thoughts on Play by intent

It was clearly being used in a pejorative way, not exactly how you want a criticism of someone else for denigrating others to read.

 

The bigger problem is A Mão Esquerda missing the fact that I was pointing out Psychoticstorm's inconsistency on the topic at hand. He said I think Psychoticstorm's word is gospel. Little does A Mão Esquerda and those of his ilk know that I would never take Psychoticstorm's word as gospel. A Mão Esquerda has built in a backup plan in his post though: that valid isn't official, and that I am taking Psychoticstorm's words out of context. However, it is clear from Psychoticstorm's post that he has inconsistent opinions. A Mão Esquerda and his ilk seem to have multiple lines of defense now: "He was talking about casual play, it's fun!" And "You DO agree with Psychoticstorm! Aha!" It bears repeating; I do not take his word as gospel!

 

You were being lumped in with other play by intent stance people. I guess if you want to take that as a bad thing, that's up to you. /shrugs

 

Yes, that much is obvious. This isn't going to be resolved without official CB statements clarifying how it should be played, and apparently that seems to be ever-less-plausible of an expectation.

 

As nasty remarks in this thread go, I think it's relatively light enough to let slide.

Besides, the formal almost archaic quality of the diction makes the speaker seem like a curmudgeon. No one wins. :tongueclosed:

 

Like? I *am* a curmudgeon, meu filho.

 

That's part of my point. Psychoticstorm made the statement:

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

It begs the questions: Who is we? Is this true? What is the basis of this statement?

 

Also, "people playing plainly wrong" seems like it's shaping up to be a pretty big group. At least, when it comes to some of the things discussed in this thread.

With all due respect to PS for the service he does for the forum, I'm not sure it's a great idea having the situation "resolved" by someone who's only loosely affiliated with the company, who prefaced his comments here with the fact that he cannot make an official ruling for them, and whose comments amount to "you're all just doing it wrong, tough titty." That's a direct quote, I swear.

Does CB really want to leave things like that?

 

The biggest problem I'm having right now understanding this argument is if in order to slice the pie, they need to make sub-millimeter accurate placements or suffer the consequences of multiple aro's, how can you call them out on not placing their model precise enough? Wouldn't you need to assert you can see the angles to a higher level of precision they can? Wouldn't they just insist they placed their model correctly?

 

The 'submilimeter' adjustment argument is retarded. This just won't happen in game a lot if ever. IJW did math, but he probably used a point placed at B2B with the corner instead of a point 0,5" further away (round base) as one of two points between which LOF is checked. Even if his math is 100% legit (which might also be true) - on a scale of grand cosmos and all the games we play this kind of situation would be as rare as seeing two Nomad Reaktion Zonds one over the other on top of a wall. Seriously - if we delve into subatomic level when talking miniatures game - the product is doomed from the start. Most of the time it is easier to slice the pie than the other way around. Let's seriously leave anything close to subatomic out of discussion, cause this is just silly.

Guys - just play the fckn game :)

CB could really take a stance here. I love a lot of things about CB but Errata and official stance is something they could really use an improovement in.

 

Given that a point in BtB with the corner would automatically have LoF to everything around the corner because it would be at the corner itself, yeah, I used a half base-width. :tearsofjoy:

 

I never doubted mate. It was the 'ilk' part of me that did, but now it's gone forever. ;)

 

It's not a big group. Check the results of the poll someone made, what's happening is a minority of people playing the rule wrong are being the loudest.

 

You're quoting the person who made the poll you linked. Not to mention, the poll is completely irrelevant. This isn't a discussion about how lots of people play, even if that was a realistically and accurately sampled poll. This is a discussion about what the rules actually state, in order to properly clarify what is and is not a house rule. If the entire U.S. tournament meta (for example) chose to play by full intent by unanimous consent, that still wouldn't make it "actually the rules" if the game designers didn't write it as such. Which, again, leaves us right back at the beginning of both sides believing they are reading the rules to support their own position.

 

So after much thought --not really -- I've figured it out. Nuestro Amigo Zurdo (Our left-handed friend) is pining for his Partner in Arguments from the old forum. He's been auditioning all of you for the role. I wonder who will get the rose... :fearscream:

I'm allergic to roses, FYI. Y tienes un buen sentido de humor. ¿verdad?

Hellois is supposed to answer questions about the ITS. Could someone, or someones, PM him and phrase this discussion in such a way that it is a question about ITS play? Place the question in the rules and/or ITS section(s) too. This may be the most effective way to get some sort of official answer.

Not me. I'm too lazy.

 

Note sub millimetre here means around 2-4 mm depending on the distance. Or 1/10 of the base width. This becomes larger as the targets become more separated and smaller the closer the targets are to being perpendicular to obstruction used for slicing.

So 1/10th is probably a reasonable average. Definitely not unachievable, and very achievable for some.

 

Yup. I mean, we all know I can argue. At great length. Doesn't mean I want to spend my games of Infinity doing so. Whereas a gotcha player has every incentive to argue that their opponent moved their mini a bit too far and is now taking 9001 AROs, since it comes down to argument. Whereas with intent, it's a matter of saying "is it possible? Ok, you can do it."

 

Yeah man, I'm totally in the Slice the pie camp. I just find this tone of argument ridiculous. It goes for both sides. By the way 2-4mm is a hell of a size in a game where 3x3mm couunts as valid target :)

 

What post of IJW's are you quoting here? Because the one that you're linking back to doesn't say that.

 

I think I was pretty clear when I moved from "yes, it is a good variation that speeds time" to, "em no this is not how the rules are written, do not speak as if these are the rules of the game"

I said several times in this thread, you can play however you want, but accept it is local house rule, not the rules of the game.