Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Tri wrote:

Jidmah wrote:Correct.

Rules also do not limit you to any time or method to check LoS, so feel free to laserpoint away during your movement phase.

Actually they do as i showed earlier, there is an order of things we do. Checking LOS happens in the shooting phase ... anything that might possibly mirror LOS checking has no bearing on the actual check. If you want to eyeball your call but I'm not confirming anything till the shooting phase when it make actually counts

Splitting hairs, but true. If it prolongs the game because you were uncooperative for nothing though, you shouldn't be surprised to get marked down on sportsmanship.

Monster Rain: You are missing the point, too. Your opponent is usually not asking you to find the magic spot of awesomeness which is the only single spot on the board where he can shoot your unit. He is asking you speed up the game without having him to get his laser pointer, check from both table edges and then place his unit in the right spot. If he is trying to find that magic spot, you are perfectly fine to decline helping him, at best while letting him know why you did it.

You are all acting like this is rocket science and everyone has stolen the recipe for placing units in LoS to a target from your secret lair. Guess what? I saw an 8 year old in store a few weeks ago, playing with probably his fathers marines. He managed to place his landraider and marines in LoS with all their weapons to anything he wanted to shoot every time. While making sounds of car driving and brakes screeching. He must be the next Einstein.

Jidmah wrote:You are all acting like this is rocket science and everyone has stolen the recipe for placing units in LoS to a target from your secret lair. Guess what? I saw an 8 year old in store a few weeks ago, playing with probably his fathers marines. He managed to place his landraider and marines in LoS with all their weapons to anything he wanted to shoot every time. While making sounds of car driving and brakes screeching. He must be the next Einstein.

See and he never asked once; If an 8 year old can do it can't we all

There is a reason, that there are rules for what to do if cover is unclear; they're in the shooting section under cover saves. It in no way slows the game to deal with these issues then. After all its pick a target check LOS, check range, roll to hit, roll to wound, saves ... at which point we check if the unit is in cover if 50% are then they get the cover save if its unclear say 45% then check to see if each model can see 50% of the enemy unit. Laser pointer make it quite quick to check ether you can shine it on a model or you can't

Jidmah wrote:Monster Rain: You are missing the point, too. Your opponent is usually not asking you to find the magic spot of awesomeness which is the only single spot on the board where he can shoot your unit. He is asking you speed up the game without having him to get his laser pointer, check from both table edges and then place his unit in the right spot. If he is trying to find that magic spot, you are perfectly fine to decline helping him, at best while letting him know why you did it.

Odd how I manage to finish the overwhelming majority of my games under the time limit without this brilliant time-saving technique.

Jidmah wrote:You are all acting like this is rocket science and everyone has stolen the recipe for placing units in LoS to a target from your secret lair. Guess what? I saw an 8 year old in store a few weeks ago, playing with probably his fathers marines. He managed to place his landraider and marines in LoS with all their weapons to anything he wanted to shoot every time. While making sounds of car driving and brakes screeching. He must be the next Einstein.

I don't know why you're so confrontational about this. Part of the game is movement and placement of your models, and if it isn't rocket science why would my opponent require my help for determining LOS? Also, considering the context in which this conversation arose your comparison of GT games to an 8 year old playing with his father's miniatures is misguided at best. Though I will say that the fact that a child who didn't really care managed to place his vehicles in LOS to its targets without using the technique in question supports Olympia's position more than anyone else's.

Edit for a temporary inability to spell.

I honestly don't really care if someone did that to me in a game. After all, it is only just a game, and not helping them out is going to turn the game into a petty precisionfest.

And that's scientifically unfun.

Tri wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:If I have a unit which wants to shoot at an enemy who is currently in cover, and I want to move it to a position where it will be able to see around the cover, then obviously I do it in the movement phase.

Which is fine but we won't know if you did a good enough job till the shooting phase.

That doesn't mean you can't do it

... maybe its just me but when playing a game with a set order I feel compelled to do it in that set order. Going through the list of things that happen in the shooting phase but would be better done in the movement phase are we all OK with me moving my 6" and then running?

As for no rules for breathing ... there are many things that have nothing to do with the game we do not require rules ether way. It would be a very odd game if it required a special breathing techniques.

I'm not sure how either my or the other side's models are going to move in between the end of the movement phase and the beginning of the Shooting phase, however if it is that important not to be sure about the LoS, I supposed we shall just have to check twice.

Yeah, it's fine to run during the Move phase, if the other player agrees. You just need to be careful about possible interference, and not "run" something which might thereby get out of the way of something you want to move.

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if they want to check LOS while they're moving.

I'm not going to help them determine whether or not I get a cover save.

"We'll see when you start shooting" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, and probably the one I'd give particularly at a GT. I'm not going to help someone get clear shots on my models. Part of the "skill" in this game is proper placement of models. Sure, you can ask if your opponent thinks they get a save or not. You can ask them to just let you win because you're such a nice guy. They don't have to acquiesce and they aren't a bad sport for not doing so.

Monster Rain: The situations in which this arise for me are all identical.

You have a vehicle in your deployment zone. I move one of my ravagers into position to fire at it.

If 40%+ of your vehicle is in cover, I'm going to presume you have cover and not say anything to you.
If 0-10% of your vehicle is in cover, I'm going to presume that you don't have cover and not say anything to you.
If 20-30% of your vehicle is in cover (like ONE tread, or if you have 1-2 infantrymen in front of your vehicle) I'm going to tell you that I presume that I have a clear shot and ask if you agree.

You must understand that the circumstances in which I ask for agreement on a clear shot are very narrow. If your vehicle has 20-30% in cover - not a whit more by ANY estimation...and I ask you if you're in agreement that I have a clear shot, one of three things is going to happen.
1. You're going to say yes, you agree with me. We move on.
2. You're going to say no, you disagree - you get cover. Now, despite KNOWING that I have a clear shot - it isn't worth an argument to me. So I'll simply target something else, move elsewhere etc.
3. You're going to say "We'll see in the shooting phase."

If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans. Because if you weren't, the answer would have been obvious, and you would have agreed with me. So, when we get to shooting, and you attempt to pull shenanigans - like I said: I'm going to call over a judge. He's going to see that you have much less than half your vehicle obscured. He's going to rule on my side. I'm going to nuke your sportsmanship for being a bad sport.

While a bunch of folks here are extrapolating potential situations in which "legitimate" cover saves may be claimed, that is NEVER the case when I play. I *always* give the benefit of the doubt. If there is *NO* doubt to give the benefit of, and I'm in for a clear shot....and you start an argument about cover - then you *are* a bad sport.

This entire thread is about a very specific subset of actions in very specific conditions. The OP is trying to make it generally applicable to everything, and tie it back into me as "cheating" for which I have no respect.

Another way I could phrase the question to opponents is, "I have a clear shot at your vehicle. There's not a cow's chance in a lion's pen that you have cover. Are you going to try cheating?"

ChrisCP: I used the word cheat because that *is* the applicable term here. I'm just not hostile about it in the game. And if someone WANTS to claim cover...when any judge or spectator would be able to rule in my favor....I will *STILL* let them do it.

"My ravager wants to shoot at your land raider. There's a bush in front of it. I think I've got a clear shot - you agree?"
My opponent says, "No...that should give me cover."
I say, "Uh...well, ok then." And then I move/pivot/position to shoot elsewhere.

If your answer to "Does that bush give your landraider cover" is "We'll find out in the shooting phase" well...there's only one conclusion to be drawn.

Dashofpepper wrote:If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans.

That leap of logic is entirely your own fault and has little to do with my response to your question.

If it comes to pass that in the shooting phase you have what I determine to be a clear shot I won't try to get a cover save for it. I see little benefit to helping an opponent line up clear shots on my models. Your little "scenario" didn't leave room for the fact that it's possible that I'd be the one who is correct in our dispute, and your threat of nuking someone's sportsmanship is speaking volumes.

Monster Rain wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans.

That leap of logic is entirely your own fault and has little to do with my response to your question.

If it comes to pass that in the shooting phase you have what I determine to be a clear shot I won't try to get a cover save for it. I see little benefit to helping an opponent line up clear shots on my models.

Indeed. It's the person who is trying to combine the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase that is pulling the bs.

olympia wrote:Indeed. It's the person who is trying to combine the movement phase with parts of the shooting phase that is pulling the bs.

And using the Sportsmanship score as leverage to get your way seems more in the way of a temper tantrum/petulance than I'm comfortable with.

I guess since I just, you know, play the game I don't have to have contingency plans ready for when the judge gets called over when I try shady things. If I don't rate a cover save, I'm not going to try to get one just to "pull shenanigans." By all means, call the Judge if I claim cover.

Monster Rain wrote:
And using the Sportsmanship score as leverage to get your way seems more in the way of a temper tantrum/petulance than I'm comfortable with.\

Unfortunately, once you include sportsmanship in tournament scoring this is what you are going to get.

Dashofpepper wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:It's fine if they want to check LOS while they're moving.

I'm not going to help them determine whether or not I get a cover save.

"We'll see when you start shooting" is a perfectly reasonable answer to the question, and probably the one I'd give particularly at a GT. I'm not going to help someone get clear shots on my models. Part of the "skill" in this game is proper placement of models. Sure, you can ask if your opponent thinks they get a save or not. You can ask them to just let you win because you're such a nice guy. They don't have to acquiesce and they aren't a bad sport for not doing so.

Monster Rain: The situations in which this arise for me are all identical.

You have a vehicle in your deployment zone. I move one of my ravagers into position to fire at it.

If 40%+ of your vehicle is in cover, I'm going to presume you have cover and not say anything to you.
If 0-10% of your vehicle is in cover, I'm going to presume that you don't have cover and not say anything to you.
If 20-30% of your vehicle is in cover (like ONE tread, or if you have 1-2 infantrymen in front of your vehicle) I'm going to tell you that I presume that I have a clear shot and ask if you agree.

You must understand that the circumstances in which I ask for agreement on a clear shot are very narrow. If your vehicle has 20-30% in cover - not a whit more by ANY estimation...and I ask you if you're in agreement that I have a clear shot, one of three things is going to happen.
1. You're going to say yes, you agree with me. We move on.
2. You're going to say no, you disagree - you get cover. Now, despite KNOWING that I have a clear shot - it isn't worth an argument to me. So I'll simply target something else, move elsewhere etc.
3. You're going to say "We'll see in the shooting phase."

If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans. Because if you weren't, the answer would have been obvious, and you would have agreed with me. So, when we get to shooting, and you attempt to pull shenanigans - like I said: I'm going to call over a judge. He's going to see that you have much less than half your vehicle obscured. He's going to rule on my side. I'm going to nuke your sportsmanship for being a bad sport.

While a bunch of folks here are extrapolating potential situations in which "legitimate" cover saves may be claimed, that is NEVER the case when I play. I *always* give the benefit of the doubt. If there is *NO* doubt to give the benefit of, and I'm in for a clear shot....and you start an argument about cover - then you *are* a bad sport.

This entire thread is about a very specific subset of actions in very specific conditions. The OP is trying to make it generally applicable to everything, and tie it back into me as "cheating" for which I have no respect.

Another way I could phrase the question to opponents is, "I have a clear shot at your vehicle. There's not a cow's chance in a lion's pen that you have cover. Are you going to try cheating?"

ChrisCP: I used the word cheat because that *is* the applicable term here. I'm just not hostile about it in the game. And if someone WANTS to claim cover...when any judge or spectator would be able to rule in my favor....I will *STILL* let them do it.

"My ravager wants to shoot at your land raider. There's a bush in front of it. I think I've got a clear shot - you agree?"
My opponent says, "No...that should give me cover."
I say, "Uh...well, ok then." And then I move/pivot/position to shoot elsewhere.

If your answer to "Does that bush give your landraider cover" is "We'll find out in the shooting phase" well...there's only one conclusion to be drawn.

I've been a lurker on Dakka for al long long time. And in private, i've disagreed with you alot. Bit this last bit hits the nail on the head. In 20+ years of playing this your above statement is 100% correct. Most players only ever ask the los/cover question during the movement phase when they KNOW there could be potental for a disagreement. And attempt to retify before it becomes an issue. Playing the "it's the movement phase we'll check in the shooting phase" is a sure sign they're up to something. EVERYTIME!

Dashofpepper wrote:If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans.

That doesn't have to be even remotely true. It's telling your opponent that where he places his models is his own prerogative and should you move your ravager there to shoot at my tank, well, maybe i want that ravager there shooting at that tank than somewhere else, shooting at another model. Maybe I want to double bluff you into moving your model somewhere else. Maybe I know I don't have cover, but that's not germane to the movement phase, which is where discussions about cover belong. If I don't have cover and you place your ravager to shoot at my tank, why wouldn't I agree as an honest, sporting player, that I don't have cover--in the shooting phase? I have nothing to gain and potentially lots to lose by letting you combine cover discussions with movement. Assuming that your opponent has dishonest intentions by not helping you place your models is kind of terrible =(

olympia wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:
And using the Sportsmanship score as leverage to get your way seems more in the way of a temper tantrum/petulance than I'm comfortable with.\

Unfortunately, once you include sportsmanship in tournament scoring this is what you are going to get.

I'm starting to come around on this.

Alvar wrote:I've been a lurker on Dakka for al long long time. And in private, i've disagreed with you alot. Bit this last bit hits the nail on the head. In 20+ years of playing this your above statement is 100% correct. Most players only ever ask the los/cover question during the movement phase when they KNOW there could be potental for a disagreement. And attempt to retify before it becomes an issue. Playing the "it's the movement phase we'll check in the shooting phase" is a sure sign they're up to something. EVERYTIME!

I am up to something. I'm up to trying to win a game at a GT within the scope of the rules. This doesn't necessarily equate to dishonesty. Perhaps I think you should win, if you win, without my help.

Also, see below.

hemingway wrote:

Dashofpepper wrote:If you say #3 to me in the situation that I've outlined - you've just TOLD me that you plan on trying to pull shenanigans.

That doesn't have to be even remotely true. It's telling your opponent that where he places his models is his own prerogative and should you move your ravager there to shoot at my tank, well, maybe i want that ravager there shooting at that tank than somewhere else, shooting at another model. Maybe I want to double bluff you into moving your model somewhere else. Maybe I know I don't have cover, but that's not germane to the movement phase, which is where discussions about cover belong. If I don't have cover and you place your ravager to shoot at my tank, why wouldn't I agree as an honest, sporting player, that I don't have cover--in the shooting phase? I have nothing to gain and potentially lots to lose by letting you combine cover discussions with movement.

Exactly. When the shooting phase arrives and you shoot, rest assured that I am not such a pathetic waste of human life that I'm going to attempt to cheat my way to victory at Space Manz 40k.

It's the same courtesy I extend my own opponents.

hemingway wrote:Assuming that your opponent has dishonest intentions by not helping you place your models is kind of terrible =(

He who mistrusts most should be trusted least.

Good grief.

Foo wrote:Good grief.

Oh, it's not so bad.

Generally, I probably would go along with this anyway just to avoid friction. I really don't get too worked up during games unless someone is really being an ass.

My main point is that someone isn't obligated to comply with this method of play, and they aren't a terrible person if they decline.

Cover isn't determined in the shooting phase. Cover *saves* are taken in the shooting phase.

Cover is gained in almost every instance (except for certain psychic powers) in the movement phase. What I see here is that if you move a model flat out...its illegal to know that is has a 4+ cover save. We should start hiding how far we move from each other and spring it by surprise!

As you're getting ready to assault my vehicle and say, "How far did your vehicle move?" I'm going to say "You'll find out in the assault phase!"

Dashofpepper wrote:Another way I could phrase the question to opponents is, "I have a clear shot at your vehicle. There's not a cow's chance in a lion's pen that you have cover. Are you going to try cheating?"

ChrisCP: I used the word cheat because that *is* the applicable term here. I'm just not hostile about it in the game. And if someone WANTS to claim cover...when any judge or spectator would be able to rule in my favor....I will *STILL* let them do it.

"My ravager wants to shoot at your land raider. There's a bush in front of it. I think I've got a clear shot - you agree?"
My opponent says, "No...that should give me cover."
I say, "Uh...well, ok then." And then I move/pivot/position to shoot elsewhere.

If your answer to "Does that bush give your landraider cover" is "We'll find out in the shooting phase" well...there's only one conclusion to be drawn.

Cover isn't determined in the shooting phase. Cover *saves* are taken in the shooting phase.

Cover is gained in almost every instance (except for certain psychic powers) in the movement phase. What I see here is that if you move a model flat out...its illegal to know that is has a 4+ cover save. We should start hiding how far we move from each other and spring it by surprise!

As you're getting ready to assault my vehicle and say, "How far did your vehicle move?" I'm going to say "You'll find out in the assault phase!"

Dash, you're just being false now.
"THE MOVEMENT PHASE . . . . . .11
Movement distance . . . . . . . . . . . . . .11
Unit coherency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .12
Terrain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .13
THE SHOOTING PHASE . . . . . . .15
Disallowed shooting . . . . . . . . . . . . .15
Run! . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .16
Check line of sight & pick a target . .16
Check range . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Roll to hit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .17
Roll to wound . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .19
Take saving throws . . . . . . . . . . . . .20
Cover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .21
...." Pg II

"When are models in Cover?
When any part of the target model’s body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover" Pg 21
"If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover, then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover and all of its models may take cover saves." Pg 22
"In case A, the majority of the firing Space Marine squad (i.e. three models out of five) have a clear shot to the majority of the" Pg 23
"At least 50% of the facing of the vehicle that is being targeted (i.e. its front, side or rear) needs to be hidden by intervening terrain or models from the point of view of the firer for the vehicle to claim to be in cover." Pg 62

Each case showing that the correct time to determine - with the other player - what has a cover save, is at the time of firinging.

The fact that you wish to 'know', be certain, or force the other player to agree that Unit X doesn't have a cover save - before you even finish moving your unit - show how advantageous this breaking of the rules is. But trying to demand that your opponent agree on cover save before the applicable phase, Dash you are the one who's breaking the rules. You are trying to obtain an agreement for you benifit outside of the time that the rules call for it - for the purposes of moving your models in the most benifical way for you and detrimental to the opponent... And you're saying it's wrong for your opponent to not aid you in this, even though that is in keeping with the rules.

So some of you are contending that cover saves cannot be taken outside the shooting phase then? Since we won't know if they're in cover unless it's the shooting phase?

DarknessEternal wrote:So some of you are contending that cover saves cannot be taken outside the shooting phase then? Since we won't know if they're in cover unless it's the shooting phase?

that sounds like a loaded question! the issue is with resolving whether a unit is in cover during the movement phase.

hemingway wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:So some of you are contending that cover saves cannot be taken outside the shooting phase then? Since we won't know if they're in cover unless it's the shooting phase?

that sounds like a loaded question! the issue is with resolving whether a unit is in cover during the movement phase.

According to your side, there's no way to tell in the movement phase.

No, according to his "side" it isn't the other player's responsibility to help the determination of what has cover and what isn't.

DarknessEternal wrote:

hemingway wrote:

DarknessEternal wrote:So some of you are contending that cover saves cannot be taken outside the shooting phase then? Since we won't know if they're in cover unless it's the shooting phase?

that sounds like a loaded question! the issue is with resolving whether a unit is in cover during the movement phase.

According to your side, there's no way to tell in the movement phase.

Darkness, if for some reason something is taking wounds from a non-close combat attack during the movement phase, one will be directed by the rules to determine if the target is in cover as part of the process of taking wounds again it's actually being called upon by the rules to check if one has a cover save... by walking some troops into a position and asking an opponent to agree that they have/don't give a save - even if one's saying that units movement is finished for for the turn 'no backsies' - one is still forcing one opponent into an oral agreement of the state of the game before the rules call for it. Naturally as the aggressor you want to know that unit doesn't have a cover save, as then you can use your second squad to move elsewhere and shoot something else rather than use it to mitigate the 4+, but the defending player is protected by the rules from this sort of action, there's no indication that players need to 'know' what's in cover before the shooting phase (or the activation of some esoteric ability, which would be a situation in which - the rules call for it.)

This is similar to the measuring KFF issue. It would be nice as an ork player to 'know' that my units are with-in 6" at all times, and be able to measure this arbitrarily, but the only time I am compelled to measure the bubble is when the unit has to determine if it's in cover.

olympia wrote:I saw this interesting statement in a battle report here on dakkadakka.

Do you know WHY I always announce my intention for shooting during movement? How many times did I say "I think I have a clear shot from here to there...what do you think?" Its to avoid any issues that might arise when it comes around to shooting. You should practice the same

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/370116.page

A few questions arise. If the opponent in the above situation says, "No it's not a clear shot," I wonder if the player in question keeps adjusting his movement and saying, "I think I have a clear shot from here to there...what do you think?" until the opponent agrees. Certainly if someone tried this on me I would say, "Make your move and we'll sort out Line Of Sight in the shooting phase." Flames of War is, as far as I know, the only mainstream system that allows for declaration of intentions in the movement phase.

Normally, I'd take this to mean they are trying to make clear exactly what they are trying to do and avoid any issues to make the game a more pleasant experience. If an opponent asks me something like this I'll answer honestly and let them adjust, as they are making clear their intent and at that point it's not so much a matter of skill or generalship as simple mechanics which shouldn't be a huge issue.

Most of these anti arguments just seem like they're putting "I shouldn't have to help you" above having a smooth, friendly game.

It just seems petty to me. I don't think I've ever lost or won a game based on an argument about something getting a cover save. When in doubt, we usually just give cover to anything 40% or more.

Are the people I play with exceedingly generous? Are we fools for not lobbying for that 10%? Am I just not particular enough to give a frig about determining cover and LoS during movement?

Foo wrote:Most of these anti arguments just seem like they're putting "I shouldn't have to help you" above having a smooth, friendly game.

It just seems petty to me. I don't think I've ever lost or won a game based on an argument about something getting a cover save. When in doubt, we usually just give cover to anything 40% or more.

Are the people I play with exceedingly generous? Are we fools for not lobbying for that 10%? Am I just not particular enough to give a frig about determining cover and LoS during movement?

Actually 'most of these' argument are soundly based on following the rules and the understanding that the turn follows a sequence for a varity of reasons.

You say, " I don't think I've ever lost or won a game based on an argument about something getting a cover save" - Are you sure, these not a single game where if you had a cover save it might have saved that transport, or you would have been able to ignore their AP etc etc, weather or not units have cover is one of the major influences on the course of the game.

Not generous, just that they don't understand the impact of what their doing.
In a situation where tactically removing a unit from the board can assure a win ( C&C, killpoints, objectives...) Sometimes a single squads firepower is enough, some times two.
But if a squad has cover, then your AP doesn't matter they are reducing your wounds dealt by about half.
Your are not meant to 'know' if the squad is 'in cover' at this point. Because, if after moving your first unit if you are assured that "nope they aren't taking cover saves" you need only one squad to shoot freeing your other units from any worry that the enemy might pose a threat because their destruction was already assured.

If an opponent say "I guess they might" and you reAllly feel they don't then youactually must wait until the shooting phase to determine this as an agreement between the players. If you wish to browbeat someone who doesn't want to play fast and lose with the rules, because they understand that gaming changing tactial information can be brought to light by these 'agreement', that your right. Just be aware that people usually follow the rules of a game for good reasons.

ChrisCP wrote:
Actually 'most of these' argument are soundly based on following the rules and the understanding that the turn follows a sequence for a varity of reasons.

Assuming one agrees that the turn sequence is a rigid structure created for enforcement purposes and not as a guide to help people learn the game, perhaps.

I don't see how it makes sense to pretend LoS and Cover are separated from Movement when they're caused by it.

There's a difference between putting the cart before the horse and wanting to be sure the cart's been strapped to the harness before you get the horses running.

Yet noone can point to any rules stating I cannot ask my opponent questions during the game, nor that I am unable to determine LOS during the movement phase.

nos, I'm disappointed that you're using that argument.

"The rules don't say I can't"? You're better than that.

____________________________________________

Can we just agree that it's a grey area in the rules and that it should be discussed with your opponent when the situation arises? That seems to be the most sensible conclusion.

That isnt my argument, at all. I just shortened it at, frankly, 6 pages in is just dull to have to repeat the exac t same points.

My argument is that: the rules do not even ATTEMPT to cover what conversations you can and cannot have wih your opponent.

They are not even considered in the ruleset.

As such, it is not "illegal" or "legal", it is simply: this is a game between two people. There is a social contract between two players.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As such, it is not "illegal" or "legal", it is simply: this is a game between two people. There is a social contract between two players.

Ah. Well then.

I agree.