thoughts on Play by intent

Reading up on it on Wiki and book (English page 13) it seems that before the player declares their second skill of an order both players must check to see if any of the reactive players models have LoF. So that would at least eliminate the issue with camo declaring an ARO they cannot as you do indeed have the ability to check LoF before declaring AROs. So again the Results play is more harsh to the active player than the reactive player (who is allowed to check everything before declaring).

 

No, guys, you are now just arguing for the sake of arguing. There's no point in declaring AROs that you're surely not getting.

When I miss on an ARO, I just say "Shame, I'll be more careful next time". If there's any impact, it's on me. I made a misplay. As I said before, there's nothing to fear about the game. Making mistakes is part of the game. Learning from mistakes, the same.

 

I'm arguing for a consistent, better game that is accordant with the rules as written. Your position has consequences, and one of those is being reliant on your opponent's willingness to forgo potential ARO's to be a good sport.

 

As opposed to an introductory youtube video made by a questionable poster (Slowburner that was)

 

This blatantly contradicts the "blue box," which states that this can be checked *before* the declaration of an order. You need to address this, or else admit you're just making things up about how *you* want to play, rather than the rules as written. Just because you get salty when someone slices the pie on you doesn't mean that's how the game is played.

 

"If that video is an official ruling why isn't it posted by CB? Why isn't it hosted by CB rather than some guy with an axe to grind? Why isn't it in the FAQ? Doesn't Palanka work on Aristiea now? It's all kinda odd"

"The other thing is Bostria plays in various ways re intent in the BOW videos. That's not an official ruling either. It's an issue this has been dressed up as one IMHO. If CB want to make a ruling on it they have plenty of ways to do that. Mostly, they seem ambivalent to me."

Courtesy of Hachiman Taro.

His thoughts on the matter and said far more eloquently than mine.

 

I think I have been more than generous with my warnings to cut off personal attacks and accusations, so please consider this and stop it.

I think everyone must realise that all involved want the best for our game and its not a personal vendetta out there.

I would point out to a post gameplay post I made earlier, but I guess it is ignored so I need to make a new one.

 

Hey wolf and co.

We appreciate you creating this video but unfortunately it does not deal with the topic at hand. Principally because the video failed to address the single most common reason people hate on intent: peaking a corner to pick off models while multiple enemies are possibly nearby.

The other scenarios, as addressed by other posters, does not explicitly clarify this. The scenarios themselves are simplistic and don't offer solutions to how players resolve difficult LOF situations and the response of "suck it up" doesn't cut it. Playing the way presented creates a multitude of issues for players and not fully resolving the singlular negative (depending on your viewpoint) of intent: executing perfect pie slices.

 

Not to mention you can still get a perfect slice on 50% of corner-case roll-offs even when playing in "suck it up" mode

 

Well thats a pie slice. When I say "perfect" is that it works 100% of the time.

 

And there's "corner popping" IE"I move out just to see that guy and back again" where you only ever leave the model in place because nothing calls for you to place sillies at the displacement point.

 

Save there is no “peek out just to see that guy and move back”. You declare you wish to move, opponent advises existing LoF, you indicate how far out you’re going to move, and where you’ll move back to. You live your mini where you want to peek out, and see if you succeeded. Your intent to only see and be seen by one enemy is immaterial. Whether or not you achieve it is the key.

No, the singular negative of intent, as you’re using it, is that it doesn’t exist in the game as designed. And the principles expressed in the video translate perfectly to the situation you’re trying to defend. As noted above, you declare your order, your opponent advises of existing LoF, you show where you intend to move out and back to, you make sure you have a legal path to do so, execute it, and then ask AROs, and then resolve. Now, you can use whatever method you’d like locally to resolve what you see as a problem, but recognize that you’re playing with house rules, and that you may have to adjust.

Fine, you say you want to activate model X. I advise existing LoF. Then you move forward, done and dusted. Addressed to your satisfaction? Now, indicate where you get to assess LoF midorder... or where you get to peek out, ask LoF, and then peek back to avoid possible AROs, saying, “oh, no, that wasn’t my intent”... go ahead, we’ll wait.

 

Ever seen Bostria do that in the official BoW vids, he doesnt.

Furthermore quote me the rules that say you place the model where you want to peak, because the only ones you'll find say the model goes at the final position, that was you're whole argument before after all.

 

What? So the crux of your argument is whatever intent is, its against the rules. But the actual rules described by you and others is actually impossible to achieve without some level of intent is used (as evidenced in the video, which was sloppy and used "intent"). But the extent is to be agreed on a case by case basis depending on who you play?

Neither your posts or the video address pie slicing. Arguing for some kind of "move and suck it up" play style merely makes it more time consuming and tedious, it doesn't eliminate it, while adding additional sloppiness that people will inherently try to minimise and lead to arguments.

Mistakes happen, but I don't care for a game where eyeballing movement locations and LoF and making pinpoint placement of my figure are crucial to not making major errors.

 

Following the textbox on p. 61, I say "If I were to declare a move order and move to this point (indicated with a silhouette marker or my finger), could model A gain LoF to me?" You say yes or no. If you say "I won't answer" then that's shitty etiquette, according to that text box. You don't get to gain multiple AROs on the same model without working for it; that's childish to expect that.

 

That text box EXPLICITLY says that LoF can be checked BEFORE declaring an order i.e. to see if it would disrupt a hypothetical order. I'd suggest asking your local warcor to walk you through the process, as you're having trouble with the written rules.

 

There seem to be a half dozen rules that effectively allow you to pie slice just fine and that is before you get to good old fashioned sportsmanship or even simple impatience.
but maybe if we address the issues one at a time.

Is there anyone here who disputes this rule?
If so what exactly is your argument.
Now if you agree that I can check before declaring an order, is there anything preventing me from taking the needed time to find the perfect angle to pie slice?

 

I disagree. I think the level of intensity the topic is able to reach (both in speed and consistently) is exactly why it needs to be addressed. More importantly, it shows why CB needs to do right by the community and address it themselves. It's not like it's going away. If anything, those of us participating in the conversation are better prepared to deal with the real life ramifications (i.e.- encountering a player with the opposing view point) then someone who may be unaware there even are opposing viewpoints.

As for offending each other, drawing lines or maintaining respect on the forum goes, there are so many other personality factors that contribute to that, a controversial topic is the least of our problems. For instance, I know my tone and the way I approach rules conversations rubs certain people the wrong way, just like @A Mão Esquerda surely knows that his tendency to passive aggressively troll people with a mix of Spanish and Portuguese is not the best way to make friends with the people he's aiming it at.

Honestly, as long as we're being civil (and I think this conversation has remained relatively civil), it doesn't matter if we all like each other. Being a community, where personalities eventually emerge, there's a good chance many of us go into any give conversation already on the other side of any number of previously drawn lines.

 

Here's a genuine question for those who consider "suck it up" to be the way to go: how far from my declared path must I move and place my model and how far from my declared and measured path must I place my model, before I no longer have to suck it up and you think I conducted an illegal move? Would you tell me to re-do the entire move or just tell me to correct the final position?

We, the community, haven't been able to address it for the past 15 pages or the past 3 topics. And as you can see, I'm no saint myself.

 

It isn't illegal if it grants them extra ARO's, of course ;-)