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. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    If you intended for them to be covering a corner, why didn't you tell your opponent that? That way if they're not quite in alignment they can be readjusted in the scenario here.

    Not true. For a given corner of a vertical wall, you can place two troopers such that LoF is gained to them at the same time.

    A doorway? No. But a corner, yes. But doorways are the environment where irl pie-slicing is in theory applied, so this doesn't bother me so much.

    I think once you examine the situation, the outcome is inevitable, and I'm not shocked. Moreover, you can use "intent" when placing troops during deployment and setting them up for a reactive turn, so this applies equally and fairly to both players. Moreover, both players get active turns.

    Where I think it rubs some people the wrong way is they want to set up double AROs without telling their opponent and have them blunder in to them. Then, when savvy players ask their opponents about what their models' LoF is, Gotcha! players display poor sportsmanship by refusing to communicate, insisting that their opponent placed their mini where they didn't mean to, etc, upset that their supposedly consummate trap was easily predicted and thought around.

    That wouldn't really work. 2" is far, far too wide of a space. You'd be able to create nigh-impenetrable ARO nets.
     
    Tourniquet likes this.
  2. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Because holoprojector is equipment in the game, every point on the table is a valid target for any model at any time.
    Gotcha.
    You’re a cheat.
    Good day sir.
     
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  3. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    We already got a response from HellLois - not just a ruling (LoF is open) but also reasoning (facing and positioning are readily observable and using them to analyze the table isn’t “measuring”).

    You’re allowed to bend down and see what a model sees. You’re allowed to do this both for models and for points on the table. You can do this at any time during the game. You can even put your head slightly to the left of a model and try to estimate what LoS would be if a model moved, before spending an order to activate them.

    Please stop making this difficult.
     
    Cthulhu363, Solar, Savnock and 6 others like this.
  4. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    I don’t believe I’ve ever argued against that. Ever.
    Quote me if I’m wrong.
     
  5. toadchild

    toadchild Premeasure

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2017
    Messages:
    4,262
    Likes Received:
    8,073
    I’m not going to call out individual posters. That was a response to an aggregate impression of the last couple of pages of this thread.
     
    Savnock likes this.
  6. cazboab

    cazboab Definitely not Cazboaz.

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2017
    Messages:
    1,083
    Likes Received:
    1,462
    LoF is Observable therefore it must be open information.

    LoF being open doesn't actually solve the intent thing, since both methods of play still actually work with or without it, but it does remove the so called "gotcha", because you'd be aware of the possibility of the second ARO before you move.
     
  7. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    In theory, yah.
    Nope. And all your raging won't make it true. How I play is how it's played at every satellite tournament I've been to, and at the Interplanetario as well, I've heard. Take it up with every damn TO that's out there.
     
    MikeTheScrivener likes this.
  8. BlackDiamond

    BlackDiamond My life is an uncoordinated order

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2020
    Messages:
    49
    Likes Received:
    84
    And some were arguing against it as well, even on the folks opposing intent. The point is it does get brought up as if that was the core thrust, but it wasn't for several people.

    I mean, yes and no, because now we have the debate over what constitutes a valid target for LoF information, but that is frankly another thread entirely and someone should make it. I may, if someone doesn't first, because if nothing more it helps progress rules a bit.

    I think I've said before that, if, in the end, everything shakes out and we get a final ruling on all this jazz, and play by intent gets the official sanction, all kosher, etc, than I'm happy to accept it. I think there is a lot of assumption of malice on both sides, and I think its counterproductive. We don't need to constantly accuse the other side of trying to cheat. I do disagree with what I think is some of the underlying mindset behind play by intent, but I also understand benefits and it's not an unfair advantage I think folks are seeking to get with it.

    We disagree on rules about a game. Its a game I'm guessing we all enjoy. I only just found it, and I'm really falling in love with the system and all, and its not out of malice, but honest interest and whatnot that I'm making arguments. I'm presuming its passion that drives other folks too. At the end, we're all here cus we like Infinity, and I think we can be respectful in that.

    So yeah, lets not call folks that like play by intent cheaters, its just not a good look.
     
    RolandTHTG, cazboab and QueensGambit like this.
  9. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    I'm not missing that, though. Maybe I wasn't clear enough, or maybe you're reading what I wrote with subtext I didn't put there. In the part of my post you quoted, I was describing a particular kind of hypothetical interaction with some specific assumptions, and I mentioned that it's something I haven't run into IRL, but it does exist in the online discussions of this topic, and probably needs to be addressed constructively since the concepts involved seem to underpin a lot of the objection to intent-based play.

    IIRC, the overwhelming majority of intent discussions on here that I'm aware of have centered around the active player's intent, and tend to involve discussion of the finer points of geometry with phrases like "there exists a point on the board where A can see B but C cannot see A." I can't claim to explain why, but so far as I can tell, the reactive player's intent tends to get glossed over in favor of two factors: The active player's intent, and the geometry of the board.

    I was trying to set up for the point I made later, that combining approximate/hypothetical active positioning, geometry, and the physical placement of only the reactive player's pieces theoretically creates an opening for some abusive one-sided geometric min-maxing. I wouldn't repeat a game with someone who plays that way unless forced to by a tournament matchup, but that hypothetical jerk could exist, and definitely does in other game communities.

    I generally do, and it's fine. But there's not exactly a comprehensive "intent play" tactica anywhere, and it's not actually in the rulebooks, and the rules set is generally permissions-based (i.e. if it doesn't say you can use CC to push an opponent off a roof, you can't use CC to push an opponent across the roof). Intent play is going to be a widespread house rule as long as CB doesn't articulate it in the actual rules as more than optional fair play guidance, which they could, but have not done yet.

    It's a very practical house rule, or table convention, or community etiquette, or whatever you want to call it, and it makes a lot of sense to me. But the rules don't compel people to play that way, or specify when it is—or isn't—OK.

    I'd love to see a stickied post about table etiquette that covers schools of thought on board setup, intent play, what to remember to discuss with an opponent in advance, etc. for new folks. Having to work it out yourself organically is fine, but it's going to result in a lot of very disparate views of things, and everyone's going to act like their personal experience is the gospel, hence this thread.

    Yes, but that only helps the active player. The reactive player doesn't get LoF to the pie-slicing trooper unless the active player does something to make that possible, which is counter to the whole point of pie-slicing. Assume two troopers, one prone and one standing, positioned around a corner such that a line from the corner will intersect the edges of their silhouettes simultaneously. That means there's no way to trace a line from the shooter's base as it peeks around to one without seeing the other, no matter how little of the shooter peeks around the corner. It also means the nearer reactive model is touching the building and qualifies for partial cover, but the farther one has to either be away from the building a bit, or a larger-based model even further from the corner. (I have a to-scale diagram for this I made in Adobe Illustrator, but it's a pain to post to the forums so can you take my word for it for now?)

    So far as I've been able to determine, both reactive troopers getting LoF simultaneously depends entirely on one (or more) of four things being true, and all of them depend on the active player either making a mistake (gotchas are bad tho?) or choosing to permit it (which is what you're trying to avoid by pie-slicing, so...?).
    1. The active trooper has (intentionally or accidentally) exposed at least 3mmx3mm of silhouette within LoF of those two troopers, allowing both to acquire LoF to the active trooper.
    2. The active trooper is splitting burst and therefore attacking both troopers.
    3. The active trooper is attacking one trooper and not the other, but the other trooper is within ZoC and so gets a ZoC ARO.
    4. The players have consented to both troopers getting to ARO.
    The reason is that the active trooper can expose just a tiny sliver (let's say 0.5mm wide, and full silhouette height) and still trace LoF as described in the rulebook, while denying LoF to all but one enemy model. It helps to break down how the rules actually say you can acquire LoF and therefore declare LoF-dependent skills:
    • The active trooper just needs to trace from any point on their silhouette to any point on the target, and to be able to see a 3x3mm or larger area of the target's silhouette.
    • The reactive trooper(s) targeted get LoF reciprocally, no matter how little of the attacker's silhouette is exposed.
    • A reactive trooper not targeted can't claim LoF (and therefore can't make a LoF-based ARO) unless the active trooper exposes 3x3mm or more of silhouette around the corner. (This fulfills #1 in the list above, and if it was intentional it amounts to a math-first version of #4 as well).
    • If the non-targeted reactive trooper has a ZoC ARO they can use it, but won't be able to declare a BS Attack, CC Attack with Guard, Discover, Look Out, Place Deployable, or Forward Observer skills unless the active trooper exposes 3x3mm or more.
    Q.E.D. in the rules in the actual rulebook as written, pie-slicing will guarantee that the active player, barring any missteps, can technically dictate who is permitted to declare a LoF ARO.

    Avoiding intent-based pop-out shooting by requiring the active player to manually place the shooter's silhouette before determining who has LoF is a partial solution to this problem, but it doesn't solve the issue for a sufficiently dexterous player with lots of laser line tools handy who is willing to fine-tune a shooter's position infinitesimally.

    An active-turn player can be a good sport and agree to multiple AROs during pie-slicing, but that makes it...not really intent-based pie-slicing as it's discussed in the forums, generally?

    Note that my point isn't that intent play is bad or wrong or whatever. My point is that the case for it is entirely based on finding a balance point between "friendly game" and "playing to win," and there's a tension between those two. If there's a consensus (there's that whole "consent-based" thing again) between players that it should be handled a certain way, then you're fine. But this thread exists, so apparently that's a localized thing and, like chess clocks and hiding Maggie behind a hydrant, YMMV.


    I'm not going to address fairness. The active turn is weighted in the active player's favor, and LoF is checked at declaration of AROs, and range bands mean that you can be penalized -3 on a roll because the target's 3/4" farther away than you thought it was, and you can put an MSV unit with mimetism in suppressive fire in cover, or spec fire with a TAG. This stuff is all arbitrary, and it's the game, and we're playing it, so we must like it, N3 posthumans, libertos, ARO baiting and all.

    What I'm trying to get across is that intent play is, RAW, really fast and loose about some things, and for pie-slicing specifically that approach interacts badly with how LoF is determined for AROs, meaning there's a legitimate potential for jerks to be jerks, so folks who are concerned about that interaction being abused have, you know, a legitimate point to consider. Claiming people who are trying to prevent poor sportsmanship are being poor sports is an interesting read on that side of the argument.

    Again, I'm not saying this happens a lot in practice, and I think it's been thoroughly covered that the best response to That Guy is to just avoid playing games with him and try to keep him from shitting up your meta community vibe. But "this isn't a thing I deal with in practice, so just take my word for it your concerns are groundless" ain't the most persuasive angle to take when addressing the concern.

    I suspect the fact that pie-slicing in intent play can start to feel like you're being asked to help your opponent table you is probably also part of the feels-bad play angle for some folks. I can understand the urge to reply "well, I can't be sure until you put the shooter's silhouette on the table where you want it to be, and we'll take measurements" when someone basically asks "hey, can I shoot just this one trooper, and nobody else can do anything about it?" The idea that unwritten rules somehow are supposed to compel you to go along with that, and not going with it makes you a bad sport or whatever, is sort of gross. Especially for new players, who are basically learning that AROs are a trap and the people saying "it's always your turn" are liars.

    OK, how about base contact with the targeted trooper, and limiting it to 2 additional reactive troopers who have to have pre-existing LoF to the opening in question? That way a group of more than 3 models doesn't do much, and if the opponent lines them all up you can shoot one on the end to only eat one extra ARO instead of all 3, plus it discourages poking your head out into a potential hail of gunfire and incentivizes considering other options, like calling in backup or smoke or something.

    My personal distaste for pie-slicing isn't about intent generally, it's more to do with how hard it makes it for me to justify leaving anything at all out to ARO unless I've gone all-in on that strategy, how much it encourages null deployments, etc. I don't like how much mental bandwidth trying to minimize the effect of pie-slicing takes, since it's not fun and I think the game would still be great if pie-slicing was toned down some. Being able to guarantee that if you devote 2-3 troopers to overwatch you get a slightly better roadblock than devoting none doesn't exactly seem like OP game-breaking meta disruption. You could even force fireteam members to choose between their +1B or using this option in ARO to keep them from stacking both.

    Pie-slicing is inherently a powerful tool to min-max and control interactions, because RAW you can position such that (except for a handful of neurocinetics/TR models) you're facing B1 (or 2 if a fireteam member), often at a range of your choice, with your full Burst and partial cover, and if you're at bad numbers you just don't do it. It's one of the least-risky ways to address a group of enemies, it only works in active, and giving players a tactical way to make it a smidge less risky during play (as opposed to during list-building) sounds good to me. It'd take two or more dudes stuck on overwatch, in base contact and easy to template, and effectively means the minimum Burst of an ARO vs. pie-slicing becomes B2.

    Overdone pie-slicing as a concept also messes with my immersion vibe. The idea that three watchful troops are less effective than one trooper in suppressive fire because in active turn everyone's suddenly a crack shot with a gun poked just barely around a corner is silly. Peeking so little around a corner that nobody can actually see you enough to even fire shots to keep your head down, yet mowing down a line of guys one at a time with an HMG (that's somehow too small to target when you poke it around a corner) is always going to feel weird to me.
     
    #329 wes-o-matic, Oct 27, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
  10. QueensGambit

    QueensGambit Chickenbot herder

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2019
    Messages:
    2,213
    Likes Received:
    3,456
    It is, though. You've done an extraordinary amount of work coming up with a series of very elaborate scenarios that just don't happen. They're so complex, I can't even understand them when I read through them at my leisure. Nobody is trying to make these work at the table or sell them to their opponents or the TO.

    When I say "intent is very simple," that's not a theoretical analysis based on the logic of how intent is supposed to work. It's an empirical observation. The vast majority of Infinity is played by intent, and it works, in the ways that many posters have described in this thread. Just go on TTS and watch any game, and you can see how well it works. In fact, you don't need to do that, because you've said yourself that you play by intent. So you know firsthand that it works.

    A small minority of players don't enjoy intent play. That's fine, that's their taste, I don't want to play the same game as them but there's room in the world for different kinds of games for different people. But when they claim that intent play somehow doesn't work, well, that's just demonstrably false. Infinity is overwhelmingly played by intent, and it works.
     
    Cthulhu363, nazroth, OCEE78 and 4 others like this.
  11. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    I'm bemused by the assertion that intent somehow allows people to be jerks, and arguing against intent magically makes these hypothetical jerks suddenly not jerks to play.

    If everyone could just up and admit they like to play a certain way and it would feel good if they had some higher authority force other players to play that way, this whole discussion would be a whole lot more honest.

    The reality is some people are jerks, and the energy spent trying to figure out ways to rules them out of their jerky ways is probably better spent in other ways.

    Personally, I dont think the game is balanced around multiple ARO's at a corner. Infinity is supposed to be dynamic and is never going to allow true 'castle up and wait play.' Being able to absolutely hard road block someone with a bunch of tough as nails troops in your reactive turn would make the game even more sensitive to shitty table set ups.

    That doesn't mean I'm going to verbally beat a new player down if they tried to set up multiple ARO's at a corner and put more thought into then just having 3 troopers stand kind of close together in the general vicinity of an area.
     
  12. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    Your logical fallacy is: Appeal to Authority
    https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority
     
    #332 Dragonstriker, Oct 27, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  13. Dragonstriker

    Dragonstriker That wizard came from the moon.

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2017
    Messages:
    808
    Likes Received:
    1,329
    You know what? Never mind.
     
    #333 Dragonstriker, Oct 27, 2020
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2020
    A Mão Esquerda likes this.
  14. Vanderbane

    Vanderbane Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    505
    Likes Received:
    726
    Are we debating something related to the OP here, still? I feel like @HellLois chimed in 3 pages ago and answered the question of this thread.
     
    Solar, Balseraph, Hecaton and 2 others like this.
  15. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    Nope. It allows the reactive player to set up potential multiple AROs from one attack lane. That's good, right?


    This seems to me to be the entire point of pie slicing.

    I understand this setup. It's how one covers a corner so as to get multiple AROs.

    It doesn't have to do with targeting; it has to do with LoF. Remember, LoF is reciprocal; if you can see a 3x3 segment of someone, they can see you, unless it's blocked by, say, a smoke grenade you can see through. So by being able to see the two enemy troopers who are stacked up at the corner, the Active model has made themselves vulnerable to AROs from both, even if they don't target either. So I think you have the wrong assessment of the situation.




    I find the kind of person who suddenly gets hostile and starts denying table information to their opponent when the game doesn't go their way to be much more of a jerk than anything else you've described. Sportsmanship is both losing and winning gracefully. The idea that players need their hand held when they're put on the back foot by an aggressive play is patronizing.



    Nah, this would interact horribly with factions that have particularly powerful ARO games (VIRD for example). It's just wrongheaded and I don't agree.

    Nah. AROs are fundamentally about slowing your opponent down, rather than killing stuff. That ethos is what keeps the game from devolving into castling and turtling; that sort of passive play is anathema to fun, imo. I (and many others) want the game to be dynamic and reward actively moving your pieces, not passively sitting and hoping your opponent crashes their offense into your defense unsuccessfully.

    The game's an abstraction, I don't feel you.
     
    Tourniquet likes this.
  16. Hecaton

    Hecaton EI Anger Translator

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    7,205
    Likes Received:
    6,535
    I mean, go ahead and call every TO on the US West Coast a cheater, call the staff at the Interplanetario cheaters... see how that goes.
     
  17. Red Harvest

    Red Harvest Day in, Day out. Day in, Day out. Day in, DAY OUT

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    553
    Likes Received:
    1,231
    Question in the OP is answered. Start a new thread to squabble about which play style is cheating and which is not. It is clear the OP is no longer interested in the answer to his own question, and I doubt that he ever was. It was just cover for something else.

    @HellLois, @ Koni. Please lock this thread, and ban a few of the participants for the rest of the year. Pour encourager les autres, as your neighbors to the north might say. Let them return in 2021.
     
    Savnock and A Mão Esquerda like this.
  18. wes-o-matic

    wes-o-matic feeelthy casual

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2019
    Messages:
    633
    Likes Received:
    1,051
    I'm not clear on how two dudes around a corner from another dude, or a cluster of dudes outside a door staring at it, or shooting an HMG one-handed around a corner to avoid having to step out where more than one enemy can see you constitute "very elaborate scenarios" but pictures would probably be better. I can post diagrams if it helps?

    And edge cases make highly useful examples of more generalized principles.

    I'm not disputing a word of this, but there are objections more nuanced than "intent play doesn't work" and I've watched those concerns get steamrollered in this thread, which is not cool.


    I understood and mainly agree (or don't disagree much) with most of what you wrote, but quoting this because I can't figure out what this sentence actually means. I thought it was in reply to something I wrote, but when I tried to parse your actual meaning I can't figure out what you were trying to say, and can't make sense of it in context. Can you rephrase?

    Most of this post boils down to "we have a difference of opinion" which is fine, and as far as I'm concerned we're cool. But this bit is where N4 is a new edition, new players, new FAQ needed.

    The pertinent parts of the LoF rules on p. 24 are:
    "For a Trooper to be able to draw LoF to its target, it must...be able to see part of the volume of its target, with a minimum size of 3x3mm."
    "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."

    And in the ARO rules on p. 21:
    "The ARO declarations of the Reactive Player’s Troopers are considered valid in the following situations:
    ◼ An enemy Trooper activates within its Line of Fire (LoF).
    ◼ An enemy Trooper activates within its Zone of Control (ZoC).
    ◼ It has a Special Skill, weapon, or piece of Equipment allowing it to react to enemy actions without LoF.
    ◼ It is affected by a Template Weapon, or is the target of a Hacking Program or other Comms Attack."

    And in the Glossary on p. 151:
    "Target. Game element capable of being targeted by Attacks and effects from Skills or Equipment."

    This isn't the first time this issue has cropped up, but the main issue is the wording of "its target" here instead of "enemy trooper" or "game element," both of which are used in the LoF rules to refer to potential targets where LoF could be drawn.

    RAW in N4, unless every potential target in LoF has LoF virtually drawn to it at all times, the fact that a corner-peeking trooper could draw LoF to both ideally positioned troopers around the corner doesn't explicitly mean it does so, and the fact that LoF is something you check at order declaration of a BS Attack/ARO complicates things for rules lawyer types who want it to be clearer.

    Let's say trooper Alphonse is around the corner from ideally positioned enemy troopers Bee (prone) and Ceelo, and if he peeks out he can't get LoF to one without at least having the option of LoF to the other, but he only wants to deal with Bee, and he wants to cut Ceelo out of the equation for now; Bee is out of his ZoC so there's no risk of ZoC AROs. The Order Expenditure Sequence goes like this:

    1.2 - Alphonse declares Move to peek out and then duck back into total cover, the player's declaration is "I want to duck out just enough to be able to draw LoF to Bee, but not to Ceelo." The opponent says that's not possible, but Alphonse's player talks him into a demonstration that it is possible in N4. The maximum distance Alphonse moves out exposes only 1mm of his silhouette, but is enough to potentially draw LoF to 3mm wide parts of Bee and Ceelo. So far, LoF hasn't been a Requirement of anything declared, but it's open info that it could possibly exist. If Alphonse were more exposed, it would definitely exist, but he isn't.

    2. Bee's player checks LoF from Bee and Ceelo to Alphonse. Neither can see 3x3mm of Alphonse, and he's outside ZoC. Bee's player says "Hey, so, if Alphonse has LoF to Bee, she has it back to him and needs to ARO now. Does she?" "It's not clear yet, so let's assume that right now the answer is no and you don't lose the ARO by not declaring. Moving on..."

    3. Alphonse declares BS Attack against only Bee. Bee is now unequivocally Alphonse's target, and Alphonse is unequivocally Bee's attacker. Bee now has reciprocal LoF, no possible dispute there.

    4. Bee and Ceelo both declare BS Attack AROs against Alphonse. Bee has LoF due to the reciprocal LoF rule. Ceelo...might, if he's considered Alphonse's target despite not being targeted by an attack or skill of any kind? But the rules explicitly say "its target" there, and Ceelo wasn't targeted.

    5. Bee's ARO is validated and will be resolved in Step 6. Ceelo's ARO will not, because none of the four validating options for his ARO applies? So he Idles? But if LoF is reciprocal when it's possible, even without the attacker/target relationship, then his ARO is valid. WTF? Argument ensues:

    "No, see, this ambiguous wording means that since you could have LoF to Ceelo, he's your target and gets LoF back to you."

    "Ah, but Alphonse hasn't targeted him, so Alphonse isn't Ceelo's attacker. Ceelo can't see enough of Alphonse to draw his own LoF, and if Alphonse's back were turned there's nothing at all to even hint that Ceelo could claim LoF since reciprocal LoF would be 100% impossible."

    "Attacker in this case just means potential attacker, or enemy trooper."

    "Ok, except it doesn't say either of those things in the reciprocal LoF rule. Plus, your interpretation means that anything with a 360 visor peeking through a 1x1mm hole in a wall generates continuous reciprocal LoF with every enemy trooper it can see through that hole, but none of them can declare a BS Attack against it since they can't see 3mm square of it? Or if they can, why, and why bother with the whole 3mm square anyway? If any part of A can see any part of B, and either of them is exposed at least 3mm square, then they would have LoF, so why not just say that and be done with it?"

    Both players quit Infinity and go play Warcaster until they get bored, then they pick up Gaslands. And scene.
     
  19. Alphz

    Alphz Kuang Shi Vet. Retired.

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2017
    Messages:
    1,457
    Likes Received:
    2,947
    To elaborate further;

    Can a person use intent to the extreme to be a jerk and lead to unpleasant play experience?
    Yes.

    Can a person use 'play it as it lies' to the extreme to be a jerk and lead to unpleasant play experience?
    Yes.

    hence, I am bemused by either side arguing that a rules clarification will resolve the bad taste they feel from someone abusing rules.

    I realise you're mostly having an academic discussion on the point and unfortunately infinity is not a game written by lawyers, for lawyers and will fail miserably when put under too intense a scrutiny - as you aptly demonstrate.
    Fortunately, I think the core mechanics are sound and robust enough that the reality is the effects these corner interactions have on the overall balance of the game are pretty minute and players can safely compromise for an enjoyable playing experience without somehow handicapping the games ability to provide a challenging and tactical game for both players.
     
    nazroth, Armihaul, RolandTHTG and 2 others like this.
  20. RobertShepherd

    RobertShepherd Antipodean midwit

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2018
    Messages:
    2,048
    Likes Received:
    4,191
    I increasingly don't understand this conversation. When I talk about 'intent', I'm literally using that as a shorthand for 'discussing things with my opponent before and as they resolve to reduce the likelihood of misunderstanding and disagreement'. It seems so uncontentious to me.
     
    Cthulhu363, Hisey, nazroth and 10 others like this.
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