote, how would you justify withholding LoF? Or arguing that it couldnt be checked on demand? And again, I realise the above quote does not mention LoF, and that LoF is not on a units stats in an Army list (although i guess is sillouette encompasses LoF, and any exceptions to normal LoF would be included on the army list) I'm mearly asking how you would ignore this principle?
LOF is open information, and can be shared at any time I don't mind if someone is like "I am gonna move my guy so they can just see that guy but not see that guy" because it is a game
I wouldn’t, it’s open after all. Because thats not necessarily clear in the rules. But in truth this is all just spiraled out into a skirmish on a larger war over intent and not much more is gonna be said on that. This all just is another thing that’ll hopefully get addressed in an FAQ.
Oooookay someone should probably lock this thread before people attempt to drag the argument out even further. We have a definitive ruling from @HellLois . Can @psychoticstorm or @Koni or somebody please lock the thread to prevent further navel-gazing?
I would like to be able to measure gun range to the exact spot the model was moved and check for additional potential LoF, so please show me how far exactly.
So @HellLois does this mean that CB are on the side of intent? If so finally we have an concrete answer on how we are to play. If your answer has nothing to do with intent then can you please confirm that and then perhaps get us an answer on intent and pie slicing so that we can all be one hobby rather than a bunch of angry people
I’m guessing that @HellLois answer means we can ask if there is a point where only one reactive model can see and then move our figure to that point.
That's not the point of my post, like - at all. LOF is open info, great. So, that LOF where you see only one model exists. You still need to do your best to place a model there, because how else am I supposed to check if my HD trooper sees him? I still can't get anyone to give me a straight answer to this, for days. Preferably CB, but one of the intent players could actually reply as well. I even made a thread about it.
No, what was answered was this question: "Can your Camo Marker on that building see my heavy infantry if I activate him?" What you are after is the answer to a different question: "Can your Camo Marker on that building see my heavy infantry if I move him around this corner over here <indicates a position where there are no units>?"
The LOF of that camo marker is open information so yes you can ask "can you camo marker see this point"
