thoughts on Play by intent

It also didn't actually deal with the scenario of being allowed to move the marker around before determining the final intended location. That is the part that seems most contested and the video didn't help explain that at all. The unhelpful comment about it being unfair to ask your opponent if you are in cover or not (what does unfair mean in this context anyway?) is not an issue. Knowing if I am allowed to move the marker around and check LoF (which he appeared to do in the video) is.

I also find it worrying that a game designer seems to think the entire country of Japan might be playing their game wrong and would rather make a video clarifying (kindda) how a basic rule is supposed to work rather than ensure the rules are crystal clear on something as basic as moving a model and determining LoF.

 

please dont, this guy has been bringing this topic up like clockwork every 6 months on the old forums, its just trolling.

 

No.

Yes.

 

While that makes me feel slightly less crazy... I almost brought up that damn video after I saw it : /

 

Why not? Seems prudent to do so if you are not allowed to check it. I'd rather not miss an ARO because I wasn't sure if there was LoF until after I was able to declare it.

 

Aside from HD, markers and disposable weapons, why not?

 

It actually would be, and would slow the game down dramatically. Hence the blue box on p. 61 of the English rules.

 

its in the spanish rules as well

 

Yeah, I just don't know if it's on the same page.

 

as the others have pointed out, why not? its prudent to declare everything just after the first short skill in case you can see that guy through the two windows and under the stairs that he didnt know about.

You know, that and the constant arguments about who can see now the pieces have been moved and nothing was discussed beforehand so everyone was on the same page.

Sounds like a great game, definitely going to save time and totally in line with the blue blurb

 

And then theres the camo markers that declare skills because they think they have LOF and reveal but after checking LOF you determine they dont.....so there was no ARO to ever allow them to drop camo, but now your opponent knows what your camo marker is.

Among others

 

Because declaring ARO with ALL the models on the board, even ones that CANNOT under any circumstances gain the right to ARO is just wasting your and the opponents time.

Of course you should always declare AROs you think you're getting and some that you might be getting/you're unsure about, but declaring AROs with all the models you have is just being annoying and it greatly slows down the game.

 

but you dont know, because you havent checked LOF.

And the Camo markers that reveal but never were legally able too?

 

Compare the impact on the game of declaring an ARO you were not entitled to, to not declaring an ARO you were entitled to. Better safe than sorry.

 

We are obviously exaggerating by stating all models declare AROs but the point stands. I will still be making many questionable ARO declarations out of fear of missing them if we don't agree on LoF prior to that point. This is where intent and players working together eliminates a waste of time for all parties and makes the game a smoother more gentlemanly affair.

I do think the Camo marker example is neither here nor there for this disagreement however. If you are not allowed to check LoF then it would be a risk you would have to take to declare and ARO with any form of camo/hidden model. You could always legally declare the camo ARO and would just idle if the ARO declared turned out to invalid.

 

Also the fact of the matter is.

A Youtube video by palanka is no more "the rules" than Bostria's constant mistakes on Beasts of War or Tom Schadelz introduction series.
The fact that this is an attempt to explain a game translated from spanish to english to japanese just adds further weight to this. And thats without going into the questionable character of slowburner.

 

I was talking about the fact that you have to reveal the marker at the declaration not the resolution, as such you reveal, check LOF and find you never had LOF under the anti intent argument. a silly interaction of the rules compared to the check LOF, yes/no? then declare as appropriate

 

I understand but as far as I can tell that is a logical and intended conclusion for the play by results side. You the ARO player made a mistake just like and active player can stick their head out too far and get multiple unintended AROs back.

 

It may be but its rules illegal and not supported by them because they never had the legal ARO. Of course that does just make it one of many rules that dont work this way

 

Infinity has and always will be the ultimate test of spatial awareness and hand eye coordination.