thoughts on Play by intent

Because the rules do not support "defining a final destination with ultimate certainty" isn't this the argument the thread is about?

 

Wait - what? In which universe? Let's say I will close my eyes and put a model in it's destination and will have an ultimate certainty it's the exact point I want the model to be, cause I want it to be in a random spot. Have I just measured against the rules?

 

Could be much worse. Some (not the 'ilk' kind) could have been against standing over the table so that you use shadow generated by your own head to 'M E A S U R E' and thus obtain a certainty of the final position of your model - this would be A G A I N S T T H E R U L E S bro.

 

The rules make no "limitation" on your abillity to define your end point at all, outside of measurement.

At absolute best the rules support that the active player has to determine that point on his own with no help from the reactive player. The only limitation on this determination is that the active player cannot measure the distance before hand.
Using a laser line is not measurement, it is not restricted by the rules.

The rules do not therefore ever block you from positioning your desired end point as accurately as you are able outside of the distance involved.

furthermore, given that "accurate" in this context is a relative term, the rules cannot prevent one player from defining the end point exactly where he wishes it to be. What you are arguing is that all "declarations" need to be some vague "over there" entity. which is just ridiculous

 

Why would the rules not allow the easiest way to place the model exactly were you want, premeasuring, not allow the second easier, your opponent, to help you with your model placement, not allow LoF checking while moving witch can lead to the sameish result, but allow you to use any other means to achieve such goal? like laser pointers, or rulers?

 

Honestly at this point I am really wondering what play even looks like by RAW. I don't think I have ever seen a game now that would satisfy the rules that have been placed.

Is there a video of someone who made the rules actually playing so we can figure out what the rules look like as intended?
I am trying to understand and be fair to the anti-PBI argument here but to do that I need to fully understand your argument.
At the 401 mark in that video do you agree a rule is being broken?

 

Gonna quote any of the rules that prevent anything but the first one?

Hell, you said yourself that you can check LOF, you just claim you cant use a laser to do it, but eyeballs are ok.

Quote rules storm

 

Yes, he should not have moved the silhouette marker after placing it, he essentially placed it then explained what he should have done before placing the marker.

Example 4 is a correct placement but in all examples the opponent should have checked for LoF before declaring ARO if we really want to be strict about it, it was obvious so they skipped it.

 

Go to the big post were I explained rule by rule were you can check LoF

The short summary is before declaring an order, when a short or long skill that requires it as prerequisite is declared and when checking if you are valid to get ARO.

 

I like at 3.14, tom "declaring he will move into LoF of the enemy"....

 

A psychologist would have a field day with the fetishization taking place on the part of some folks here.

(That isn't a sex thing. Fetishizing is the mental replacement of a thing by an object representing that thing. The original example was tribal fetishes, where statues or sculptures of gods eventually came to be thought of as the gods themselves. In this case, the perspective of a number of posters seems to be that the written rules of the game are the game itself. They aren't; the activity that takes place over a table between two consenting players is. Adopting an interpretation of those rules detrimental to the activity between players purely for the sake of purest written interpretation - as is happening with the sub-discussion on LOF especially - is fetishizing the rules at the expense of the game. For myself, I am comfortable being 'wrong' in my execution per the strict written spanglish if being right would come at the expense of quick, clean play.)

 

Honestly at this point its ridiculous. Claims that accuracy in placement of a model is expressly against the rules cant be argued with because they are never mentioned in the rules.
Not the least because what is accurate even you cannot define within the rules.

 

Because the former allows you to know if your move bands and range bands are adequate to get a certain intended outcome and the latter does not?

Because the former relates to distance, which can't be measured before a declaration and the latter does not.

 

Potential because you may not get LoF to the target, short/ long skill becomes idle instead.

 

That's where you're wrong, matey. We really like the rules 'round here.

 

Nope. Spanish first, as always, and then English.

 

How do you decide what potential LOFs you are entitled to check LOF for? Is it anything that declared an LOF based skill during an order?

If so, what is the limit on who can declare an LOF based skill? I'm pretty sure LOF is a prerequisite for declaring an ARO against a trooper outside ZOC.

Clearly you need to know LOF before declaration, otherwise the whole forcing a change facing ARO before shooting through a zero vis zone with MSV2 trick would not have been ruled in favor of.

 

If one subscribes to the idea that LOF only exists between models, markers and the infamous "etc"(I'll come back to him...), then 'potential target' could be a reference to having multiple Lines Of Fire if you can see multiple models markers or etcs, there's still a line of fire between models/markers/etcs even if you're not shooting at them(maybe you're dodging because there are more of them than you can deal with or you're just going to eat the ARO's from one while you put your whole burst into a specific model or something). Interpreting it as meaning any point on the table in your front 180 not blocked by total cover is still grammatically possible though, but it seems unlikely to me.

Then we come to the "etc." and this part needs a prelude. I am a native "English" speaker (I'm Scottish so its entirely plausible that anyone listening to what I say verbally would never know that) but I'm not an Oxford Don or a poet or a linguist or any of the 97 million definitions or occupations of people that do words good. So I fully admit that the next section might be a half assed madman's ramblings about a phrase that he mentally hears Yul Bryner's voice reading every time he sees it written down...

That said, et cetera is one(or two i suppose) of the most miss used, abused and misunderstood words in the language (probably because it's one of the many words or phrases English stole from another language in a dark alley...) but generally speaking its best to stick with the King and I definition, that being 'and so on and so forth' which can be extrapolated to mean "and similar things" in this context, meaning things that serve the same function, which I would suggest means things like Troops in Hidden deployment or destructible scenery.

I don't think that's true, first because I can't think of anything targetless that isn't also capable of spec fire, thus eliminating the need for line of fire, and second because the rule gives the exemption that you don't need an enemy as a target, it doesn't say the table becomes the target, or for that matter that anything is the target, in fact the very name would imply there is no target(as a game term) at all.

 

Unfortunately, I don't think it's an issue of you or I being right, Andre82 - neither of our opinions is really at stake in the debate.
In the formal or competitive situation, there is really only one way to play the game, and that's the way the game creators intended.

A fair number of people - including very experienced, very accomplished, well liked and well known players, seem to be making the mistake of trying to argue persuasively, and of appealing to the crowd - as though garnering a group opinion about the rules would change them.

We are all too conceited.

If the rulebook isn't clear enough, or is being misinterpreted for whatever reason, then it's the role of Corvus Belli's formal associates - including @ijw and @psychoticstorm, to help us understand what the designers' intentions really were when they wrote them.

Our role here isn't to make arguments from English, mathematics and logic to persuade ourselves that IJW and PsychoticStorm are wrong; they may misspeak themselves, but they're not wrong. Our role is to respectfully ask them as CB's associates, to clarify the formal game.