Discussion in 'Rules' started by Hecaton, Oct 23, 2020.
I think that your interpretation of the rules is nonsensical.
I mean, to be honest - if you want to be seen by just one of my 3 models, play a bit more safely and don't stick half of his base out.
"It's not a dexterity game" is such an immense cop-out that means basically "physical troop placement doesn't matter, everything is declarative, there's no True Line of Sight in this game", which is patently and obviously false.
Eyeballing the game table is not remotely the same as breaking out a laser line and measuring things precisely down to 3mm of precision.
I can look at a table and tell you the distance between any 2 models that are within 2 feet down to a half an inch of precision just from my own extensive personal experience with other games before I started playing infinity. But that personal skill is absolutely not the same thing as breaking out a tape measure. And the same is true of the difference between guessing what the LoF will be from your position standing on your side of the table and leaning down to put your eye at the unit's own LOF or breaking out a laser line.
And you can say that there's 2 interpretations of the rules, but that's not what they wrote in the rules.
Play By Intent worked last edition based on a blurb of text that they removed.
Saying that "there's no rule saying I CAN'T check line of sight whenever I want" is "There's no rule saying that a dog can't play basketball" nonsense.
Show me in the rules where you can always check LoF.
They removed the blurb from last edition that was allowing for checking LoF before declaring movement.
LoF is explicitly checked by the Reactive player on steps 2 and 4 of the Order Sequence for ARO purposes, and as it is a Requirement for most skills, so it gets checked again in Step 6 along with any other Requirements.
It is mentioned as being something that you can check...
I don’t actually really care about the “intent” play debate. Saying that it’s cheating to bend down and see things from the model’s perspective is so counter to the reality of how a miniatures game plays that I can’t understand how you could make it with a straight face.
If the rules only allow LOF checks at certain times, it is absolutely cheating to check LOF outside those times.
This is where I'm coming from, how do we determine where we cross the line from "looking at the table" and "checking LoF", is it when I bend down? Is it when I close one eye? Is it when I use a laser? Do the rules even cover lasers?
They are explicitly mentioned as something used to check LoF on a little box on page 24 named: LoF Game Aids.
Alongside peeking model's eye view.
It's not a cop out, no. And "True Line of Sight" usually refers to using the actual volume of the physical model to determine LoF. Infinity is not that game.
Actually, though, the physical board is to a certain degree an imperfect representation of the game state.
Yes it is. Those are both methods for checking LoF, as mentioned in the rulebook. If one is disallowed, they all should be.
Sorry, I thought it was clear that that post was being made on a personal basis. This post is also being made as a private individual.
I don’t know if CB will make a definitive statement, but I doubt it - a number of very heated previous discussions mean that we're now in a polarised situation where there can be no ‘right’ answer for them to give, and any answer they chose would be used as fuel for further arguments.
This hasn’t been helped by a conflation of terms, all lumped under ‘play by intent’.
General playing by intent to speed the game up (‘OK, that guy on his own up on the roof, I’ll move the corner to see him and then move back’) has never been a problem.
A separate issue is infinitely fine pie-slicing, saying that because there is a theoretical position where you can separate two Reactive Troopers’ Lines of Fire, you can state that the Trooper is in that position even if it’s not physically possible to place it that accurately.
A third issue is players using the open information status of LoF in N3 to bypass any need to keep track of where their opponent’s Troopers are, and instead to keep asking ‘if I move here, can any of your units see?’.
arguing you're not allowed to check line of fire is certainly a new one.....
Ok, so looking at these two models like this is not cheating, because I'm not bending down, or am I cheating because I can tell that they can see each other?
But bending down and looking at them like this would definitely be cheating?
Which is what I was saying. If the Rules don't allow LoF checks outside of the 2 ARO checks and the Resolution steps, then none of those are allowable at times other than those steps.
If the rules do allow LoF checks at any time, then it doesn't matter.
But we have colbrook saying that even if the rules disallow LoF checks outside of when they're allowed, "YOU CAN'T STOP ME FROM CHEATING BY CHECKING LOF BY LEANING DOWN."
Which is what I take issue with.
Paging @Koni and @psychoticstorm because the thread isn’t calming down.
Sorry, I'll bow out.
On the contrary, having CB make an actual statement would end the debate full stop because we know what the actual RAW and RAI is. The discussion is then over and all play henceforth proceeds with those rules.
By not making a statement they are only letting it fester because both sides think that they're right and inevitably clash, and without clarification from above, it will basically depend on the opinion of whoever your TO at any given event is.
For rules to work they have to be consistant. if CB says "The rules work by XYZ", then everyone on the planet can point at that and all tournament play happens by XYZ.
Currently we have a portion of the population playing XYZ and a portion playing ABC and CB won't clarify.
This is just incorrect.
The issue is, the vast majority of players I've encountered are fine with all three of those, with literally 100% of them being ok with 1 and 3, and a small minority disagreeing on 2. And yet, even for those who disagree on 2, they can never say exactly where the point is at which troopers are too close to allow for pie slicing...
Anyway, there is very little to lose on CB's part by clarifying that LoF can be checked at times like before order declaration, during deployment, etc, since that's how the majority of the community plays it. I'd argue that there's more to be lost by not doing so, as these arguments will continue to pop up, fueled by people who want to make the game worse.
It seems odd that there hasn't been a definitive answer given by CB on this.. I've got to say though, from a gaming perspective, which is what this is, a game. This isn't to say people can't take a game seriously, but the idea of policing checking of LOF seems ridiculous and unnecessary, and I would be reluctant to play someone who would enforce it (how they would enforce it I don't know). Not to mention, the idea of a plan falling apart because the base of a model is 3mm out of place would be beyond deflating. On the other side, beating someone who feels like they have been duped is so unsatisfying. It's like having to remove a piece in chess because you moved your piece slightly into an adjacent square.
I suppose people who are short in stature will have an unfair advantage in future N4 games. Will sitting down during games also be against the rules? Or will we have referees checking for 'cheats'. Perhaps we should start having weight brackets as they do in boxing, but for height instead - as to not give anyone an advantage.
I know I am being facetious, but you hopefully see my point.
I mean, it makes sense - people enjoy the game both ways and it would be unwise for CB to put the kybash on one of those ways. that being said what I'm referring to are the three points IJW listed out - whatever nonsense about not actually being able to check LoF at any given time is new and utter crap. if you - or anyone else is new here, this above argument is absolutely not what "play by intent" vs "non-intent" generally refers to and i think that distinction is important
Currently we have one portion of the Infinity players playing in CM, and the other portion playing in inches. And think about the differences in tables and terrain that people play on.
All of the evidence points to people arguing about this for no productive purpose, and just to be able to tell someone “You’re playing the game wrong.”