What Constitutes A Valid Target for LoF

There's a stark difference between facilitating gameplay (#1 on ijw's three point list) and abusing the option declarative positioning of models.

Even still, imprecise positioning can and will affect both additional LOF (HD troopers), as well as the distance of further movement. I've seen intent players be uncooperative and refuse placing a model precisely within the scope of their declaration. I've seen people declare a back-and-forth on a corner, only to gain inches as a result (backing up or stepping out further than their MOV would permit). Whether they were cheating or misjudging distance, it was a problem and led to an argument when I demanded a measurement.

Not to mention people declaring themselves into those impossible angle positions and arguing they can do it.

Now the rules require that for me.

 

The rules have always required you to be able to measure out your movement path. I’m happy to play pretty fast and loose with intent, but if I think I see someone accidentally claiming extra movement, I’ll always point it out by asking them to verify the measurement. Fortunately for me, this has never led to unpleasant social interactions - if I explain my concerns in a non-confrontational way, people are happy to verify their actions and fix their model position if it was in error.

 

Look mate, I understand you're trying to argue rules to resolve social interactions, but ultimately it just makes it harder for yourself.

Whether you believe it's house rule, cheating or what have you. Some level of intent based play is how the majority of the community play.

You're not going to convince CB to tell you how to play with your little metal men. Ultimately you need to figure that out with your opponents.

 

And yet.

 

I fail to see how declaring a route and final position somehow prevents someone from discussing that route with their opponent to avoid AROs they don't want to generate?

 

It doesn't preclude you from discussion the route. It precludes them from doing nothing more than the discussion. You need to show me the exact and complete route. Show me how far you stick the model out.

You can't only say "I stick it far enough". Show me how far.

 

As far as I am concerned I do not plan to have the intent debase spiral into several competitive threads, again, so please behave or the thread is locked, this goes particularly to forum members who posted only to show disdain and not add anything to the discussion.

 

How does declare= show?

The very next bullet says measure to the end point.
Declaring the following
I move to the point at the corner to see guy A, then move back with the remainder of my move.

Fulfills the bullets.

How you and your opponent establish what that means is up to you. If you want the other guy to fiddle with silhouettes until they find the perfect location, and then after 2 mins you still disagree - that's going to be an argument.

If you both agree or disagree at declaration point, it saves time. Nothing about intent is circumventing the normal process. It's a shortcut, nothing more nothing less.

 

How else exactly would you declare the complete route? If it's a path from A to B, you need to show B. If it's a path from A to B and then back, but only to C (corner pop out, for example), you need to show B and C.

 

You're still using the word 'show' in reference to a series of bullets which make no mention of showing the route. Only declaring it.

As far as the rules are concerned the route a model takes is always an ethereal thing that never actually physically occurs in the table. Your model begins at it's start point and is placed at the end point.
Establishing lof between those points is a discussion, potentially with gaming aids.

You seem to have an issue with the fact people are abusing that discussion. And I would ask; say CB agreed with you, how exactly do the rules as you interpret them, prevent those people from abusing LoF?

 

In the examples below, the "bases" are the points you want to move to. Start, end and the "intent point" or a certain "extreme" you stick out of cover.

Assuming for simplicity and the sake of the exercise that you have inches of Movement to spare, you have to show me (declare) the complete route the trooper takes. I might want to ARO along this path. You may not have noticed some ARO I have. I might have an HD trooper looking at this part of the table.

If you have inches to spare and only declare these three points, I have no clue if you didn't take the wider route and possibly shown yourself to a yet different set of ARO. You may even want to use the wider route to avoid a ZOC of a hacker / repeater or avoid a Mine.

For all those potential game states, I need to know the exact game state, as the rules require, as ijw has stated. The whole, complete path of the model needs to be declared.

 

What exactly is debated upon?

 

What constitutes "must declare the exact route" as per the rule quoted by Ian.

 

What? Yes you need to declare the route.

A declaration can involve a discussion about the board state though.
Eg.. For the blue model I could ask "if I go straight, along this line nothing of yours can currently see and get an aro until I reach that point in cover?"
You could disagree, and I can adjust the declaration accordingly until we're both happy with the game state. Obviously within the limitations of the move I have available, and a certain goal might not be achievable, at which point I may elect to move to a different point.

You could have HD and if course your not obliged to talk about that.

So where is the contention exactly?

Edit: obviously AROs are not declared until the movement route has been explained and the model has moved to it's end point.

 

I would assume it is on the "intent, no intent" discussion that has been asked to not be debated.

 

I'm not sure as I'm confused at where nuada has an issue.

I thought the discussion was OK as long as we kept it civil?

 

I have not locked the thread or replied in red.

edit I was just not subtly reminding to not steer off civil :)

I am assuming from what I read the situation is "I declare I move, I measure from Y to Z and then move the model to Z" the movement is the declared path already measured and the model has occupied all the spaces that path covers.

What is the question assuming the above I said is what is the meat of the subject been debated?

 

To take a stab, I think we all agree that you declare the end point and the route taken. in N4 you can premeasure if you can reach said point.

I think the debate may be around whether LoF can be discussed prior to a declaration being 'locked' in. Ie. Can the active player declare a route based on understanding where reactive troops LoF starts and ends.

 

Some players, like Hecaton, obstinately refuse that they are supposed to physically indicate the whole route or use Silhouettes along the way.

I consider this a breach of the rules.

 

I'm confused as to how you would reasonably achieve this without having they type of conversation Alphz described. do you slowly slide the mini with both hands while the opponent checks all LoF? What happens when vaulting is involved? do you use a 4 inch string to indicate your entire route and place silhouette's along the length with the model at the end?

part of what drew me to infinity was the aspect of playing the game with your opponent rather than strictly against - having an open dialogue with an opponent kind of insured they wouldn't be a jackwagon