If you need a silhouette to establish LoF, then you use them as a game aid. The rules don't say "thou must" for every order though. Thats not what the word "declare" means. If both players can agree what LoF exists along a route, then there is no need to place a silhouette?
If they do, then sure. But there are very vocal intent players, here as well, who claim they do not need to agree on a thing or show me a thing, they just "declare" by stating "I move from here to there" and they're done.
I very much doubt anyone is arguing that one player unilaterally determines LoF. Maybe you could give me a real world example of what you're having an issue wiht.
There is to my understanding at least some period were veteran players will incorrectly apply N3 rules and ideas that do not apply in N4. I say this because movement has changed you do not premeasure to the destination you choose, you declare move, you premeasure possible destinations choose the one you want and then move the model.
You're not discussing in good faith when you're hyperbolizing with the whole "both hands, slowly". If it's a back and forth move, I need to know how far is the extreme point. If you went around an obstacle, show me how wide. If you Super Jumped over something, you literally need to touch the ground on the other side, measuring if you managed to and not Idled, so you're showing the arc with the tape anyway?
I will point out this is all outside the scope of what I asked, though thats a bit of pot and kettle given how I went on in the other thread, admittedly.
I've done this so many times in those threads. But okay, once more unto the breech. One of the situations I really dislike with intent play is when a player avoids the limitation of their skill (which I consider to include model placement, situational and spatial awareness, the ability to estimate threat sources, etc.) by using the ability to verbally "declare" the route his model takes instead of actually placing it in the extreme spot, signified below by "?". The player abuses (in my opinion) the declarative form to state "there exists a geometrical possibility to place a model where the blue model will see it, but the green one yet won't - so I move there". They do not place a Silhouette in "?" and refuse or make a scene of it when I ask them to. I may have an HD trooper I consider revealing now and want to see if they can draw LOF to "?" - or somewhere else along the path of movement. Other players declare "I Move from here to there and it doesn't matter how I got there, as long as I have the inches". Again, I may have LOF and ARO somewhere along, so it matter to me if you went to the right or the left of that obstacle and how wide." Et caetera, I want to know the whole path where it matters. It's easy to show by just pointing a finger between "turns along the way" - saying "from here, through this point, this point, to here". Refusing to do that abuses the N4 rules in my opinion. Yeah, sorry for that, it's hard to track and when I've made my own thread almost nobody wanted to talk there >_>
as per glossary I think the confusion is because people expect line of sight that does not exist in Infinity to be the same as line of fire that is specifically a determination of unobscured line between an attacker and its target and not a determination of general visibility.
I think the problem is that you're asking for a different type of definition than the developers are using. And because the definition that they've provided works for the system that they've defined, there's no reason for them to provide anything else. It's an abstract logic problem. Semantics for targeting exist as the game defines it. If you want to work out what the necessary and/or sufficient semantics are, there's a field of study for that and it may be a good exercise, if that's your sort of thing. But no one publishes that sort of thing in rulebook for regular gamers.
What stops a player from placing a silhouette, checking LoF, adjusting the silhouette, checking LoF Ad infinitum until they have the LoF they want and asking for AROs? Your issue isn't with intent. it seems to be with what is physically achievable on the table and in 99% of games, pie slicing is very physically achievable and most people just don't see the point in proving it. The game state is as it is declared not where someone places a game aid for assisting the declaration. If a player declares they're moving to the corner while touching cover and accidentally places the silhouette 2mm away from the wall, are you going to argue they don't get cover?
Exactly! If they place the model not in accordance with their declaration (or otherwise incorrectly / illegally), I’ll point it out and we’ll fix it.
whatever you say. okay but none of this is being "exact" in the aspect that you're advocating for and are arguing against - and that's my point.
Somewhat, it also falls under ‘what constitutes a game element?’ And are they always game elements, even if a unit could not target them. IE: is a point on the board a game element because smoke grenades exist, or is it only valid if the model has smoke grenades. Its flatly not an issue for most play, merely for folks admittedly drilling down deep and seeing if and where rules break, but its useful to know all the same.
You absolutely have a point, though to the latter aspect, that is why I ask here. I don’t think its entirely an abstract though. Indeed, my initial model in my head is actually Magic the Gathering, thinking how targeting works in that system. Its a desire to be less abstract, really, to have an explicit definition drilled down to nitty details. As I said in a reply to someone else, its admittedly not a point that matters in many or most games. Its not been an issue in the ones I’ve played but it does speak to the interactions of certain rules and concepts, hence why I ask.
Given the amount of hidden stuff in Infinity, even when playing a primarily intent communication game, if an opponent said, can you please plop down a silhouette at the far edge of movement so I can check a few things, I would of course comply. I mean, who wouldn't? That is a legit request in my opinion, and things could be close that an intent declaration wouldn't be enough. If I refused, I'd have an awfully hard time not taking the HD rocket launcher shot from the corner. If this is a question of "when can I lay down a laser, and using it to do what?", I default to whenever either player wants to, as it doesn't provide measurement, and it only aids observation, which is allowed from any player, from any angle, at any time. That's how I play lasers.
If someone says, "If I move my Kazak from here to here hugging this wall are there any AROs I would incur? (the unasked part of this statement is, of course, "from Open Information"). If you aren't sure then ask them to put the model down where you think it happens. For both of these would they usually declare something like, "I hug the wall to best of my ability the entire walk," or "I move to the wall, poke out, then back." Both of those seem like adequate explanations of their path, and If you have issue with how he declared it then you ask them to show you more thoroughly. Just ask them to do so.
