Inching around corners to avoid multiple AROs

I am really not interested in seeing the intent debate resurface and I do not want to lock a members first thread and post so please refrain from it.

 

No, that's not an argument in a permissive game system. It is the difference between a restrictive system that tells you what you may not do (e.g. laws - since defining what would be allowed anywhere, at any given time, and for any given person or object is literally impossible) and permissive system that tells you what you may do (e.g. most games, including Infinity, which defines how to play the game rather than how to not play the game)

The key here is two-fold;
1. that LOF is something that exists between the volume of two game objects and/or scenery and actually checking a LOF that doesn't exist is dubious at best
2. setting down a silhouette where your trooper isn't, outside of the movement measuring, would mean you're setting down a 25mm to 80mm measuring stick without the rules allowing it.

It should be noted that both LOF and distance is fully allowed to be estimated using any visual aids (such as shadows) or pre-existing knowledge (such as measurements from previous orders) you might find on the game table. This does require you to visualise distance or trooper volume, however.
Yes laser pointers are a bit dubious, but as long as they're dumb laser pointers that don't also give off measurements it shouldn't run afoul of a permissive game system that doesn't dictate how to set up the room's lighting conditions.

 

To avoid contravening @psychoticstorm 's direction, I won't argue the point. I'll only point out, for future readers, that the opinion that you can't place a silhouette on the table to check potential LoF is a minority opinion. It's a common practice, and most players are of the opinion that the rules allow it.

See, for example, the Infinity Global League's ruling on the subject, which is that you can place a silhouette if necessary to check potential LoF, but must be careful not to use its base size to measure a distance while doing so.

Readers who want to know the arguments on either side will have to refer to prior threads, since we're not allowed to keep arguing about it here. Which is probably for the best since I think the subject has been pretty thoroughly canvassed in those threads.

 

To be clear IGL does not blanket let you place Silhouette's to check LoF. We suggest that you can check all current Lines of Fire using a Silhouette. As well as after declaring Move to check all possible future Lines of Fire that could be achieved with that movement skill that's all.

 

Here is the full ruling from the IGL website:

• 
  Using a Silhouette to preemptively check future Lines of Fire without declaring Move, and from a position that a model has not reached yet, is problematic. We would recommend avoiding the use of a Silhouette in these cases if possible, and only using a silhouette as a last step, with your opponent’s permission.
  

This is debatable with no clear answer.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with checking Line of Fire for current and future positions.

However, Silhouettes have known measurements, and therefore using a Silhouette to check multiple Lines of Fire at various positions across the board could allow a player to pre-measure distances. This is not allowed.

If the model in question has already declared a Move then using a Silhouette to check potential Lines of Fire throughout possible movement paths is fine - once movement has been declared you’re allowed to premeasure movement distances and check possible paths.

An issue arises when we talk about checking speculative, future Lines of Fire in cases where a model has not declared a Move and wants to check positions it has not reached yet. This is an issue because it could allow the use of a Silhouette to pre-measure distances.

Therefore we would recommend that people try to avoid using silhouettes when checking potential future Lines of Fire, in the absence of moving a trooper. Obviously if the game depends on using a Silhouette for this then do use it - but speak to your opponent first!

I think I paraphrased it accurately. You can check potential future LoF, but should do so without using a silhouette if possible so as to avoid any risk of premeasuring. But if you need to use a silhouette to check, you can do so after checking with your opponent.

If that's not the intention then the website should be updated, as to me it seems pretty clear as it's written. That said, I think it's a good ruling as it stands.

 

For reference: https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/pre-measuring-scenery.39258/page-2#post-392074

While it is common practice for many to place silhouettes just about anywhere to check stuff, it is not allowed by the rules (as can be seen by IJW stating that it is measuring a distance) - if someone takes such common practice to the point where they daisy-chain place silhouettes you should probably think about if it isn't time to rein in that stuff or simply switch to full pre-measuring as a house rule.

I do agree that once you have declared a movement, the rules more or less forces you to place silhouettes along the potential movement routes to check for movement validity prior to deciding final path.

 

@ijw stated that checking whether a silhouette would fit on a ledge would be premeasuring a distance, i.e. the distance between the two sides of the ledge. He didn't say anything about using a silhouette to check LoF, and LoF is not a distance. The IGL ruling quoted above is, I believe, a solid attempt to follow @ijw's ruling.

As I said, the opinion that you can't use them to check LoF is a minority opinion, but we're not allowed to debate it, so I don't think there's anything more to say on the subject.

This gets us back to the OP topic, which I think we're still allowed to discuss, and which we almost universally agree on. Pie-slicing is allowed, because once you've declared Move, you can unquestionably then move to the first point that you see an enemy model and stop before seeing the next one, placing your silhouette as needed in order to do so.

 

I took PS' warning to do with the OP and the immediate responses following it (see post number 5) and not to do with LOF checking

I know it's the minority opinion. Seems to me most people are trying to find any loophole they can to play with pre-measuring and CB is playing catching up with plugging those holes, creating issues as they do.
Honestly, maybe they should just go pre-measure and be done with the jank.

 

You're allowed to check LoF from any trooper to any point on the table at any time. Trooper's LoF is public information.

 

Sure. But there's no LOF to empty space. LOF is a line between two game objects.

"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."

So you can check a trooper's LOF to a point on the table (e.g. a point that a smoke tosser could target), but putting a silhouette on that point at any time is not really part of the rules.

 

What about putting your finger there? What if the terrain gets jostled? At a certain point you're required to take your opponent's word for it.

 

Take my opponent's word for what? Are you sure you posted that in the thread you meant it to respond in? None of that has to do with checking LOFs that doesn't exist.

What does a finger have to do with anything? Do you seriously know the size of your finger digits so well that you can use them to cheat at games that forces you to estimate distances?

 

What the heck are you calling cheating?

 

I have known a player in my local community - many, many years ago, before Infinity was even a thing - who had known his forearm's exact length for that purpose. Prop himself on the table with his elbow next to an unit of miniatures (he was a WFB player) and "think" if he was to declare a charge into melee, or not.

WAAC, I guess. He was also pretty creative at interpreting the rules to his favor. He's not around in the community anymore, to my knowledge.
And certainly wouldn't last long as an Infinity player - I'm of the opinion that it is too easy to cheat in Inflinity to even bother with playing against people who do cheat.

 

I’ve known players like this. They constantly interpreted rules to their favour and they never make the game fun. I can generally guesstimate distances on the board, I’ve been playing long enough now, but things like that are just cheating for the sake of it.

 

I think the thread had proven once again why the ban of this particular discussion is still in effect and will not be lifted anytime soon.