Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Oct 23, 2020.
That has been apparent for several pages at this point.
The more I read these discussions the more I'm convinced that a person's position on intent is actually just a litmus test for how argumentative and adversarial their local community is.
How in the heck you guys expect to do the below checks and measurements without the miniature actually placed in the actual final position instead of a "virtual" one of "I poked out only so far to see this dude and not that one".
And my position from the start is that the intent debate is a cluster that is entirely separate from whether the active player can draw LoF prior to skill declaration.
Thus far in our interactions in this thread, you first stated that N4 doesn't allow for freely checking LoF (see #216). You then stated you can only determine it at resolution (#221). When I pointed out the logical conclusion of that would be that the reactive player gets to determine LoF twice, once before declaration when the active cannot and again at resolution, you indicated that wouldn't be a serious concern (#227). You now seem (#256) to be arguing that you can check LoF as the active player before declaration? It's getting a bit confusing, is what I'm saying.
I _think_ what you're arguing is that the movement path has to be defined for the active player before the reactive gets a chance for AROs, and no takey backsies. Agreed. But I don't see how that would limit the active player from studying the angles as they determine that movement path and I certainly can't see how you can practically limit looking at the game table during your active turn to some arbitrary "normal amount" as is being proposed by others. If you concur, then I don't really think we have much left to disagree about.
I like this example from the rulebook on Page 38, as again it suggests that that active player can do what I propose:
Note that the active player is moving to gain LoF. Presumably he bent down and looked. He defined a path and a spot, and then he moves back.
And look, the target can see him _back_, and they do some shooty shooty.
@RobertShepherd Seems right.
(Sorry to quote you... but it is about getting things solved...) With 4 editions already, one would expect this and other issues would be in the rule books. One way or the other, but explicitly defined by CB. Just like no-pre-measurements, that some like and some dislike. Yet here we are, new edition, a bunch of unsolved things carried from past years.
At this point, I think you're being intentionally obtuse if that's what you're reading from what I'm saying. Looking at the table is not the same as checking LoF, I've been pretty clear on my view of that.
I don't broadly think we DO have much to disagree on, to a point. My point is that there is a specific game meaning of 'draw LoF,' beyond merely looking at the table.
How do you differentiate between the two?
I've already defined it above. Gauging, eye-balling vs confirming, measuring, ensuring there is actually a distinct particular LoF to a particular point. One is estimation without tools, the other measurement (laser, blank side of tape, etc.)
Stop referring to LOF as something you "measure", it is a meaningless distinction
Order Expenditure Sequence refers to measuring of distance and zone of control only while Line of Fire names gaming aids such as lasers or strings or the blank side of a measuring tape as alternative means when getting your face down close to the miniatures is difficult.
There is basically only one thing that's unclear, and that is if you are allowed to stick down a silhouette or other gaming aid to check LOF outside of the order expenditure sequence.
And no, that doesn't include whether we're allowed to take a closer look at how terrain aligns - when there aren't any game elements there, there is no LOF to check that you're not allowed to check.
Maybe this will help
That post is about when Requirements of skills are checked, and is in reply to a different question that has been outstanding for a long time. The question was: A declares a skill outside B's LoF but inside B's ZoC. B must declare her ARO or lose it. B anticipates that A plans to Move into LoF for his second short skill. Can B declare BS attack against A, which will become valid if A does indeed move into LoF as anticipated?
ijw's post answers No, because when the BS attack is declared, the Requirements fail at that point. The answer is about when a skill's Requirements must be valid in order for it to be successfully executed. It doesn't change the fact that you can check lines of fire on the table at any time.
(In fact, the ruling reinforces the fact that the idea that you can only check LoF when explicitly mentioned in the Order Expenditure Sequence is absurd, since the ruling confirms several other points in OES where you have to check LoF even though the OES doesn't mention it. But we knew that already.)
To me? You don't need to in most cases. As Mahtamori says, the main point is use of other aids or putting down silhouettes to check things, etc, at least to me. I I think I may have referred to it as measuring in this thread, as a mistake, but the correct term really is checking LoF.
See, I'd argue the opposite, if it matters at all. Which I'm not sure it really does, in this case. I'd say it EITHER means no, it reinforces there are specific times in which LoF is checked or that it's just entirely irrelevant to the topic at hand.
That all intend based threads always devolve into an utter shitshow thanks to the usual suspects and should be locked immediately and followed up with the liberal use of timeouts/ the banhammer.
Fucking hell. Are we seriously heading into the old PP Steamroller BS of you cant put your hands or fingers on the table as they constitute a marker or measurement device?
It's useful for also showing which communities in which not to play.
There's no difference in the rules between eyes and tools for checking LoF.
It definitely matters, and you arguing the opposite is nonsensical.
How would it reinforce specific times when LoF is checked, when it instead puts forth the idea that LoF can be checked any time it's needed or wanted?
I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who play without intent don't have communities *to* play in.
The rules don't differentiate between those in that way. They're all "checking LoF." Again, this is just your own house rule.
These would look great with a faction logo on them. You could even use them for when your opponent is determining hidden deployment locations!
Honestly this barely even registers on my radar. Players of a game having a debate on the finer points of the way that game is/should played is far from the sort of discussion that would embarrass me.
I mean, you can choose to ignore virtually all of the context of this inordinately heated debate and pretend that it's totally normal. No one would blame you for conveniently forgetting that this has spread to other public forums, and resulted in people arguing about the finer points of leaning down to look at something.
I am aware of both the context and it's spread to various public forums. My statement takes these into account. I am, unfortunately, also aware of the ways in which conversations on forums dedicated to discussing any topic you can imagine can veer into particular subject matters which would certainly begin to make me wish to dissociate with a group depending on where the conversation goes. Thankfully, those are relatively rare here.
Edit: I should specify this is not to say I don't have a position that I strongly favour and feel is the more correct position and I sympathize that it sucks the conversation needs to be had at all. Still, this is far preferable to other avenues of discussion that could be taking place.
Yikes, really 14 pages about if tje LoF is private or not information?? xDDDD
Well, firts of all
Consider any piece of information on a player's Army List that is not explicitly Private as Open and knowable to all.
And the LoF is nos listed on the Private information list.
but if we consider that the LoF isnt a piece of information on a player's Army List
we can go to the Fair Play box
Where we can read:
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.
where in a fair play game, we can help our enemy with the LoF, so we can say that is Open information.
But if we consider the Fair Play box is not a rule and only is in advise.
We can read what LoF saids
In Infinity, Troopers have a Line of Fire (LoF) angle of 180º, that is, they can see with the front half of their base, as shown on the base of the miniatures.
So the LoF is visible for all the players, (even in the ITS rules highlight that the LoF have to be visible) so with all of this, the LoF we can said that is Open Information, if not, we will have to start playing like Bullock in Bird Box xDDDDDDDDDD
If all of this is not enough, I state that the LoF is open information