Looking at the table is not a measurement. Correct. Using a tool to finely check something is a measurement. And around in circles we go again...
I'm beginning to believe this actually how its supposed to be played. but, I guess the confusion comes from the fact CB wrote a very clear rule for when and when not to measure a distance. Why not write the same thing for Line of Fire. Why is it hidden in sentences and behind vague words. This will really only settle when a clarification is officially issued. I suspect it will fall they way you interpret though.
Technically, no it is not. You're making a determination not a measurement. It's a binary outcome. The relationship either exists or it doesn't. Say you put a glass outside on a cloudy day, where you can see it from inside your house. Later, you want to determine if it has rained or not. Even though the glass will allow you to measure the amount of rainfall, the determination of "yes it has rained" or "no, it has not rained" isn't a measurement in itself.
it'll be a real shame if it does, the game will be so clunky and rubish with massive arguments about LOF after one side has checked. It will be sad to see an elegant game go the way of GW design :(
It kind of started when they ruled about the 180* LoF not being a binary are you on one side of the 180* line or not into a "haha if I jump high enough I shoot you in the back" Which is strong reason I think this will go that way as well. CB seem to want the game to be a little messy and full of things you can't control without exceptional levels of care and attention.
yeah though I know noone that plays that way either I guess theres also the "I jump off a building for my classified" as well. All of them are generally snubbed by the wider community so thats good, keeps hte game in a better place. edit: Im honestly more concerned about the horrible disconnect between the players and the designers on this, clearly based on the community at large, apart from a handful people generally think the rules play better under "intent" its a shame the designer feel like a smooth game is bad
Ah measuring. Yeah, you need to get a quantitative answer for the act to be measuring. Y'know, in centimeters, or grams or... drams or stone or etc. Laser points do not provide that. Other sorts of laser usage can, but not the cat toys most of us use in our game of metal meeples. We just get a qualitative answer. Have you read "Persepolis Rising" yet? It's sitting in my e-reader right now. It's the next book in my Queue. The Expanse series is crackin' good, as they say on that fog bound island in the North Atlantic.
This is why I am a firm advocate of allowing all things to be pre measured at all times. It eliminates tons of arguments and shifts the focus of your turn to actually acomplishing your task rather than guessing if you can acomplish it. The dice in these games are the random fog of war chances and represent the skills of our little toy soldiers. Me the general not being able to figure out a couple mm on the table top is not conductive to good gameplay or testing my skill as a commander. If I want to figure out exact placements to that level I'll go play a FPS and be the soldier. I want to command my little dudes to do the thing and have them carry out my orders to the best of their abilities (not mine). If you want the random chance of failure to cut the pie (which is what guessing where your model placement is) in your game simply put random movements into your troops profiles if you think they are so unreliable as to not take care covering a corner. In this game especially they mention how high tech everyone is and that's what gives you things like ZoC AROs, your troopers on table have the same info you do (in fact they would have more info currently, no way in hell those fancy guns and TAGs don't have rangefinders!).
Exactly. I hate when a trooper doesn't know if someone is in their hearing distance or not, instead waiting for their commander in the sky to tell them if they hear something or not.
It shouldn't be an issue, but I've found its best to talk it through with your opponent just before you start shooting laser beams.
just finished reading the whole topic. If I understand correctly, the answer to the initial question lie to know if laser is measurement or not. Dictionnary says that to measure is "to discover the exact size or amount of something". Question for those on the "laser is measurment" side of the discussion : how a laser can "discover the exact size" of anything ? Laser doesn't provide you with more information, just a more precise one. Correct sequence if you move while checking LOF is : 1 putting a silhouette where you wanna go, ask your opponent from LOF of his visible troop/camo/impersonnation on the final position and on the way there 2 correct position and repeat 1 if necesssary 3 declare your move and say where you want to go and by which way 4 measure distance and move your model Laser would be used in the step 1. The only result of using laser and eyeballing vs eyeballing only will be more precise LOF, preventing/limiting discussion. How is it a measurement ? And how does it became an issue ? By considering laser as measurement you imply you want to forbid it, what does it get you except less precise LOF ?
