thoughts on Play by intent

Calling someone or something "cancer" is pretty offensive.

I think keeping the thread open is worthwhile, as long as there's even the slightest bit of development among all the repetition. It also shows CB that this is a topic many players are passionate about and would like resolved.

 

It is resolved in my opinion.

 

This thread will be this new forum's Tarrasque?

I'm wondering how many people in this thread learned the rules from reading the PDF and how many from the printed book. There is some *evidence* that people learn better from printed material. No citation, but a quick search will turn up a few things.

I'm not hazarding a guess about which is which though.

I read the printed book, FWIW.

 

I will read the thread carefully and reply, but for a start, personal attacks are neither appreciated or tolerated, please refrain from such actions and if there is a problem please contact the moderation team.

 

Obviously it is not, as there are people debating it still. The fact you deem is resolved does not make it so.

 

The forum participants will determine if the thread has run its course, any interfering discussion from now on will not be tolerated, if you want discuss debate and argue, but only for the task at hand.

Edit while I am at it, please refrain from using such strong words as "cancer" for trivial matters, yes, some find it offensive, some do not care, I am not going to do the debate, acknowledge the word has a heavy meaning and treat it with the respect it deserves.

 

I understand your point, but I simply don't see this particular topic as crucial to the game. It's something that should be easy to solve by either two players discussing it shortly, or by TO. If people can't come to an understanding, there's always the option of rolling it out. That's how we solve such disputes. I don't know about any issues with this during tournaments, but then again, I don't attend them. Maybe people with more competetive experience could comment on this.

Consequently this discussion is a bit of a storm in a teacup. In theory it's a big problem. In practice it's smoothed out in 5 seconds most of the time.

 

It does not contradict itself maybe it is a language barrier, but what I mean is the rules do not mention the situation of one checking the field of view of their models or the enemy models, one could say since it is not written in the rules it is not allowed, but I find it absurd as an idea.

Yes, the scenario is not supported by the rules.

 

Ok I get you. You are saying checking line of sight is not covered by the rules but the idea of not being allowed to do so is farfetched.

Ok... Now I have to figure out if you mean it is not coved by the rules or it broke the rules, and if so what part broke the rules.

 

Let me rewrite the scenario by the rules.

1)Active player declares he activates model A then he spends an order from the order reserve of models A combat group, he then declares the models first short skill move, he checks what areas of the table enemy models C,D,E can see abd he observes what he can see from the corner of the the wall from a "models eye" view and then declares the models intended path up to the edge of the wall it is behind of and back to its initial position, he then places a marker (could be a base or a silhouette marker) were he wants the exposure point of his movement to be, player A intents to only see model C attempting to cut the pie and isolate the ARO to his advantage and leaves the actual model to the place he intended it to be its final position.
2) Immediately after declaration of the move skill player A measures the actual distance and moves the model along the intended path, turns out the model is half an inch short on the go back and the final position is adjusted accordingly, for convenience shake the silhouette marker is still left were the contested position is for clarity and checking LoF for the next step.
3) At this point the reactive player checks for LoF to the entire path of model A, models that have LoF have ARO, turns out model C and E can see model A as it peeks around the wall, but not model D, model C and E gain ARO model C declares to shoot back but model E declared to dodge out of sight, reactive player places a silhouette marker to model E intended final position.
4) at this point the active player can select his second short skill, slightly disappointed his manoeuvre did not turn out as planned declares BS attack and decides to split his B between models C and E 2/1.
5) since there is no secondary movement there is no need to check for new LoF and AROs.
6) At this point the players measure distances between the models shooting and determine if there is enouph terrain for cover and what the modifiers for the dice rolls are, finally the players make their opposing rolls.
7) after determining the rolls model A hits model C once and model E successfully dodges its attack, Model C makes its save while model E finds out it cannot reach the silhouette marker and is placed as close to its intended position as the 2" dodge allow.
8) model C must make a guts roll the layer chooses to fail it automatically and the model goes prone, out of the LoF of model A.

Is the example clear enouph?

 

And so we are back to 1) either help your opponent at step 1 in accordance with the etiquette rule and speeding up the game or 2) dont and watch the time tick by.

Overall im glad that no metas ive heard in the actual game are against the concept of cooperation and that this doesnt actually come up in games.

 

Please understand I do realise different play groups play their own version of the game for many reasons, the importance is to understand what the rules actually say and why they say it, beyond the case of players playing with other play groups and needing a formal ground of rules free of local variations to play the game, it is more important to understand how the rules work in order to avoid playing with house rules that allow exploitation of the game engine and produce imbalance.

I must point out that the blue box

Specifically speaks about LoF Line of Fire is by the rules specifically

LoF is not the models potential view and it does not involve drawing LoF to hypothetical models positions only actual models positions or actual movement paths after they have been declared.

The recent pool clearly demonstrates that people do not play the game as it is written, I can understand that expanding intent outside the strict definition of the rules (stating the path the model intents to move and were it will end up before actually measuring it) and drawing LoF to hypothetical positions makes easier to get to correct optimal positions and speeds up the game, but, it is not supported by the rules, it is essentially a premeasuring and in some cases a take back and allows pie slicing to be a really effective tactic making low B high damage and optimal range weapons be more effective than it would be intended by the rules of the game.

I can see why people choose to play this way and I can clearly understand the pro of the argument (speed been the most important), but this is not how the rules are written and people must realise it, if you want to play that way do so but do it with full knowledge that this is a variation that breaks some of the rules and game balance of the game.

 

Thank you, I know answering questions like this must be annoying.
A few last fallow up questions if you don't mind.

I assume at this point he is allowed to continue to eyeball and adjust the silhouette marker?
Most importantly however his opponent is not required to answer any line of sight questions accurately at this step correct?

At this point considering Player 1 spent so much time confirming line of sight already that in order to verify the now disputed LoF in this example, a judge would need to be called over correct?

 

There are people who believe the earth is flat.

Is the shape of the earth an unresolved issue?

 

The active player can slightly adjust the silhouette marker without checking LoF he can ask for his opponents opinion, his opponent can answer again without checking LoF but the final decision and position is left to the player that owns the model, his opponent cannot assist him in the position especially while checking LoF.

Also thanks, do not worry answering questions is not annoying, I want people to understand how the game works.

 

How are they not supposed to check line of fire? Close their eyes?

 

?
...I will never fail to slice the pie
My opponent might disagree with me and we would need a Judge but those would really be the only two options if I took my time and played without rushing and being sloppy.

Anyway as I said before, the Mod is about as official as we will get without a FAQ... so for now the anti-intent people win.
I will place this in with the rules I object to, like a line trooper placing a ARO engaging model on a wall climbing.

 

"It is perfectly acceptable for a player to ask their opponent whether existing Lines of Fire could disrupt the declaration of a given Order before declaring it."

Psychoticstorm, you can plot a hypothetical path to determine whether there is LoF along it prior to declaring an order. You are not reading the rules correctly.

Andre82 - Keep doing what you do. The way you are playing is correct. The Mod's descriptions are not remotely official.

 

Sure i guess, the other player doesn't need to answer but that doesn't mean you can't walk over to their model and do it yourself. if your opinions differ someone would need to break out a laser sight tool or call over a TO to make a ruling and really the later seems ridiculous. The fact that model LoF is public information seems to moot that entire issue.