thoughts on Play by intent

Psychoticstorm isn't anyone with CB nor does he have any more ruling authority that any other warcor or TO. Deferring to his judgement on this issue is baseless, no offense intended.

I don't think this is unsolvable, the people advocating against LoF at all times as public information are misquoting the rule on page 19 and the wiki, and are instead trying to make an argument based on the introduction "rules" on page 8 which are description more than substance.

From a rule making standpoint the phrase "model, marker etc." Is meant to not be all inclusive by definition. Your model has LoF to everything around it at all times, it's perfectly reasonable to see if they can see a point on the table that a model might hypothetically move to.

 

I understand the other side's viewpoint, but their viewpoint is based on a misinterpretation of the rules. There are some things in Infinity that are a matter of opinion/a grey area. This is not; these people aren't in fact playing as if LoF only exists between models/markers anyway, since they use Targetless weapons/hidden deployment AROs/etc. The other side's viewpoint is in fact self-contradictory, which is an important thing to bring up as soon as possible in the debate, so we don't waste time thinking it's merely a matter of opinion. If someone's lying or misinformed and saying the rules say something they don't they need to be called out on it to avoid causing more problems.

If you had actually read the LoF section in the rulebook or on the wiki you'd have noticed the following quote, which by definition expands LoF to include more than models and markers:

In English, the use of "etc" in the context, by definition, expands LoF to include more than just lines between 2 models/markers. Your quote is, then, only talking about a subset of all possible lines of fire. If you continue to use that quote like it means what you say it means you're just making it clear that your viewpoint isn't based on the actual rules.

That's not an interpretation that anyone thinks is rational. If it's only for re-camoing than they would have said that. With the fact that one can trace LoF to any point on the table, it's possible to check all of this before declaring an order anyway.

Guess what? Targetless doesn't expand the LoF of the user, it just expands what are available targets. Since you either haven't read or failed to understand the rule in the first place, I'd suggest taking another look at it. If you think that using a Targetless weapon allows you to evade LoF restrictions, you're just flat-out wrong. Given that, LoF *must* exist from models to points on the table to make these weapons usable. It's not even contradicting anything in the LoF rules, considering it's included in the "etc" I mentioned above.

Telling @Plebian to git gud just makes you look like a goober. If you have a problem with people using "dismissive, derogatory, or just plain rude" language, implying that people who don't use your house rules are bad players fits in that category. To be frank, incorrect and harmful viewpoints need to be dismissed for the betterment of the game, even if the people holding them feel insulted by having their opinions questioned. There are always going to be people who get extremely offended at "you're wrong and I can prove it," that doesn't mean we don't show them (and more importantly everyone else) where they're wrong. Luckily, based off of the poll in the other thread, your viewpoint is vanishingly underrepresented in the playerbase, which implies that a decent amount of them actually read the rules, instead of taking as canon non-official youtube videos made by people with a penchant for physically attacking people who question their rules misinterpretations.

 

Sorry, my mistake on this.

I don't have enough experience or rules knowledge to tell if you're right or wrong, I just see a long and ongoing debate that makes me think that:
1) there is no solution in the rules as they are
or
2) the solution is there but is hard to find.

In both cases I think the best is a (hopefully fast) clarification from CB.

 

Well, while PS didn’t write the rule, he did help edit, playtest, and proofread the rule, which perhaps does give him a better grasp on it, but that’s just my opinion... and it is, of course, strictly true that PS doesn’t draw a salary from CB, but then, of course, neither do any of the other random forumites who seem insistent on denigrating his experience and knowledge, while they themselves have even less connection to CB... while all the while insisting their good news is the correct good news...

 

I understand your point so I'll give you a counter that plebian used a couple pages before. There are people still saying the Earth is flat, does that mean there's still an open undecided issue about the shape of the earth?

Just because one side won't yield doesn't mean the issue is open or unsolved or unsolvable. The poll is a good indicator that only a small vocal minority thinks that LoF only exists between models at the time they see each other.

 

I agree, I have no authority on the subject, neither does he or anyone else here.

Side note, you do know Plebian is the US champ and has frequent contact with CB on various things right? If you want to say psychoticstorm has some cred on one side I'd say the more popular side has cred of it's own.

 

There is also the problem that CB as an entity has yet to address this issue themselves head-on, even though it's been a debate for quite some time. Unless I've missed something...

 

The argument is not great I think: does it mean that no debate is allowable on any question?

And still, a minority can sometimes be right.

Now it seems I'm arguing for one side, which is not: just saying that where there's an argument over a rule there should be an authority to solve it (I was thinking to CB but could be the TO of each tournament until CB speaks).
To be even clearer: maybe it's not important what the real solution is but that an answer is given or a consensus is reached.

 

It is quite simple really, there is no Line of Sight on the game as a concept or as a rule so there is no confusion and they are not mixed up.

Once you have declared a short skill the short skill is declared, you are allowed to ask before declaring a short skill who has LoF after you declared move and given its intended path the short skill is declared, you are not allowed to ask.

First of all how exactly do you know that? secondly how me working or not working for CB has anything to do with it? do you expect people working on CB regardless of the work they do there to be better at comprehending the rules than the people credited in the rulebook? replying also to the previous time you said the same thing, why exactly do you think you know better what the game designer intended than me?

I think I know well how the rules work and how order declaration and execution work, it might not be what you want to hear but it is what it is.

I will remind people that I asked for any rule back up supporting their side of the argument, so far I have seen none, ballooning ectr to keep inside it several lines of game rules we could have easily written in painstakingly precision as we did with the rest of the rules or giving LoF the aspect of line of sight when it clearly does not exist in the rules is not a solid foundation for your argument.

 

They haven't issued a FAQ ruling sure, but it's possible that they're not aware of it or don't think it's an issue. Again if the poll is any indication the number of players who endorse this stance are very few in number and I don't know how many of them frequent interplanetario.

That said, Plebian has gone multiple times, and has never said anything about any players there playing as though LoF is private or only exists during order declaration.

So the fact that in the big tournament hosted and run by CB, where none of the players treat LoF in the way that the minority describes it should be, should give every indication that the majority of players are right. That LoF is open and public and can be checked at any time.

 

If by big tournament you talk about Interplanetario, in 2016 we were counting how many players were playing booty and metachemistry wrong (the vast majority) when it is clearly written in the rules how it is played.

We will not issue a FAQ for people playing plainly wrong the game FAQ is for legit questions.

 

But, the counter argument is: reading the rules in the strictest sense is what you are advocating for (the LoF rule in particular), but reading related rules (Targetless, Hidden Deployment, Scenery Items) to that same standard breaks the game.

I believe that's the contradiction that @Andre82 keeps alluding to.

 

[QUOTE="psychoticstorm, post: 15444, member:
We will not issue a FAQ for people playing plainly wrong the game FAQ is for legit questions.[/QUOTE]

I think in this instance they may have too. Otherwise this is a bugbear that's going to plague the game for some time.

May I suggest though that if the rules ever get revised for an N4 or N3.5 the LOF should be built around intent since I think it solves allot more issues than it cause and that goes for many situations beyond pie slicing such as HD troops, targetless weapons and AD troops.

 

What I was trying to illustrate was that consensus is reached when a majority agrees on a subject, not when every member in a body does. We can still debate, and maybe the minority will be on the rise some day. But it's important to note that the way the minority is advocating for would have catastrophic consequences and isn't supported in the plain text of the rules. As much as psychotic storm wants to down play the use of "etc" in the rule that's just not now rules are written or how English works.

The inclusion of etc means that the writers acknowledged that this isn't an all inclusive list and that they acknowledged there might be things they forgot to mention or add. Think of it as future proofing. The idea that a rule can be written to include all possible situations is pure arrogance and fallacy and would prevent the game from growing as new elements we're added in the future without time consuming rewrites. It's simply not how experienced rule makers and policy makers write.

And were those players addressed? Did CB cite and call anyone for LoF? Or was it a non issue? Perhaps because that's how it's supposed to work?

 

I do not think premeasuring, because that is what intent really is, will be part of the rules.

No, we just noted the vast majority of players play booty and metachemistry wrong.
Seriously though if your entire case is based on the word ectr and not all the other written rules, you may need to realsie you do not have a case, ectr ,means that we may add more rules in the future allowing drawing LoF to other things or we may not do, but we leave it open.

It does not mean we leave it open to interpret rules the way you want.

 

Why am I not allowed to ask? This is literally the first time I've ever heard this prohibition. Since you are saying things like "We will not issue a FAQ for people playing plainly wrong the game FAQ is for legit questions." I'm sure it will be very easy to cite such a plain rule prohibiting something so illegitimate.

 

Because the rules clearly say before, not during order declaration.

 

I disagree with this statement.

I think premeasuring must by definition involve attempting to find the distance between two points without without having to decalre or have declared a Move order.

Indeed the only time premeasuring is defined in the rules is in relation to distance and not any LOF of a unit.

Playing with intent does not involve premeasuring since it must involve the declaration of an order, which must be carried out regardless of of the intended position is within move distance.

Again you may feel that this does not need clarified but I think enough people have been playing with intent as the default and have been able to back this up with reference to the rules that if CB want to have any universal understanding of one one of the primary mechanics in the game (something vital for an international tournament scene) then it does need official clarification.

Again I feel, personally, that Intent has allot of benefits to the whole system for all the reasoms other posters have stated. If the concern is that it introduces premeasuring to the rules I'm fairly confident that this can be mitigated by careful definition of what can and cannot be Intended during an order declaration.

 

I have this problem from time to time in my gaming group, so it would be really great if we knew for sure - so you treat intent as a premeasuring and as something that shouldn't be used?...

Yeah, and about the benefits of intent - yey, they are great, but only for the active player, aren't they? ;)


PozdRawiam / Greetings

 

Simple. The rules state you ask and are informed of possible LoF when an order is mooted, not during a skill and without that skill having been finalized.

Certainly is does, and if that “more popular” side could bother to defend its point of view with, I don’t know, citations from the rules as written as Psychotic Storm has done, it might be a help, but when their platform can be summed up in “because we say so”, that credibility is ephemeral at best.