No it doesn't. It has an additional requirement that you have LoF when you declare the skill, but has no provision allowing you to check. The implication here is that you were allowed to check to begin with.
Or, you know, LoF is Open Information, since it isn't explicitly stated to be Closed Information... A sidebar or note in the rules annex to clean this up would be nice, however.
This exact wording change from N3 to N4 is causing issues in our local group as well. The specific call out for Reactive Player ARO LoF checks, and no where being explicit about active turn LoF checking at any time is going to create problems with intent play.
If everything was open information, so too would table distances and you could pre-measure your shooting. LoF is a Requirement. Requirements are explicitly measured in Order Sequence step 6.
Except that's explicitly stated to not be the case on page 27 of the N4 rules. So no, it doesn't work that way.
The question in my group is whether or not the active player, when moving, can use a straight line laser tool to determine LoF to other models, or not. Using this tool could be in collaboration with an opponent, or not. That's the big question.
This entire time I thought it was you, Hecaton, arguing against LOF being Open Information. I feel bad now for being mean. It is clear iyaerP is the one causing the ruckus.
Hecaton has a tendency to phrase things in a manner that leads people to assume he is looking for loopholes to exploit. Having met and discussed rules with him, this is absolutely not his intent. His goal is to point out those instances so that they can be cleaned up into a more solid version.
iyaerP is absolutely correct, this needs an official response. As written, it appears that intent movement is "out", and the Active Player "finds out" if they have LoF or not in Step 6, or a reciprocation of LoF if determined in Step 2. This would slow the game down incredibly at tournaments, and cause real problems and negative play experience at least in my area. In my area, this is a gaming group splintering question.
Its currently tearing up my local infinity facebook group as well. I get that a lot of people liked play by intent, but the N4 change seems to have gotten rid of it. I'd be lying if I said that I dislike this change, but if this is the intended behavior, it's important to know. If nothing else, Berserk absolutely needs some clarification, because that skill is broken as written. The question has never been if LoF was secret. The question was when you can measure it. If it is implicitly measurable at any time, and the rules only specifically call for it when it is required, then Play by Intent still works. If it is only explicitly measurable when the rules call for it, then Play By Intent no longer really works.
I've got to be honest, I'm struggling to see how "looking at the table" can be restrained. Measuring distance with a ruler/tape measure? Easy, leave them to the side. But suggesting I'm cheating or breaking the rules by observing the location of terrain and models in relation to reach other at the wrong time?
Not really, no, if it's implicit that LoF for troopers sitting on the table is known at all times. The thing is, also, fundamentally people who argue against intent are counting on one player, presumably themselves, being better able to estimate LoF without actually checking it, to enable those "Gotcha!" moments.
As near as I can tell, the suggestion (from the one person arguing for it) is that you can't ask your opponent to confirm what you see. A: I think that your sniper doesn't have a view through this gap because it's blocked by a ledge. Do you agree? B: Nyaaa nyaa not telling! A: Seriously? Ok fine, I think there's no LoF, so I move across the gap. B: Surprise! I think my sniper can see you! I thought so all along but I didn't tell you. A: It wasn't even that important to me. If you'd said you thought your sniper would see, I wouldn't even have argued - I'd just have made a different play. But now we have to argue about LoF, and there's no longer any room for compromise because you forced me to commit to the movement before we had this conversation. B: Nyaaa nyaa! Blech. Fortunately, as @Hecaton says, the tiny minority who feel this way don't seem to actually play Infinity. At least, I've never met one in a game.
Also, they're essentially arguing that if they stack multiple troopers side by side they want to be able to ARO with all of them. In other words, disallowing pie slicing.
I'm sorry but I've read through 3 pages now and I still don't understand WTF the actual question is about and why it's relevant in any way?
No, disallowing the "virtual positioning" of "I place the base of the Silhouette in the theoretically possible quantum state where less than 3mm of its volume has LoF to that 2nd model and the others, but can perfectly see the first one" and substituting it with the RAW "place the model in the final position and then check the LoF and ARO".
