@ijw proved in the other thread that it is mathematically possible to always achieve it with absolute precision, but lets ignore that, lets say the fusilier declared move to the corner with intent to only see one model and this is an impossibility, what happens next?
its geometrically impossible from that location, so the fusilier can't do it. Don't misunderstand the idea of intent. Intent play is meant to improve the flow of the game by reducing the time spent taking measurements for something that is mathematically possible. Something that would be mathematically impossible would not be allowed.
This was a really good video! But I wonder if anyone has considered the issue of intent with TO Camo: often reactive players may wish to reveal a TO Camo model in order to "gotcha" an enemy when they try to cut around a corner to see one model, smacking them with a hidden TO Camo marker in order to force them to make a difficult decision about what to do with the second half of their order. Asking an opponent to play by pure LOS for an order when you've already been playing with intent might give the game away. Is there any way to maintain intent while mitigating this possibility?
a little, but geometrically speaking as they slice that intent pie any model at a previous tangent to their end point would have LoF. This is easier to explain by diagram but imagine the fusilier is rounding to see the aguicile but a specter off towards the camera reveals to attack it. so long as the specter isn't at a tangent beyond the ones that the fusilier must cross to see the aguicile i know that the specter can draw LoF. Does that make sense?
You are still trying to set up a situation where one player was trying to do something that they both already agreed would not be possible.
No, I am thinking in general, setting aside that example lets assume active player makes the same declaration without having preestablished that both models see that corner, it just happens to be this way and the model has declared a move with intent of seeing only one, but there is no way this can be achieved. Not as a way to play, but as a set of rules.
Its a fundamentally different way of thinking about the game. In play by intent you're playing with your opponent not against them. When one side declares intention to do a thing you should help them check their lines to achieve the result intended, not just because its polite but because it saves time and makes the game a more polite and enjoyable experience. If you were not playing by intent the same result could take a few minutes more as the player checked from both sides the tangent they were putting models on. But more importantly both players agreed on the game state. It would be incredibly poor form and impolite to then back off of the agreement and say "well you weren't exact enough so i'm just going to shoot this one." that is not play by intent, that respects no one's intent and would even be a false representation if you were helping your opponent check lines initially.
Then you use a laser guide, because it's fucking close, and then you're like "Nah, man, I know you're saying that's your intention, but that doesn't look like you can do that. Are you still gonna spend the order to move that guy? (This is all checking *before* declaration.)"
You're still taking back an action because it didn't get the result you wanted, and making sure you only suffer the consequences you want to suffer, rather than taking all of the appropriate AROs/consequences/etc.
just like ranges you cant know if there is TO camo on hte table, you get jobbed with that then you suck it up and deal, thats the point of TO
Its never an issue to begin with, the Kriza is taller than the prone aguacile and the previously agreed upon intent is that the edges of their base line up with the corner in a single tangent, there is no angle to slice. IJW was talking about the blue scenario, the red is what plebian has just done with the front model prone.
No, you're talking hypotheticals at that point. "If I were to move here with this guy, would model A be able to gain LoF to me?" If no, maybe I move. If yes, maybe I stay. There's no action that needs to be taken back. What is your take, that if you even *think* about moving past a corner I can ARO your thought-error?
IJW was looking at two models placed next to each other with at least 25 mm difference between the origin points on their LOF, not two models one infront of the other with no difference in the tangent to a point.
I don't know if this is a cultural difference, linguistic difference, an attitude difference or what, but I don't really regard that as a bad thing. I don't know about everyone else in this conversation, but I stopped playing "no takebacksies" when I was 8 years old. Life, as well as games, are more interesting when you're willing to work with other people rather than trying to trap them. Similarly, I don't view the first Short Skill declaration as an opportunity for "takebacks." I view it as the time to construct with your opponent the proper framework of the Order. If that's done correctly, there shouldn't really be a need for anything to be modified. But once again, both players need to work in tandem; playing "gotcha" after you reach an accord with your opponent is a pretty miserable thing to do. Before I dive into this particular portion of discussion though, I'm going to issue a reminder the purpose of this thread is to share a media resource with the community.
