thoughts on Play by intent

Yet they are, meu filho, they are, for as much as you wish to quibble...

 

Given that the rules were written in English, and the vast majority of the English-speaking playerbase plays with what is functionally intent, it sure seems like the rules support intent. The Blue Box seems to say that you can, for example, place a silhouette a few inches away from your trooper and ask your opponent if one of their troopers can see that silhouette. Then, if you like the answer, you could declare a short move skill. To be frank, it doesn't matter what @psychoticstorm says or even what the people at CB say if that's what the rules text says.

This is especially relevant when the alternative is a situation in which the inevitable jostling and moving of pieces on the table can have a noticeable effect on the outcome of the game. Infinity is a unique game, but if the Gotcha! crowd had their way, it would be uniquely shitty. No other miniatures game that I know of can have such consequences from what might literally be air turbulence in the room you're playing in.

But hey, for you Gotcha! players, have I got the game for you! @psychoticstorm , you might want to check to see if they have some official forums to mod as well, might be more up your alley than Infinity.

 

Even if it was CB's intent that we forgo AROs we could have taken and take AROs we could have avoided (the consequence of not being able to check hypothetical lines of fire), they haven't written rules that force us to. And given that hypothetical lines of fire is just examining the board, it would be impossible to.

Pretty funny people are unwilling to accept intent in gameplay but will accept it in the rules that govern the game.

 

Native English speakers seem to disagree, and the rules were written in English first... even if the endpoint were "play it as it lands" it still wouldn't stop players from "corner popping" to an exact position, as it allows players to describe their path to an endpoint verbally. The rules don't require you to scrape your model's base along the table, describing their movement path, after all.

 

Uh... The poll taker was @Todd who is one of the original pro-intent people in this thread. So I have no clue what you're talking about there. Is the PBI faction devolving into in-fighting?

I don't know why I'm bothering to repeat this merry-go-round, but the quote is:

"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."

Emphasis mine, obviously.

 

Yeah, so you ask your opponent "If I were to declare a short skill and move to location x, would your model y have LoF to my model and gain an ARO?"

Easy peasy.

 

Lets try summarise. @macfergusson

What I think we can all agree the rules say;

1. Every model can draw 180* LoF. Every marker 360* LoF, and Moving models 360* LoF.

2. LoF is required for many skills in the game.

3. LoF must be established to targets for many skills in the game.

4. targets can be a model, a marker, a point on the table, a piece of scenery etc.

5. LoF is open information and must be shared in an honest manner.

6. LoF between models and markers is a straight line that must see a 3x3mm of the target silhouette.

7. Tools and game aids can be used (including a measuring tape held upsdie down) to determine LoF.

What anti-intent think the rules say;

Aa. LoF only exists when its needed. Ie. before and after first short skill, before and after second short skill.

Ab. LoF can only be determined from model/markers to other model/markers unless a specific skill requires/allows otherwise.

Ac. LoF can only be determined at specific points in the game

Ad. Use of tools or game aids is considered determining and a form of "premeasuring"

Ae. Placing sihouettes and adjust is a form of determining. [chess rules apply? this one is blurry to me]

What intent think the rules say;

Ia. LoF exists at all times

Ib. Players may determine LoF to any target, hypothetical or real.

Ic. Tools and game aids may be used to determine the optimum LoF before an order declaration.


- I think the key issue is whether LoF is a permanent state for all models, or only an entity when required by the rules. Neither side can produce solid evidence of timing when it comes to the use of LoF.

- This then flows on to whether determining LoF when it is not called for in the rules is explicitly against the rules. Much like timing, the rules do not define explicitly what determining LoF is, only how to do it, and is silent on when this can be done.

That is the state of the rules.

Whether you like it or not really will depend on what preference of game you like and other external factors like people you've talked to who have an opinion on preference.

CB need to clarify if LoF is all encompassing, or otherwise write a blurb similar to measuring distance to clarify when and how LoF can be determined.

 

@macfergusson: no amount of citing the rulebook and highlighting the rules as written will help here. Yet try we must.

@Hecaton:

"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."

emphasis mine.

 

Mac and stiopa.

If you ar going to be that pedantic. Nothing stops thw active pkayer using a laser line to determin the position they wish to place a model at and declare their mode too.

Thats not pre measuring as it is defined in the rules and its not measuring as defined in language because its not determining a quantity

 

Define Line of Fire.

This paragraph has literally opposite meaning depending on how you interpret the next rule about LoF, which includes the ever so specific term "etc."

 

Yup, and we know that LoF can exist between a model and a point, because smoke grenades. So I'm checking enemy models' LoF to the point I want to move through. If you're saying that LoF only exists when actually throwing smoke grenades... it doesn't exist when orders aren't being declared, either, and thus the sentence you quoted means literally nothing, because LoF doesn't exist when orders aren't being declared.

Of course, you're not going to acknowledge the paradox your viewpoint causes, instead you're going to avoid answering questions and continue misrepresenting the written rules, presumably in the hopes of springing this rules interpretation on people in the middle of games to gain an edge. Are you super tight with the local TO to where you're certain they're going to rule in your favor on any LoF arguments that come up, giving you an advantage in events?

 

:Blink: Ok.... so who else supports that repositioning is not allowed here?
Just to make sure we are 100% clear here.
In this video

at 4.01
The rules got broken very badly and they are infact playing with a shittier version of PBI?

 

Exactly. Which is part of what makes this whole issue one about interpretation of rules and gameplay philosophies, not actual rules. And that makes the amount of vitriol in this thread amusing, in an unpleasant way. I don't give two tugs of a dead dog's cock about the way other groups play the game. I'm not trying to convince anyone to change their ways. So why the actual intercourse some players are so hell-bent of forcing their interpretation? What is this, Infinity Forum, or 4chan?

@Hecaton: Yes, you can check it because Smoke Grenades allow you to target a point at the battlefield. A Multi Rifle does not.

The line about LoF, the one with the now infamous "etc.", clearly speaks about LoF being about unit seeing its targets. Please answer this: if you ask a player about a potential LoF before declaring Move, what is the target in question?

 

Comes under Ad of my post above. Its a form of "premeasuring"

 

Except it cant be.

Because the rules dont forbid using lasers to determine relative positioning and because measure requires a qauntitative determination not a qaulitative.

Using a laser line to determine relative positions is most certainly qualitative.

 

Can anyone from the non-intent point of view explain this to me? Am I misunderstanding something? Because it seems like there would just be an argument over it every time this situation comes up, but I doubt that anyone wants more arguments (this thread should give everyone their fill outside of game)

 

Yes, both groups have been attempting to claim its "in the rules the whole time".

You seemed to have lost your way and joined the cacophony when you quoted a rule and added emphasis.

Regardless of the number of sexual references and attempts to appear above it all, you're really not contributing in anything close to resembling a positive way. If thats your intent, then troll away.

Thats like, your opinion man.

 

You're falling back on that *now*, but earlier you claimed that the rules supported the gotcha point of view. So go figure - the reason you get vitriol is you don't argue in good faith.

 

Im not sure if you are being serious...

If you arent then lol.

If you are, well the rules define premeasuring with regards to distance not positioning and the definition of the word measure requires a quantity be determined.

But hey im happy with the "discuss these things as they are outside the bounds of RAW. Just pointing out the raw is flawed/limited

 

Guys for the last time the blue box says

If it needs analysing so be it

Existing LoF not future, not possible, only existing Lines of Fire.

Line of FIre is the line between two targets

Even if ectr is transformed to the magical everything else you keep believing it to be (we would really have written LoF is a point from the model to any point on the gaming table if that was the case, we are not that dense, it also saves words witch come at a premium on a printed publication) the following

Gives the timing ask before an order is declared, not a short skill, not a long skill an order declared, it really is "how many models and markers see this trooper?"

Don't lie and don't try to abuse rules for your advantage.