Close it. All intent threads just repeat the same incompatible POVs and rehash the same insulting innuendo.
I mean, I don't think that's a fair assessment of this thread. In the end there was very little disagreement and only two people got insulting for a bit. I know folks have intent PTSD, but this time around it seemed fine by forum standards. But I think we've all said what we have to say, I have no objection to the thread being closed.
I understand the reasoning, but I don’t think it’ll work that way. Every C1 thread is an old timer thread at this point, and every rule is being discussed in light of changes from N3. When - if - newcomers come to this forum thanks to C1, they’ll make their own threads. I mean, it’s not like this is the only game that has an ongoing discussion, I’ve never seen that push people away.
Yes it’s always hard to not use old rulesets to cloud our assumptions of a new ruleset. But we must learn to unlearn what we knew. I agree with you considering the example on page 15 has the Yu Jing player move to face two ARO’s
I have seen other threads with way harder words than what I've seen here, and then was not any comment from moderation. Some people might come late to the discussion due to several reasons, even if they bring the same old arguments. Just wanting a thread to be closed just because some people don't like the topic seems wrong to me
I'm pretty sure every version of the Infinity rulebook has had examples like that; it's useful to demonstrate concepts like splitting burst and how to resolve a Dodge as FtF against multiple attacks. They're trying to show how the mechanics work in more complex scenarios, not coaching you on optimal plays.
Especially since it's not uncommon to deliberately move far enough to see two or more enemy units at once. Sometimes that's the optimal play.
I wouldn't say "optimal". "Desperate" more like it. You know the game is tight when you make several desperate moves in a row and balance on the knife's edge of a few dice rolls deciding the game. Don't get me wrong. Desperate is good. Without playing so that desperate moves are necessary, a game would be pure mathfinity and boring.
It really depends on the troops in question. Have I ever intentionally moved my HMG up so that I can gun down multiple short-range troops that are all more than 16" away? Absolutely.
And I routinely move a Mukhtar to look at 2 or 3 units at once, when one or more of them is in camo. If the camo doesn't reveal, I can gun down the other one and be in position for discover-shoot without spending an extra order. And if the camo does reveal, in the worst case NWI will ensure survival if I decide to fight my original target and tank the camo's ARO. Slicing to fight one at a time is the norm, but choosing to face multiple AROs is still sometimes the optimal play, not a desperation play.
I warned you. Spoiler Intent is cheating and only played by gutless players who deliberately pervert the wording of a reminder about etiquette to claim an ability that clearly contravenes every other rule. The irony is that intent claimants relentlessly bully everyone, including the game authors, regarding their own incongruous interpretation, using demands for etiquette, sportsmanship and fair play. Intent is for WAAC assholes. Anybody who disagrees with me is a jerk and is also wrong. Open at your own risk. Sorry, not sorry. @psychoticstorm, now can we close it?
I will respond just because you quoted me. In my opinion, this is more a flame, and the moderation should give you a notice for flaming, because you are forcing it so a thread is closed. If only threads are closed, but flamers are left alone, then moderation is not doing their work.
