In this instance as TO I wouldn't let the reactive player use that ARO as the agreed consequences of the active player declaring their order have been resolved. Part of the onus on the reactive player Is to be aware of what his units can draw LOF too and this is also part of the reason that PBI works so well for both players since that the active player can quite reasonably ask about units that they can see and the reactive player may have forgotten about before any order is spent thus avoiding situations like you mention.
While the way people play are varied, indeed, I think the gist of it is that PIP/PAIL means no checking LOF to places without a trooper/marker. You have to eyeball it, meaning you'll have to do it yourself and without sticking aids like silhouettes down. From what I understand, this is also the biggest and most common difference between PBI and PAIL.
Then can someone explain to me this statement I found on the official wiki?? How can I check LoF to the "final position" if I cannot check LoF to a position where there isn't a troop or a marker??... Am I missing something? " Example of Cautious Movement and Hidden Deployment In her Active Turn, a player wants her Camouflage Marker to declare Cautious Movement. She checks that no enemy figures or Markers have LoF to her Camouflage Marker in either its current location or its final position, so she declares the Cautious Movement. "
I think we've come to a point where it's pointless to keep arguing and simply start respecting that we play differently. So, giving people the benefit of the doubt we assume that their stance is that "checking there is not LOF" means the active player bends down, eyeball the size of their miniature versus all opponent miniatures and then determines if she thinks there is an opponent in LOF or not. A "soft check" if you will.
OK got it. Thank you for helping me out to understand!!! I'd really asked only to understand the situation. No intention to argue with nobody. Mask
From what I can see, that's pretty much the crux of it. If line of fire exists between a trooper and any point on the table not blocked by total cover then it's open information, and as such when asked, the reactive player is required (with the exception of HD troops) to effectively declare how many AROs and from where they originate, but the active player is under no obligation to declare a move to, past or through said point. As a side note if the active player does declare such a move and the reactive player then spots a trooper with line of fire that the active player didn't see, or at least made no attempt to inquire about,then the fairest resolution is that for that order only, the trooper is ignored by both players. If the reactive player forgets to declare an aro which was discussed, then we fall into the realm of common courtesy, the active player *should* inform the reactive about the forgotten ARO, but is under no obligation to do so, creating a potential "gotcha" for the reactive player, should the active player be a dick... If line of fire only exists to models and markers, then the AROs are checked and declared once the skill that triggers them is declared and performed, creating the potential for the active player to receive a "gotcha" ARO, but then proceeding much as above with the potential for the reactive player missing an ARO and getting a "gotcha" in the same way. Again, application of common courtesy prevents anyone being a dick, but it's really the only thing that does... If you want to be a little philosophical, PIP maybe assumes that you're not going to be a dick, and as such makes no effort to prevent it, PBI prevents a lot of dickishness, but possibly underestimates the level of being a dick that is possible. TLDR: Don't be a dick.
With takebacks, I'd be able to say "Oh, I didn't know an enemy had LoF to me, I'm taking that back." That's obviously not how it happened.
If you ask, yes, but if you don't ask and declare the move blindly, you're doing a Leroy Jenkins, and under PBI, PIP, PCB, HJV, JCB, SPQR, or OSHA, you've done it and take the consequences the same.
Which is exactly what happened lol. It was a weird situation; I moved and fired on one of his Myrmidons with a spitfire, and knocked him unconscious. I knew that at the point I had stopped moving only that myrmidon had LoF to me, but him falling unconscious meant that another myrmidon behind him could now see my trooper. So I just declared a cautious move and my opponent informed me that a model I wasn't aware of had LoF to my trooper. Oh well. We talked about it after the game, it was kind of an unusual happening.
Jesus, this is still going? Are we trying to get another 50+ pages of people yelling past each other? Skimming through some of this, I see accusations of "PIP" advocates refusing to participate in the discussion, etc. Some of us don't follow every single sub-forum, and I personally am exhausted of dealing with this literally month+ fight (not even including the previous time/times it came up). Why would I want to come back and reiterate the same points I've spun in circles making already? It seems obvious there is a fundamental disagreement on what LoF is, how it's defined, and when it can be "measured" (I know some of you will take issue with that terminology). Until that's officially resolved, this is all pointless fisticuffs that is spilling over into personal conflicts, factions, and bad blood.
If it were me you were playing, I would have told you before you committed as that is very much a blue box situation, the LOF existed before the order were declared (And that is taking the strictest definition of LOF that anyone has come up with). If I hadn't realised until after, I would have offered a takeback. Of course I don't expect takebacks like that to be the bloody rules, it stopped being the rules the moment @Hecaton declared his order without knowing what LOF existed to his guy as per the blue box. This has nothing to do with intent, it's more about playing cooperatively and how you respond to rules that are broken. Usually that's a takeback. Takeback needs to stop being used as a slur. I'm taking back taking it back. It's our word now, but them PIPers can say Takebak.
Wolf had said that you and psychoticstorm have more insight than the creators do of their own game. That was all I was refuting. I'll agree that you may have more insight into intent than any lay player, but I will not agree that you have more insight than the creators, that's just a logical falacy.
'Beyond' in the post you quoted means 'of the people outside CB'. Not that PS and I have more insight into the game than the creators.
