Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Oct 23, 2020.
Anyone else reading B as a catgirl in their head? Anyone? Nomad players? I'll see myself out...
Use your best skill and spatial judgement and place him. If you do it well and you end up really seeing one and my laser marker agrees - kudos! That's the point. Hone that skill.
In a torunament game it'd be a resounding "I dunno, mate. Place'em and we'll see how well you did" from me.
In a pick up, eh, cool, I'll cooperate. But the point stands the rules explicitly say that I should check after the model is placed. Not before, after.
I'll just laser the chap's LoF to make sure I don't get into it.
Except that you only measure your LoF during step 6, well after you've moved your models.
That's the whole core of where this thread is coming from.
Where does it say I can only check LoF during order expenditure?
Cat variant of Contrapoints, to be exact xD
By all means, that should work and usually does. But sometimes the volume of a Silhouette will do you disservice or your judgment will be incorrect or placement imprecise and well, bang bang. Turns out there's two ARO instead of one. Happened to me more than once.
There could be a whole separate argument about what "checking" LoF/ARO means and whether by using the laser between our models you don't do a "check" prior to placement of the model in final.
Actually what are you on about, I'm talking about what happens after the model is placed. You just can't place it in one pos, ask me to check ARO, then reposition, then ask me to check ARO untill you narrow it down. Place the model where you think it will be seen by one model and then I'll verify it.
You keep making up stuff about my playstyle despite having no idea how I play and claiming just a second ago that I do not play at all. So, which is it?
A point on the table is not the volume of a Silhouette. You're asking me if I even play? :D
Unless your thumb is a perfectly sized and vertical S2 silhouette marker, I can only talk about my models seeing the point on the surface of the table and a wishy-washy general thumb-sized volume of space called "here".
Place the model or an S2 Silhouette and we'll check. Between your thumb, "here" and final model placement there's a lot to go wrong for you.
Where does it say that you can check it at any time? It ONLY says that you check during ARO, ARO2 and Resolution.
So, if I bend over the table to see if two models can see each other at any other time I'm breaking the rules?
Do I need to start playing with my eyes closed?
My take: I play infinity for fun.
There was someone in my local meta that tried to hide his AROs or relied on unnecessary gotcha's (Not talking noctifer ML gotchas, but "forgetting" important pieces of open information then springing the trap when someone commits to a run). I just didn't play them after a few games because it was miserable. In fact, it even led one of my infinity friends to quit the meta entirely.
Determining hypothetical line of sight with the help of your opponent keeps the game moving forward and makes your 2-3 hours worth of mini gaming with them much friendlier.
You can use some simple geometry to solve that issue.
Again, this game is not Jenga. It is not an agility game. The "lot to go wrong" is just jostling. At this point, you're essentially arguing that if terrain gets bumped, it can grant you free AROs or LoF, which is an incredibly toxic outlook and indicative of being a very poor sportsman - par for the course for those who argue against intent, though, it's true.
If I was TOing a tournament, and someone did what you described, I'd give them a warning for poor sportsmanship. If they persisted, I'd eject them.
Yes. By current RAW.
The fact that they completely rewrote the little part of the rules that explicitly allowed for out-of-sequence LOF checks last version when the copy/pasted so much other parts of the rules over should also say a fair bit about the intend of the devs in that regard too.
Better bring a blindfold to my next game then.
Or just don't fucking cheat man. I don't like all the rule changes this edition either, but I'm not going to cheat for advantage.
While I’m not a moderator, this thread is VERY clearly heading in the direction of getting locked, and getting the whole topic banned again, and because of multiple posters.
In practical terms, I suggest discussing with the person you’re playing with whether a given LoF will be possible, maybe even (Shock! Horror!) before the game starts. That’s what actually happens when people from different metas meet*, and makes most of this discussion irrelevant.
*I’ve not been keeping track of exact number, but so far it’s worked in my games against players from about a dozen different countries...
But how can I not check LoF if I can see the models?
Because the parallax of your vision standing above the table is not the same as putting your eye down at the model.
You know that this is a false equivalence, and you're trying to derail actual rules discussion.
What issue, knowing the variation size of a Silhouette at 30 inches and at 17 inches to the precision of 3mm? Including taking parallax into account? And being able to guesstimate this on the fly, to answer your LoF / ARO question? Seriously? :D
Just place the darn model, dude.
I'm sorry but you're just being obtuse now and on purpose. Eject somebody from an N4 for following the N4 ruleset instead of sticking to the N3/N3HS community derived "intent play" that's not described anywhere in the book? Gosh darn.
It's not about gotchas. I'm all for fair play and being cooperative. But my opponent really can't expect to offload his own cognitive workload on me because he can't be arsed to evaluate possible AROs himself.
Am I playing against his skills here or am expected to assist him in making perfectly pie-sliced movements to better own me in his Active turn?
I say, let him darn show some of that skill.
He's right on the money there, @colbrook, you know?
I'm trying to point out the absurdity of not being able to check LoF except at certain times.
Things like checking a Sniper's field of fire to find safe routes through terrain, checking whether you'd be able to deny a TAG cover by flanking around that building, finding a safe space for a Parachutist to come on, deciding if you can stand up your doctor without being seen by a totes remote, all involve observing the models on the board and judging their LoF. Sometimes you can do it without bending down, sometimes you need to shift your head a little, sometimes you might use a laser, but restricting the checking of LoF to only certain times is impossible.
So if the rule has two interpretations, one where LoF can only be checked at certain times, and one where there are no restrictions on when you can check, but that you double check during order expenditure, I think most people would go with the possible option.
Please, let's be calm, let's be calm.
I think different issues are being mixed in this thread.
On the one hand, when is the Lof check(=verify) LoF, and on the other, if the other player has to answer the question: If I move this troop here, who has Lof with it? (or something similar)
I think the first topic was resolved a few pages ago.
The second is irresolvable discussing it in a forum, it's best to discuss it between players before the game ... there is nothing wrong with "wasting" five minutes talking about these things and reaching an agreement at that moment.
I mean no offense by this, but you are posting with an Infinity Rules Staff tag and are credited in the rulebook, shouldn't there be a simple yes or no answer to the original question? If it's neither because open/closed information pertains to something more specific like profile stats and specific game states that would be helpful to know too.