ARO rules improvement.

I don't know who the "some players" are, but they're doing it wrong. The way it's played is this:

A: I move this guy here. AROs?
B: This guy shoots him.
A: What about these other guys? They also see me.
B: Oh yeah! They shoot too.

If you know someone who's playing it as:
A: I move this guy here. AROs?
B: This guy shoots him.
A: Haha, you didn't notice these other guys, too late, I shoot them for free!

Then that player needs to fix their approach, or find a different game more suited to them.

 

This sounds like a culture problem.

 

I could totally see both approaches as being right and, upon being asked, I could easily accept both play styles.
I mean, it doesn't disturb me to think failing to declare AROs as a player mistake, not so different than forgetting having a better weapon to shoot, declaring dodge instead of a better smoke grenade, or forgetting to roll for booty at the start of the game.
And I suppose in the latter cases no one would go like "you also have panzerfaust! It's a way better weapon for this ARO!" :)

But, at the same time, I am also ok to remind each other AROs, if so agreed.
I guess the important is that players agree on the approach they are following on this regard, to avoid later discussions.

Of course, I think we all agree than when one player is still learning the game (like, the first TWO YEARS :P), the most lax and helpful approach is required.

 

The rules were absolutely not on his side. This is one of the rules:

"Miniature poses and irregular scenery can make LoF hard to determine. In those cases, it is up to the players to reach an agreement. Trying to look at the target from the miniature's point of view can be useful. To make checking LoF easier it is advised to make use of Silhouette Templates, rulers, laser pointers... to see whether anything obstructs the LoF." [emphasis added].

If the reactive player doesn't declare an ARO with trooper X, he's saying that he doesn't think that trooper X has LoF. If the active player thinks there is LoF, he's obligated to say so so that the players can discuss it and reach an agreement. He can't remain silent, knowing that he disagrees with the reactive player about extant LoF, then try to take advantage of a LoF that only he thinks exists. That is flat-out cheating.

The judge needs to retrain on the basics of what Infinity is all about.

Why would you suppose that?? I do it all the time. It's not mandatory, but it obviously makes for a better game.

 

What can be done though, is the reactive player notice that an unintended target (a model of his) has LoF to an active model near the end of order pool depletion but doesn't say anything, only declaring the ARO from the obvious intended target, which the active players shoots (say the intended target either die or guts away).
Then 1) Next order when the active player do a coordinated move or supp fire, the reactive player declare an ARO for a free hit.
Or 2) Next turn, the player declare a BS Attack at full burst against the model which didn't know was being seen by that model and thought he was safe where he is because the primary target (which he thought was the only model with LoF) had been killed or had guts away.
Here it is not a case of any disagreement/agreement. Both player knows there is LoF, but since it was long range passing between buildings on a dense table one player didn't realize there was even LoF.

Having mandatory LoF check and declaration could make those interaction more friendly (less gotcha). Yet, not spotting someone or something is so common in both games and sports that I wouldn't even consider that to be unsportsmanlike.

 

That's still pretty shady. If the reactive player thinks that a particular LoF exists, but thinks the active player isn't aware of that LoF, then the players haven't reached an agreement on LoF as required by the rules. As the player who's aware of the disagreement in this scenario, the reactive player has to speak up so that agreement can be reached. Knowingly allowing a disagreement about LoF to persist is cheating.

Of course it can happen by accident when neither of us realizes that we disagree about a LoF. When we discover the disagreement, we sort it out together in a friendly and sporting way.

 

Please @QueensGambit, stop inventing the rules and confusing people, what you have invented as a mandatory rule of reaching an agreement on LoF and having to notify the other player about LOFs, is just a box of «GAME AIDS» not a mandatory rule.

Another thing is that it be done (I always advise it) for fair play between contenders... but not because it is a mandatory rule.

 

I haven't played with anyone who reads this as a rule and haven't heard of anyone having played in a meta that treats the volunteering of LOFs as a rule rather than an advice.

Typically what people will do is they'll answer direct questions like "I declare Move with my trooper, who can see me if I move here?" (by the way, we still don't know how far we need to go to accommodate the question "where do I need to move to be able to see that guy but not that guy?" which is a pandemic question in my meta even if it is not relevant to the order being executed) or they will volunteer critical LOFs as a catching-up-mechanic when they feel they are not losing.

It's not only about what the rules say in a technical reading, but what the rules manages to communicate. If we're meant to give all LOFs we are aware of, then the rules need to be better at telling us that telling them is not optional. On the flip side, if we're not meant to give any potential LOFs, then the rules need to be better at telling us that we only need to offer the LOFs that actually exists and also how to handle a trooper that is currently measuring movement positions.

 

It specifically is not a disagreement (nor a lack of agreement). As I said, both player can see that A and X sees each other, it is just a case of A not taking the time to check LoF between A-Z, A-Y, A-X, A-W, A-V, A-U, etc. etc. on his assumptions that such and such building is probably blocking LoF to all those models off-side.

Now, my meta is pretty friendly and we do volunteer all info, more precisely, we just don't lie whenever the active player ask "who can see me move if I go there ?". And that is very friendly as the neither the rule nor the rulebook suggestion says that players must determine/share/agree on potential LoF to given points on the map or to potential future positions of models (LoF only exist between models; and between models and target point. Target point only exist once declared as being a target). By the rule we only need to agree on LoF from a model to a target. Meaning once a model has declared a path for his Move skill, and performed it, then we can check LoF at the Check LoF/ZoC steps and make various agreements.

 

Literally everyone I've ever played with used intent to describe the movenents and cooperated with their opponents to figure out which LoF would happen and then making it clear which (visible) trooper would get LoF.

I've never seen the situation described by OP of "lol, you didn't know you had LoF to this trooper, get shot for free." This just reeks of trash player trying to get an edge by keeping the game state unclear.

 

I've definitely seen it. I generally discourage that kind of play though.

 

Super shady gameplay in a game requiring co-op to function. I always ask and tell after deployment which models can see where in the game table.

If you are playing with intent, this is ofc impossible.