Is LoF open info?

I was with you till this unrealistic segment that implied anyone would play Warcaster.

 

All of this. And the fact that people play like in example #2 and TOs allow it does not reflect on the fact that N4 doesn't permit this anymore.

 

I really never understand this kind of questions... Sorry.

No needs to be in the rules as a statement... You have all the information about LoT open on the table. To ask your rival about it is only a way to speed things up and makes it simplier and confortable for both players. More now in N4 when you can declare "move" and then take the meassures before to choose where to go, reducing the chances of miscalculation.

 

N4 demands measurement and declaration of complete route. Those cannot be achieved without clear indication of route extremes and Silhouettes. Deal with it.

 

This is absolutely true, but it doesn't remove the requirement to actually place the miniature/silhouette , physically, in the spot it's actually being acted upon from if said requirement even exists...

The fact we're still trying to basically trick CB into answering a relativity simple question after several years and a new edition is equally hilarious and frustrating...

 

The sequence of events is:

1. The player declares a Skill with the Movement Label.
2. Measure to find out which locations the Trooper could reach with that Skill.
3. Declare the final location, and the exact route that the Trooper is taking to reach it.
4. Move the Trooper to the final location.

​

 

THANK YOU, IAN :)

 

Spend an order.
Declare Move.
Measure to find out which locations the Trooper could reach with that Skill.
Declare the final location, and the exact route that the Trooper is taking to reach it.

"I will move this trooper alongside this wall and out of a corner just enough to see that one trooper the furthest to the side, but not the others, then go back the same way to the starting position."

Move the Trooper to the final location.


This is how a proper #pieslicing is done. All according to rules. Thank you.

 

"Show me where EXACTLY."

There's nothing wrong with pieslicing. There's everything wrong with not showing the complete and exact route your Trooper takes.

 

Yeah, sure. My pleasure. As this is a very precise location I will use this laser pointer, so there's no confusion as to where it is.

edit: Although definite most of games I play end at "intent" declaration with opponents cooperating, I sometimes meet with hard resistance, just as the one you present. Still only two times in my entire career I was asked to point the exact location and fun fact is one of these people was @Zewrath at Polish nationals. I think he can testify that pointing the exact spot wasn't that big of a deal you try to make it to be.

 

19 pages of "why we banned intent discussion and why it is still banned" and as a reminder it is considered a really bad idea by the moderation team for someone to restart the conversation.

As per the unrevoked statement all intent discussion is considered banned until the company makes a public decision on the topic.

I will personally add that forum threads like this make such a thing difficult and counter productive in any resolution coming out, not a secret as it has been said several times to all veteran members participating in this new thrust to push for intent discussion in the forefront.

Intent has advantages, has disadvantages, has paradoxes and has no official resolution yet.

 

I'm absolutely fine with this, as long as you do. It's best if you could also plonk a Silhouette at the extreme point of movement. I'll even agree to help and adjust it slightly so that it really shows what you intended (if the placement doesn't align with the intent).

I don't want a "gotcha". I want precision and continuity of model placement, movement ranges, gun ranges, etc.

As above. As long as in the end I know how far exactly and I can check my other LOFs, it's fine. I don't want to "gotcha" you, though there's space for mistakes to be made, sure. As above, I'm after precision.

 

A more common example:

“I will move this Gaki 6” forward in a straight line to this point” followed by picking up the model and placing it at the terminal point. No one thinks you’re breaking the rules by not sliding the model forward in continuous contact with the table so as to demonstrate the precise physical location of every point along the route.

If a specific spot is in question, it’s reasonable to ask them to show you that point, but the rules do not require every position along the path to be explicitly demonstrated.

 

They actually and very specifically do require that. In simplistic cases like this, ie. straight line movement, of course all we need are the start and terminal points. But movement on a curve, changes of direction, avoiding obstacles, climbing / super jumping, etc, they all need to be declared.

It might require only a few more points, maybe one or two, at the most important changes of direction. But those still need to be known.

 

Declared, yes - physically demonstrated, no. Not unless the other player actually needs extra precision in order to make their declarations. I intentionally chose a very simplistic case to illustrate that.

For example, with the Gaki running in a straight line, I might ask the opponent to show me the model (or a template) in a particular spot to verify if I got LoF as they ran past a gap in some scenery. However, if we both readily agree that LoF through the gap exists, we just grant LoF and can measure to the line of movement without physically retracing the movement path.

 

I like my games to be done in 2-3 hours.