thoughts on Play by intent

If you haven't already, please vote in the poll I've posted regarding LoF and game aids.

https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threa...open-information-mean-to-you.1181/#post-15211

The more restrictive viewpoint expressed by some in this thread has been extremely underrepresented so far. Just so you know, this isn't about emphasizing the divide, it's about collecting data on how people actually play.

While it's a specific sample and may not be representative of the broader Infinity community who may not frequent the forums (or even those who only frequent the non-english forums), the more participation the better. The information could be helpful should CB ever decide to weigh in on this.

 

LoF is specifically drawing a line between two models in most cases it is a really moot point to do so only when trying to find extreme angles and isolate models to pick models from a good defensive position it really matters to have a really precise position in relation to LoF.

Slicing pie is a skill as is estimating correctly weapon ranges, the rules reward those that can do it. I do not see how people can disagree when LoF is a clear line, but I can see it happen rarely.

Please understand it is not a fight between "intent and anti-intent" I am explaining how the rules work, now what was that about engage and wall?

The word existing lines of fire does not mean Hypothetical lines of fire, the rule about what LoF is, is quite clear, that been said I am interested in reading an explanation backed up by the rules.

 

The argument being made is that LOF does not exist until two models have a line connecting them.

I think that's madness because you don't know who is entitled to AROs until LOF is confirmed. If you don't want to risk slipping up, you should declare AROs with every model on the board whilst the active player runs from one side of the table to the other trying to work out which ones might actually gain LOF without your help.

 

Psychoticstorm, you can ask if there would be line of fire on a route prior to an order being declared. That is what the rule, which you are misinterpreting, means, when it says "before declaring it." Your interpretation prohibits making the determination prior to the order being declared, which is against the rules.

 

This rapidly expanding definition of premeasuring needs to be reigned in, right now. Premeasuring as a thing exists in the rules about as much as the Commandos-style fan of hypothetical LOFs a model can draw.



That's the extend of it. Under the heading of distances and measurement. Somebody find me something other than distances being "measured" in the rules please.

 

I disagree but that is not really important.
Estimating ranges is a skill that takes time and even people who are very good at it can make mistakes.
verifying a straight line can be corrected over and over by looking. It might be time consuming but the only way to check is to do it over again. If the targets are very close then perhaps a laser line MIGHT provide help but we constantly need TO's to make judgment calls in X-wing... a game without 3D terrain played on a black mate, where the models tend to be less then a 12inches away from each other. Even then judges can very widely with the laser pointer.
The eyeball is going to be by far the most accurate way to measure line of sight for infinity after you have had 20 mins of practice.
I can demonstrate with pictures if you like?
Also I need to stress that I do mean this respectfully and I am not trying to make an argument or anything here. If we disagree here or not is unimportant to the rules after all. [/QUOTE]

Kinda off topic but if you will allow the minor side rant just between us.
Lets say a Fusilier moves out from a wall with his first skill. His opponent declares an engage ARO from hidden deployment with his Shinobu and well within 2 inches for the sake of this argument. The Fusilier may with his second skill simply move forwards or back to a wall. If the Shinobu makes her roll and successfully engages, the fusilier player will simply stick her sideways on a wall forcing her to be climbing and as such helpless to defend from any further orders spent to kill her.

 

The rule, which Psychotic Storm is reading correctly, indicates LoF may be asked. And as he also noted, LoF exists between two targets, not two points. Additionally, the path is not determined until after the order and first skill are declared, the hoped for endpoint has been determined, and then the path is laid out.

 

Here's an old but interesting poll that touches on that (from the old forum).

http://infinitytheforums.com/forum/topic/22333-rule-poll-format-used-to-access-rules/

 

Yeah no, i agree with you Huanglong, the idea that LoF doesn't exist to be checked until someone is there staring at a point is ludicrous.

i really don't want to port in everything i said in the laser pointer thread over here, so we'll try a different bent i guess. What are the pros of only checking LoF once models are in their final positions? As far as i can tell it only makes infinity into a gotcha game which isn't fun for anyone and will quickly make the tournament scene into a highly toxic environment that will take hours longer to participate in as every move will be exactingly precise and time consuming.

Mao that's not quite correct. the rules text as noted here (http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Move) is as follows:

that being the case, i can say "i want to move to the corner of the building to only see that one dude and no one else." as i'm doing that we can either agree that that happens because its geometrically possible and we all have better things to do with our time, like play the game, or we can wait while i fiddle with my measuring tape and laser line to check my sight as i'm moving to get into the exact right spot. There is nothing in the rules saying that i cannot check the sight of my models at any time, and since no one has invented one way photons yet i can know your sight by checking mine. Therefore the idea that you can't know which models can see what is ridiculous. Furthermore LoF is open information so even if I ask my opponent what they can see and they don't answer i can just walk over to their model and check it myself, because its open information.

you can do that if you want, but I'm not interested in penalizing my opponent for having shaky hands or not taking 5 minutes to tediously check his line as he moves his model. When i'm playing, I want the best game I can get from my opponent so that when its over neither of us has lost to a stupid mistake or lack of knowledge about a unit stat or ability. The only determining factors i want are my opponent's strategic and tactical capabilities, and maybe some dice.

 

You're wrong about that, considering that the rules specifically allow for the checking of LoF to hypothetical positions before the declaration of an order. It's existing lines of fire to hypothetical positions on the table that might be occupied by a model that uses, for example, a short movement skill. LoF exists from all models/markers on the table to all points that are visible to them; it must because targetless weapons are a thing. If you think it only exists between models/markers and other models/markers, then I hope you have *never* used a smoke grenade or pitcher in your entire Infinity career, as they'd be targeting a point outside of LoF and thus making an illegal move (unless they spec fired, I suppose).

 

Nope. You're both interpreting it incorrectly and should read it again. As I noted in my last post, LoF exists between all models and all points on the table that fit the criteria; if you believe that it exists only between models, I hope you have *never* thrown a smoke grenade at a point on the ground, as your models did not have LoF on it. The viewpoint you describe is hypocritical, nonsensical, and wrong.

 

You can ask prior to the short skill declaration were the model has LoF with any of the opponents models, the opponent must truthfully answer if this is the case for the existing position of the model, not the hypothetical end place of a move that has not yet been declared or determined.

If the model is behind a wall in total cover the opponent will answer the model is in total cover.

You can check LoF at determined positions not for hypothetical positions, there are no pro on con on how rules are written, rules are rules, if we want to discuss the pro and con of premeasuring and checking field of view with silhouettes it is an entire different discussion.

What the quoted text means is you will declare the models intended final position and path and then measure to see if the declaration can be achieved, the model can fall short on distance, that does not change were the path is declared or were the end move was intended to be.

You can declare your intention to only see one model or end up moving within the 8" of the BS sweet range, that does not mean the model will alter its declared path and position until it achieves its intended goal.

As I said that is fine, but it is not how the rules are, I understand people want to play the game they want to play, but they must understand that this is not how the rules are written and they play a home-ruled version of the game as for example virtually everybody plays Metachemistry and booty wrong, rolling the dice and see what they get before placing the model when it is clearly stated that the model is first deployed and then the roll is made.

 

You're way off base here. It's straight up not what the rules say or imply; the fact that you seem hell-bent on ignoring it in favor of your own misconceptions is a problem.

 

You will still need to draw LoF to that point on the battlefield though, except if you use speculative fire.

I think I said it before can you please quote the parts that allow you to draw LoF on hypothetical positions? I think the rules I quoted are clear enouph and they do not back up such claims.

You may say it is so, that does not make it be so, please give me the quoted rules that back it up.

 

Your language comprehension is lacking. Nowhere in the rules for Targetless does it say it expands the user's LoF; if it says that you are not limited to firing at enemy troopers, then that means that the only other targets for Targetless weapons are friendly troopers. You're still limited to targeting troopers and troopers only if you took that point of view. However, that's emphatically not the case, both by common sense and the rules themselves.

The "etc" is what we're talking about here. In the English language, "etc" (et cetera) means, more or less, "and so forth." We can take this to include both scenery structures (which can be targeted in some situations) as well as all points in the table that are valid targets for Targetless attacks. The use of "etc" means that LoF *cannot* be limited to only other models and markers; there must be more, or else "etc" would not be used. Limiting it to only models and markers is ignoring that use of "etc"

Your claim, that LoF only exists between troopers/markers and other troopers/markers, would have game-breaking consequences for Infinity that clearly go against designer intent. First of all, it would make Targetless weapons unable to target points on the table without LoF (unless using Speculative Fire), as the user would not have LoF to the point they wanted to target (as I mentioned, the Targetless trait does not expand the user's LoF). A warband throwing a smoke grenade would still not have LoF to the spot right in front of them they wanted to drop a smoke grenade at. Also, scenery structures (such as the antennas in The Grid) would not be able to be targeted (except possible by melee attacks) as there would be no way to gain LoF to them, and BS attacks require LoF.

Given this, we can safely draw the conclusion that more than just models/markers can have LoF drawn to them, and by extension that this process can be performed before declaring an order (via the now well-known Blue Box).

 

Hey, guys try not start a presentation of a point of view with "you're wrong". Hecaton, particularly you need to tone it down.

It's clear there is a difference of interpretation, we should be striving to come to understanding with healthy debate. Which means understanding the other view point.

 

I don't agree with Hecatons aggressive tone but he brings up a good point.
By this reading of the rules a hidden deployment Swiss guard with a missile launcher will not get to ARO anyone from across the board.
Hmm now that I think about it, if we fallow this logic then Hidden deployment troops are not allowed to ARO at all. They can't make any LoF and they don't have a base for zone of control.
Targetless weapons will need an errata but they are still mostly self explanatory.
Scenery however will make things confusing but scenery is already a little confusing.


The heart of the issue here seams to be that "line of fire" and "line of sight" are being mixed up by the rules.

Outside the concern about pie slicing (it really is less skill intensive then you might think) what are the other issues with making line of sight open information that must be shared honestly?

 

@psychoticstorm would you be able to quote sections from the rules that back up what your saying as I can't find anything in particular that does.

My worry is that this opens several cans of worms when it comes to things like units in hidden deployment and overturns several long held assumptions that I suspect the majority of the English speaking playerbase have been working off.

 

Another thought. In a perfect situation both players would be able to eyeball LOF in a pie slicing situation however the use of terrain in the game means that this won't always be possible and a best guess approximation has to be made.

One of the reasons I've supported the Play by intent position is because it avoids those awkward situations involving terrain and having to upset the table and non involved minis in order to get an accurate estimate on LOF.

Another would be that I've always considered Infinity to be a tactics based game where the actual physical position of the miniature, which can change due to human error like bumping of terrain or unsteady minis, is less important than the intent of the player to carry out a intended tactical play.

What I mean is that the static miniatures are representative of a dynamic unit. So when a unit approaches a corner it to me represented a dynamic unit carefully approaching a corner and peaking out to get the best line of fire on a target, not a game piece moving to occupy a space.

I thought this was backed up when shiloutes were introduced. This clarified that the minis were representative of a unit who could occupy a dynamic space and not static pieces who's ability to be seen was dependant on the physical sculpt.

Playing with intent solved so many of these issues and lead to a much cleaner and dare I say friendlier game.

Again this is a big can of worms to open I'm just worried now how much established thought is going to be shaken up by this.

 

If we really have to make it about rules, here's the rule as written:

The Line of Fire (LoF) is an imaginary straight line that joins any point of the volume of a model or Marker to any point of the volume of another.

Not between a model and any point on the battlefield.

This is the basic rule, and in virtually every game I've played the basic rules are in place always, unless some specific rule creates the exception. In this case Targetless allows us to draw the line of fire between the trooper and point on the battlefield when firing weapon with this trait, because he can target them.

To simplify, LoF is drawn between the trooper and its target. Targetless simply allows for a broader range of targets.

Also, I think people are confusing Line of Fire (what the model can fire at at the moment) and Line of Sight (what the model sees all the time). I've seen no mention of LoS in the Wiki or pdf.

As for the blue etiquette box:

Checking all possible Lines of Fire for all figures and Markers on the table can be cumbersome. It is perfectly acceptable for a player to ask their opponent whether existing Lines of Fire could disrupt the declaration of a given Order before declaring it. Players are expected to share this Open Information in a truthful and sportsmanlike manner. Honesty and fair play are conducive to a better gaming atmosphere, and all players benefit from that.

The question about LoF is clearly asked 1) before you declare any order, including move, and 2) about LoFs that are already in place. Not about any hypothetical ones. It covers a different range of orders.

Player A) "I'd like to re-camo my Naga, does any of your units have LoF to it?
Player B) "Yeah, I think this Kazak can see it".
Player A) "Damn. Ok, I'm declaring AD with my Garuda, then".

Aside from that I still think that arguing about rules to the point of getting rude is silly. It's causing more problems than having this issue "resolved" would solve.