Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Oct 23, 2020.
As per the title. There was a sidebar which stated this in N3. I can't find it in N4.
I figured it would be you.
What are you on about?
Yes LoF is Public information.
Because it is not listed in the information that is considered Private (Rulebook, page 15):
Your Troopers’ Cost and SWC.
The presence of Troopers possessing the Combat Jump or Parachutist Special Skill.
The presence of Hidden Deployment Troopers.
The presence of troopers disguised by HoloMask.
The identity of Troops with Chain of Command or Counterintelligence.
The contents of your Markers.
The identity of your Lieutenant.
Nor is it expressly specified as Private information, as it is specified in certain cases, such as the use of Holomask (pages 122 and 157) for Special Abilities, Weapons and Pieces of Equipment owned by the Troop when using Holomask. .
I mean the question is, is it "information" to begin with? It's obviously not closed information. And, if it is open information, do you by implication know what every trooper can see at all times, like, say, before an order declaration?
Yes, which is the LoF Arc of each miniature is public information and therefore it is public information what each one of them see or does not see.
Position and facing of models is open information. Line of fire is derivable from position and facing, so therefore line of fire is open information.
I wish that were more explicit. We've got the usual troglodytes (@Pierzasty I guess) arguing that intent play is cheating now thay N4 has dropped. Their argument is that you can only check LoF in the steps of the order sequence that explicitly call for it. @ijw if you're talking to CB about updating their rules document it might be good to get that codified at some point.
I don't really want to get into intent debates, but I guess I missed that thread.
Regardless of whether it is formally defined as open information or not, I don't really see how you can stop a player from walking around the table and verifying LoF.
Let's see if I understand: Another player tells you that you are cheating if you look at what a troop see or does not see, unless you do it at the exact moment of the ORDER EXPENDITURE SEQUENCE in which it is specified that you can do it.
is that the case?
We're still waiting on that official statement that was announced 2018 for the intent debate.
Then again watch any CB batrep.
They're definitely using intent.
I would say that, since only what is listed as Private Information is so, and LoF is not listed as Private Information, is therefore Public Information.
The only problem would be with the marker models, but I think those still have 360º so...
That's slower than the other player answering when you ask him "do any of your troops on the table have LoF to this point roughly within this troop of mine's MOV value?", I prefer to play a little faster than moving around the table to check all LoF (granted, it is exceedingly easier nowadays because social distancing... but my opponent should need to rotate as well XD)
Well... so much could be said about that... I'll just point out that they are showing off stuff (models, mechanics, new profiles...), not RAW, and intent playing is faster and more easy to follow in a video.
I wish you were more explicit in citing at least one my post where I was saying intent play is cheating. Realizing that you were partly responsible for shitting up the last 3 Infinity threads on /tg/ (which I freely admit pissed me off) is not arguing a specific rules issue.
That was just a clarification, don't bother trying to find what's not there. I put you on ignore anyway.
Why do we exist?
Just to suffer and see intent debates survive into new edition?
Can someone please explain to me what the problem is?
I've been disconnected from Infinity for a while and I honestly don't know what the case is.
If you want to be very nit-picky, Line of Fire is defined as a line connecting a trooper to a target; it does not exist between a trooper and an imaginary position by its very definition. The game simply doesn't have a concept of a "sight cone".
As for a Holomask unit, that unit's real LOF is private information that only needs to be disclosed when it becomes relevant/used. E.g. if you declare to re-camouflage behind a Knight of Santiago, the MO player may need to yield that it doesn't have LOF to you even if it supposedly has a 360 visor (because it is in fact a Holy Sepulchre like you suspected).
Now, I don't know if the rules still ask you to help your opponent out when checking LOF like the "page 5" did in N3, but the measure-before-placing rules for movement effectively eliminates almost everything else about the Intent Debate.
seems to me it is related with the intent vs result discussion. CB sayd they would solve it years ago, but I don't recall them giving a result.
Taking the question at face value, the Gaming Etiquette box from N3 was replaced by a Fair Play box in N4, underneath the Order Expenditure Sequence:
Checking all the Requirements may sometimes seem like a long and difficult process. To accelerate the game, the opposing player can help the Active Player with measurements, LoF checks and the like, thus making the game more dynamic and fun. Since it is the base of a good gaming environment, both players stand to win with a clean game.
I have no idea what happened previously but there is no need for name calling or insulting people and then tagging them, please keep this civil