thoughts on Play by intent

Really? Well maybe you didn't read my post about how blast templates draw LoF to determine which models are hit. Last I checked a template isn't a model or marker, it must be somewhere in that "etc."

So your issue is also one of precision in regards to pie slicing? You want it to be a skill rather than relying on winning by tactical choices you'd rather win by someone's ability to execute a move skill? As @Hecaton and @daboarder have pointed out that will just slow game play by anyone who wants get it right.

 

the trig at 48' for 25 mm bases at a corner still typically leaves you with upwards of a cm distance.

Its not the position of the 2 guys, its the fact that 1 blocks the other always and that there is a focal point (the corner) involved.

The only way to do it effectively is still to introduce multiple heights lined up along the same vector, which makes all this mess ultimately irrelevant

 

Ok so we disagree on this.
But let's say I turn out to be right? Would you play that way if the only thing it changed was time needed to play?
Also maybe I am delusional...
I mean being wrong feels exactly like being right.
I don't think you are an idiot so maybe it really is a skill.
I guess I can always run some tests or something.

 

Could you expand?

I've done the maths repeatedly (and posted it on the old forum) and beyond roughly 12" range, distinguishing between two side-by-side S2 targets requires sub-millimetre changes in position by the trooper touching the corner.

This is why I asked if you play that intent allows infinite pie-slicing, because by now it's an integral part of the discussion.

 

Additional rules do not invalidate the basic rules they are exceptions or additions to the basic rule.

 

At this point my example has the same value as Kedzior's. There's always a mathematical error404 situation. What devalidates my example takes down Kedzior's as well. And yet, in real games even if you place two models so that their bases touch each other - believe me I will still slice it gud regardless of distance. I do it all the time and I'm not the 'most obsessed about win' player you would come to face (where I'm from - I'm like a middle ground between extremes). It comes down to experience - that's all. What I want to say by this is that this entire discussion won;t end pie-slicing. It will make it more elite and certainly more stressful for all the muggles out there, but won;t elliminate it.

 

You mean the part where it says players are expected to share all open information? The part that you don't want to follow when you say you don't want to make clear where your models' LoF ends when your opponent is moving his models?

 

No it doesn't. To repeat my post from just now, once the targets are more than roughly a foot away you require sub-millimetre positioning to be able to separate adjacent S2 targets.

 

They can be contradictory with an earlier rule, though, in which case the game is broken. And if one rule has multiple interpretations, and one way it makes it so a basic game function doesn't work (impact templates, for example), you'd take the other way. You don't get to interpret the same rule different ways in different situations.

 

just eye balling, if youve got a link to the maths thats probably more accurate ill admit. Could you provide it? i guess its also worth pointing out that its never come up about "infinite" pie slicing in games. thats not through people not trying to engender the situatin but more if they have and its ever likely to be a question theres plenty of ways within the game to make such positioning irrlelvant, not the least attacking a different angle with a different model

 

Ok lets make a point

So I took two of my grunts and a warcor for this. The grunts are placed about 12 away from a corner and the warcor is popping the corner.

Photo 1 shows the top down view of the situation

Taking the time its easy to slice the corner from the models eye view.
because you can readily line up the point at which you see the second model (bellow)


And merely shift yourself back a few millimeters to ensure that you are shooting only the first. (Below)


Its not the model moving along the line that is relevant its the 25 mm base nature of the guys standing next to each other

EDIT: Heres the other top down, the difference is hugely noticable

 

Seriously? There are two ways to look at this, either LoF is a permissive rule that allows all things existing in the game to have LoF drawn to them which is both intuitive and agreed on by most players, or LoF is restrictive and has a dozen exceptions to allow LoF to be drawn to everything on the table. In law we call that exceptions swallowing the rule and it makes the narrow rule meaningless, which to be clear is what you're advocating.

Also no response to the fact that the rules never say when to check LoF?

 

Current pdf rulebook, freshly downloaded from the site, page 61. emphasis mine:

Checking all possible Lines of Fire for all figures and Markers on the table can be cumbersome. 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. Players are expected to share this Open Information in a truthful and sportsmanlike manner. Honesty and fair play are conducive to a better gaming atmosphere, and all players benefit from that.

edit: @daboarder: it is a good example, but situations I encounter much more often are when the two defenders are at a sharper angle to the corner, so the movement differencer are far more narrow.

 

You need to moving the Warcor by about a millimetre, and as I previously said, about 1' range is the limit. Beyond that you're into the realm where you need sub-millimetre accuracy.

 

They are not contradictory with the earlier rules direct and impact templates have specific rules in addition to the basic LoF rules that allow them to draw LoF from their point allowing essentially indirect fire (or really well placed shotgun fire) to ignore cover

What I am amused is you claim that when you interpret a clearly defined and timed rule like the blue box, to suit what you want to claim when it clearly does not say what you want it to say.

 

Thanks for the well wishes guys, not taking baby home today as the hospital want to keep mum and baby in for observation. So another 12 hours in the maternity ward for me.

So we have a few ideas of what Play With Intent means. Let's look at them.

I agree with most of this, however, I feel the intended point of the model at the corner where it can see the one but not all opponents units must be shown to exist and be verified by both players.

It's not enough to claim mathamaticaly that the position must exist it must be occupied by a shiloute market at some stage so ARO's from units that might be in HD for example can be verified.

To aid this laser guides or visual inspection can be used but the important thing is that the players agree as to this position and that it exists. If it does not (and sometimes due to geometry it can't) the active player should be happy to take any additional ARO's and not gripe about this.

I agree with this as well however, the position of the shiloute at the corner where it's intent is to see only one of several opponents units should not be a matter of positioning skill by the active player but a matter of mutual agreement between the players.

This overcomes one of the main disadvantages of the Play as it Lies method which is that exact positioning often not a matter of skill but is effected by such things as hard to move terrain, bumping elbows, unstable minis and other factors that means this is an imprecise process by nature.

IMHO the game should not hinge on who can place a game piece at the exact position with mm precision but should be based of the tactical intent of the player. We're imprecise creatures by nature and since I've started wearing glasses I now appreciate that much more.

This diagram shows a situation where it is mathamaticaly possible for this unit in blue to slice the pie. I'm a Physics PhD and I can tell you unequivocally, maths doesn't lie.

However in order for PWI to work and be fair to both players (and take into account such things as HD troops) it would be beneficial for the blue player to place a shiloutes marker at the designated position shown in red. This proves the point exists and gives a volume for HD troops to draw LOF to if needed.

This point however should be found and confirmed by mutual agreement of both players. This does and would allow the active player to adjust the position of the shiloute as designated by the red circle until it was in the position agreed by both players.

That's my thoughts on things I don't think anything there is game breaking or against the rules but please point out any assumptions I've made and perhaps some form of consensus can be reached.

 

No that's not what I'm saying at all, after a template is placed in order to determine who is hit by the splash LoF is drawn from the blast focus of the template to all targets beneath it to determine who's hit. That's a basic BS attack with a template weapon drawing LoF from something that's neither a model nor a marker.

 

yup i agree DGX

 

The attack was a BS attack determined by the LoF of the user, who is hit by the template is determined by the impact template, for direct attack the model shot for example does get cover BS modifier, but it may hit models that are out of LoF of the attacker as secondary effect.

 

I partially agree and partially disagree. Like I've said multiple times, the situation where it really matters are few and far between. Most of the time it doesn't require much skill to pinpoint the specific spot, as the differences involved are bigger. And if it's about fractions of the millimeter - the player knows the risk, knows the stakes, he can take it or make a different tactical decision.

Mishaps like model instability or knocking something over happen, and are a completely different matter. There was never any problem for us to simply rearrange things back to the best of our ability and memory.

Like I've said, it's a matter of different gaming philosophies, and I'm perfectly willing to agree to disagree about them.