I'm PBI all the way. I really think it just comes down to different gamer types. Some people game more aggressively/PAIL in general and I think it usually translates across games, whereas I play PBI in almost every game I play. My wife is a PAIL gamer so I mean, I live with one lol. And we haven't killed each other yet. But there have been times where she has had to learn to loosen up and play for the 'good of the group' instead of a by-the-numbers one-sided slaughter, and there have been times where I've had to buckle down and admit 'no, I placed that there, was my own fault, ok I take the hit'. One thing I do think is important to consider is perception in gaming. That is, physical perception. If I place a model, check for AROs and physically can't see any (because of my eyes being poor or just not having a good angle, etc...) and my opponent won't tell me until after I've said I'm done...I mean wtf am I supposed to do, get a bionic eye? (which incidentally would be awesome ;)
Our names or descriptions of the variants need to identify the distinguishing feature of the two styles, which seems to be how models are positioned with respect to potential Lines of Fire. One variant allows players to notionally position models by agreement, and the other requires players to actually position their models by their own individual estimate. One of the problems with the 'play by intent' debate is that it covers a very broad concept. So at one end, most of us would find it easy to agree that (with due care taken for fair measurement), a late game MOV-MOV without any AROs, is just an agreement for both player's convenience. Whereas at the other end, the case of 'infinite pie-slicing' to reduce ARO's from two or more models from anything over a foot away, is an agreement to place a model in a way that has critical effect, and so we find it hard to agree. @psychoticstorm has said it's a variant that changes the balance between active and reactive players, and the power of their respective weapons. And @ijw has said it's a way of positioning a model at a point that's really only theoretically possible! Both situations describe a form of 'play by intent', but they're vastly different in effect. So what distinguishes the variants is not courtesy or convenience (we all want the convenience of the former, and a guarantee of courtesy in the latter), but the degree to which we'll allow 'positioning by agreement' or we'll require 'positioning by estimate' and how much we think the rules support it.
Dont confuse pail with competitive. a large number of the more competitive players have come out and said they play by intent, we find it runs smoother and faster and that means that we can just get on with the game.
no its all good, the comment was valuable, Im just pointing out that its the competitive players that are usually arguing for intent
Depends on the competitive payer and what challenge they are after to be entirely honest. Competitive players who want maximum control and as few surprises as possible want play by intent, for them it is a puzzle to solve and unknowns are an anathema. Competitive players who want the spatial challenge and the excitement of the risk want to play with play as it is placed, the challenge is to be the best at estimating distances, positions and risk assessment. There is no perfect play style for everybody and will never be as there is not a single category of competitive players, please treat people as individuals.
Nothing that sinister I am afraid, it was a simple statement and an in depth clarification because people were seeing in it more than they should see. Kinda understandable on hindsight, posters supporting either camp are quite tense, I just do not think I should be writing a so in-depth explanation for such simple things.
To be entirely honest you would have to acknowledge that in the multiple threads around this not only do the vast majority of players play by the rule of intent but it is also the truth that several highly ranked and serious competitive players have very directly come out on “play by intent”- the “play style” which has been clearly described again and again by the majority of people as not so much a “play style” as just, you know, the way the game is played. it’s a game and you’re absolutely allowed to have your opinions on it and argue for your interpretation as you wish, but when Interplanetary, Gencon, Nova, Dire States, LVO, etc are all played in the same manner and have been for multiple years it’s not controversial or dishonest to say that competitive players largely support and play what is being called PBI.
If you find yourself unhappy when your opponent makes intelligent and effective moves, I think we should dial it back a bit and talk about sportsmanship in general...
I think Intent is far more efficient for competitive play, because Intent accelerates the game quickly, and the first hurdle that all tournament players need to abide by is the time limit for a round. If you're circling the table, re-circling the table, constantly walking around to check LoF from your opponent's side... That wastes time. If you're playing on a looooong row of tables in a convention hall, maybe 10+ tables all in a row, then multiple trips to look from your opponent's perspective might be the equivalent of walking a city block every time you want to see what your opponent sees. That's not a satisfactory competitive experience. Similarly, if you're just saying "forget it, I'm going to make my moves without checking LoF, because I want a "spatial challenge" (to quote PS)" Then you get blown away because it's hard af to plan anything in Infinity if you don't know what's where... That's not a satisfactory competitive experience either. In that mode, the game becomes less about making smart tactical decisions in sequence, and more about whose vision is better, whose manual dexterity is better, who is more practiced in moving millimeters, who is better at persuading the judge or TO that their version of LoF is correct. Those are not success metrics that any competitive setting should embrace. We're not in an archery competition, or on a debate team. Intent is very much born from finding the most expedient and mutually enjoyable way to play the game, within the confines of the rules, and is 100% compatible with both tournament and casual play. Nothing about those is mutually exclusive.
@Tanglangren does it even matter? I pointed out there are different people on competitive level who can gravitate on each play style. If you have an issue I adapted "play style" for both extreme interpretations, I am sorry this is how they will be referred to until a FAQ is released clearing the rules out.
If you post to refute the claim that competitive players generally support play by intent despite the evidence of polls on this forum, comments by recognized competitive players and the evidence of how every competitive tournament including cb’s own flagship event with an appeal to respecting individual interpretations you are not arguing in good faith. If you respond to me pointing out that inconsistency by asking “what does it matter” then you are simply trolling. You cannot argue that the small cadre of supporters for gotcha play have uncovered the true meaning of the published rules- in contrast to the empirically vast number of other players’ experience and interpretation while SIMULTANEOUSLY arguing that the approach is widespread or well represented in actual play. That is also arguing in bad faith. I don’t see how the reading you clearly support can work, or cause anything but endless painful arguments, or be any fun to play. But you and others have every right to see it that way and argue for it. At the same time, you can’t simply pretend that you are not representing a very small group of players who share that view, nor can you just pretend in the face of empirical reality that there is anything approaching parity of that approach in terms of how tournament play is conducted. I don’t have an “issue” with your use of the word “playstyle”. But I’ll not pretend that the intent section of the rules don’t exist, nor will I pretend that the interpretion being forwarded by a small minority constitutes a broad constituency or is represented widely in either official tournament or casual play. People with wide experience are consistently explaining that PBI is the way that the game is played in every venue they have encountered. Regardless of the merits of the rules claims the nonPBI side of this discussion can’t reasonably appeal to their approach being the way the game is generally or widely played. It empirically and obviously isn’t.
I totally get the play by Intent arguments and find them compelling but I can’t help but feel like there are two things that occasionally get lost that do not have to be lost. 1) the importance of remembering the state of the board. I think you should be able to point at a spot and say “does anyone have line of Fire here?” You should get an answer to this one as well. But you should definitely be at risk of a “Gotcha!” If you don’t ask. Dumb mistakes are a part of competition and avoiding them separates competors. 2) It makes slicing the pie too easy especially if the active player can use 1mm to view 3mm if the enemy. (I might have this wrong) but I don’t think steady hands & distance guessing improves this situation except by making it riskier and less attempted. So just clarifying that it is a little easier to get LOF on the active piece to improve ARO coverage would resolve my concerns.
Here we go again, do we need this debate here again? I do not think so, posters can go to the other threads and read it there. I advice to remain neutral and wait for an official clarification.
As for remember the state of the board, I think the applies equally to play as it lies. There is no difference between intended play and non intended play when it comes to remembering who did or did not have LoF. Take 35min between action between certain models and both players may have forgotten what the original LoF determination was. This will especially be true if the terrain is not conductive to having a model actually be placed where it should legally be allowed to go (problem we have found with many forest and rubble based terrain or dynamic models trying to hug a wall). I find with intent play most of the time one player will have their memory jogged once looking at the table again because there was a discussion before hand vs just a yes/no for LoF. If both forget then we just assume the most reasonable positioning (i.e. the model should only have LoF to 'X' because that makes most tactical sense).
And where are these competitive players? I haven't seen a single competitive player support PAIL in this thread or anywhere I've played...
Okay so I had another thought about the alguacile and kriza borac thing, and the mutual awareness of line of fire... Given the way that the thread has gone, I want to be clear that this is specifically about a part of the video that bugged me, and not an argument against play by intent, so: This is specifically about a part of the video that bugged me and not an argument against play by intent. I think that's clear enough, weird how bringing the discussion back to the subject of the title feels like going off topic... Also it's not a slight or gotcha against @Plebian or the other guys in the video, just something that seemed off that I had to figure out to shake the feeling... The short version is, with the intended perfect intersection of lines of fire, depending on how the line of fire is drawn the alguacile blocks enough volume to prevent the borac getting an ARO to a prone model at either just under 9 inches or a little bit more than 24 inches. 9 inches in infinity is quite a lot, but 24 at ground level is a quantity best described in expletives... Now I won't always share my working in full (yknow that saying about laws and sausage? Same thing with me doing math) but I'll endeavour to explain the math where it's important, and anyone that wants to check can have at it . The first time I worked out how far the alguacile blocked line of fire and said 8inchs I made a couple of assumptions that are a bit off. The first one was that I drew the silhouettes in 2d and worked out the angle from the corner of the s5, through the corner of the s2 in front. That's wrong unless we're taking the about the centre of the cylinder, which is pretty much never going to be the case, especially if you're playing intent, and we'll be dealing with a point that lines up with the first 3mm of the s2 template, and by drawing lines and circles I worked that out at about 7mm longer than distance between the two corners, which if the silhouettes are drawing line of sight to a 3x3 on the base, reciprocal LOF gives the base LOF to the silhouettes. The distance between the two points of the silhouettes is 33mm horizontal and 5mm vertical, the line between them needs to drop to 3mm off the ground to see any of the base which is a drop of 42mm (s5 is 45mm tall, a base is 3mm tall 45-3=42) to follow the same line required to clear the s2 in front the line travels 33mm horizontally for every 5mm it drops or 6.6 in every 1 (actually 6.666 recurring but 6.6 is enough accuracy here) 6.6*42=277.2 which means that the borac has a 277.2mm or 8.9 inch blind spot caused by the alguacile, and if the prone model is inside that (or at least is less than 3mm past it) the kriza borac has no line of fire, which is good news for the fusilier... But what if they line of fire is originating from the prone model drawing a line of fire to the 3x3 of the alguacile and kriza borac? More specifically at what distance is it possible to draw line of fire from a point of the base to 3x3 of the alguacile without drawing a 3x3 to the borac? Since in that case the borac would not gain line of fire from the mutual awareness clause. Well that means that the base needs to be at a point where it cannot see the top 3mm of the borac. The horizontal distance between the points is the same as before, around 33mm from the first point of 3mm contact with the s2 to the first point of 3mm contact with the s5, but we're only interested in the lowest point of the top 3mm of the s2, so the vertical distance is now 2mm( 5mm difference between s2 and s5 height minus the 3mm for line of fire) and the line only has to drop 39mm, which after following the same process as before I make out as 643.5mm or 25.3 inches. The prone model has to be completely inside that even then if you knock off an inch for the base, 24 inches (and a third for insurance) where the prone model can draw a line of fire to the alguacile, but not the borac so the borac won't be able to claim reciprocal line of fire , and since the prone fusilier declares intent to stop as soon as they have a 3mm target on the alguacile, the borac won't be able to draw it's own LOF, which is still good news for the fusilier. What that means is, to me the borac would have been better off going past the alguacile so the fusilier had to engage it first.
