1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Is LoF open info?

Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Oct 23, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Armihaul

    Armihaul Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2017
    Messages:
    1,470
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    I wouldn't dare to say that this answer solves anything related to intent vs result. This is nothing related to that, and trying to look for roundabouts to make claims that CB is saying any side as official, is directly wrong
     
  2. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    Strictly speaking, no because there is no LOF between a Trooper and empty space. Here's how the rules define what Line of Fire is:
    The Line of Fire (LoF) is an imaginary straight line that joins any point of the volume of a Model, Token, Marker or valid target to any point of the volume of another.
    Less strictly speaking; kind of.
    You'd absolutely be able to tell whether the Marker has LOF to roughly the corner or near the corner, but whether the Marker has LOF to precisely a spot that is a bit more complicated than just "roughly in that direction or that lane of fire", like if the corner is not perpendicular to the ground but backwards sloped or if there is another obstacle that's almost but not quite perfectly lined up so that it's not obvious, then no we haven't had information on whether you can stick down a silhouette marker and check that at any time.

    Of course, that also ties in to the Warmahordes 2e problem of sticking down Markers just to pre-measure or reminders....
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  3. atomicfryingpan

    atomicfryingpan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    God so many awful bad faith arguements here. It's awful. Me and my community play you place the model where it lies and take whatever happens. I also have played in places where it's the opposite so either way is fine and both can be played quickly and very fun. I personally enjoy play it as it lies because it's just a game and I'd rather just place the model and roll the dice and move on.
     
  4. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    @Mahtamori 99% agree. @HellLois (thank you!) brings up that the LoF angle is also Open Information. So I suspect that the question "is this spot on the table in LoF of your dude" would need to be answered honestly.
     
  5. tox

    tox SorriBarai
    Warcor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    3,560
    Likes Received:
    3,542
    Smoke is always speculative, then?

    LoF is even to a point on the table
     
    Savnock, Hecaton, Solar and 1 other person like this.
  6. BlackDiamond

    BlackDiamond My life is an uncoordinated order

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2020
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    84
    If we’re getting pedantic, the response is that space has no volume either.

    Again, basically there is no answer that will satisfy anyone on either side right now. Only way is to wait and see if CB decides, probably pointlessly squable here, and backbite on anonymous Mongolian Basketweaving image boards.
     
  7. Mahtamori

    Mahtamori Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    12,018
    Likes Received:
    15,302
    "or valid target"
     
    Dragonstriker likes this.
  8. atomicfryingpan

    atomicfryingpan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2017
    Messages:
    699
    Likes Received:
    1,289
    God I can't believe it's possible but people actually made a topic where I agree with @Nuada Airgetlam and thought he made better arguements than the others. What is this world coming to.
     
  9. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    Bias is a hell of drug.

    90% of people just play in a way that works and is smoothe and enjoyable. These threads is mostly people trying to post-rationalise how they play, which is predominantly an etiquette issue, as the *right* way in the rules.
     
    xagroth, nazroth, Savnock and 3 others like this.
  10. rgeiler

    rgeiler Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2020
    Messages:
    5
    Likes Received:
    7
    The fact you took the time to type out reasoning behind this is bloody hilarious. You keep doing you iyaerP and keep up the good fight.
     
    Cthulhu363 likes this.
  11. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535


    Except any point on the table is a valid target due to targetless weapons.
     
    Savnock likes this.
  12. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    A bit late with that response @Hecaton:
    As you well know, the sticking point is the use of the theoretical LOF as a substitute for an actual location to determine positioning and thus AROs using “shaky hands” as a pretext.
    “I move so I take only 1 ARO” vs “I move to here where I think I only take an ARO from that model, so let’s check what models actually have LOF to that spot”
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  13. OCEE78

    OCEE78 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2019
    Messages:
    91
    Likes Received:
    54
    This is a genuine question, as my familiarity with the whole intent debate is essentially this thread. Would you accept a question like 'If I move to x will the sniper be able to see me'?
     
  14. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Additionally, any point on the table is a valid target, IFF the model is armed with a targetless weapon. Trying to use that to justify any point being a valid target for ANY model is... not ok.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  15. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Absolutely, provided x is indicated with a finger or silhouette or the model or something unambiguous.
     
    OCEE78 and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  16. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    I'm not sure how many legs that logic has in this case.

    Arguably, in much the same way that models with 360 Visor have equipment that changes their firing arc (which per CB is open information) and therefore affects where they may possibly draw LoF to, if the model isn't equipped with a targetless weapon, those points on the table are not valid targets for it to draw LoF to. I suppose the fluff justification for that would be something like "models with targetless weapons have rangefinding gear in that weapon that will permit the player to check LoF to any point on the table."

    Before anyone blows up at me, my actual stance on this whole thing is that both approaches are impractical and the actual situation is "play by consent." If you and your opponent can't agree on what the rules mean, the game functionally breaks, and this game is complex enough to mean you have to figure that out on the fly sometimes. N4 seems to be a big step toward limiting the variety and scope of those moments of confusion, and I'm happy with most of the changes on that basis.

    Realistically, I think that it's reasonable to mostly use the "intent" style approach, since it ought to be pretty clear that move X works and forcing everyone to painstakingly break out the laser pointer when the result's a foregone conclusion sounds like a great way to waste/ruin recreational activity time we've carved out of our busy schedules.

    I also think that it's fair to go "wait, hang on, that one's really close" and ask your opponent to break out a couple of silhouette templates so you can mark the starting, ending, and "declaring BS Attack from here" spots, as that's the best way IMO to conform to the rules as written when LoF isn't obviously clear one way or another. And I'd be really shocked if any of the "intent" players thinks that's a dick move if it's invoked when needed, instead of arbitrarily every single Order. Asking your opponent to prove they can do what they say they can seems in line with courtesy lists, open information, and documenting the location of a Hidden Deployment trooper with a note or photo during deployment. So a lot of the tenor of the whole "intent players love cheating" commentary just comes across to me as troll noises.

    That said, there's an element of bad play experience to really fine pie-slicing and I kind of hate it in principle. Pie-slicing a defensive group because the active player makes a 2mm adjustment to position that changes the angle of their LoF arc around a corner by 7 degrees and brings a 3x3mm square of one trooper into LoF, without either exposing 3x3mm of their own trooper or creating LoF to the enemy trooper immediately ahead of/behind the target (who was placed there with the intent specifically of countering those shenanigans) because the reactive player misjudged the angle by less than 10 degrees, is bad play experience. It means only the active player's intent matters, and the game becomes a game of dexterity, geometry, and dice luck for the reactive player.

    I actually think the problem isn't so much about positioning per se, it's that you can draw LoF as an attacker without exposing 3x3mm of your model. If you pie-slice by exposing just a sliver of your active trooper, less than 3x3mm, it doesn't matter how well-positioned a defensive team is, you only grant reciprocal LoF to the target of the attack. This means that no matter what the angles of the shot are, the only way for a reactive player to get more than one ARO against a pie-slicer is for the active player to make a mistake, or to have placed a hidden deployment trooper just right during deployment to give you an ARO from a surprise angle.

    Unfortunately, even if you eliminate that issue, it's still geometrically impossible* to cover both sides of a doorway with a two-man ARO team. You can't say "both these guys will get an ARO to you if you peek around the door" and have it hold up to geometric analysis. Mathematically, you have to have three troopers, one prone and the other two standing behind and slightly offset to either side, to cover both sides of a doorway and guarantee a double ARO no matter which side the active troop is on. (*This presumes you're not stacking two identical-base-size models vertically in perfect alignment, which isn't exactly a great solution.)

    Thankfully, I haven't yet run into this position IRL, just hypothetically on the internet. But the fact that phrases like "geometrically possible position" and "sub-mm" come up as part of explaining how intent-based pie-slicing is supposed to work is really not compatible with claims about it not being a manual dexterity game:
    • If it's not a manual dexterity, place-it-perfectly game, then there's a margin of error that makes sub-mm differences in a position irrelevant.
    • If that level of positioning matters, it needs to matter for both players equally, and your ability to place the model with that level of precision in active becomes A Thing.
    Trying to have it both ways makes it sound like "abstract tactical game for the active player; concrete exercise in geometry, dexterity, and knowing how to use a surveyor's tools for the reactive player" to me, which is a rubbish argument. I can't be shocked at anyone who wants to poke holes in it, or who claims pie-slicing isn't really compatible with intent-based (i.e. imprecise) play.

    EDIT: One possible fix would be to require the attacker grants reciprocal LoF AROs to enemy troopers within, say, 2" of the active trooper's target, as long as they have LoF to the opening the attacker is moving into to take the shot. You'd still have to group up your ARO team and make them easy pickings for templates, but it gives a concrete way to handle "I'm positioning these guys to watch that doorway/alley/whatever."
     
    #316 wes-o-matic, Oct 26, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 26, 2020
    nazroth, Ashtroboy, toadchild and 3 others like this.
  17. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    This is pretty much how most people seem to play the game. Intent is a shortcut for the normal process of agreeing line of fire.

    It is always an AGREEMENT between two players and at no point does either player get to unilaterally decide what LoF is. Either via "intenting infinitely fine pie slices" or by arguing one must "play it as it lies."

    Which is why CB are never going to "rule" on what is essentially player convention. How you play the game is up to you and your opponent and It shouldn't be an insurmountable task for 2 adults to be able to discuss and come to a consensus. Its a shared game and sometimes that means making some compromises if you truely believe either of the two extremes above.
     
    Hisey, Daniel Darko, Savnock and 5 others like this.
  18. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    What you're missing here is that intent does matter equally for the reactive player. When you intend to deploy a model to guard a particular point, you just say so when you deloy or move them there. On your opponent's turn, when they start moving up their attack piece, you both know that they'll gain LoF on your ARO piece when they reach that point.

    Intent play is very simple. The scenario you describe simply doesn't happen unless the reactive player didn't think about how they wanted to position their troops (in which case, it would happen with or without intent play).
     
    nazroth and Hecaton like this.
  19. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Holoprojector exists. This is very ok.
     
  20. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Cool! And, I gather, as open information, it's known at all times, not just at specific times of the order sequence?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  • About Us

    We are a company founded in 2001 in Cangas (Spain), and devoted to design and manufacture games and figures. Our main product, Infinity the Game, was born with the ambition to satisfy the most demanding audience, offering the best quality.

     

    Why are we here?

     

    Because we are, first and foremost, players.

  • Quick Navigation

    Open the Quick Navigation