It's actually worse than that, because there's no resolution of "These are two ways to play." So you have people insisting that CB has decided to take their side. If Intent is codified as a way to play, then basically *every* tournament is going to use it, in the interests of timing and expediency, as @CabalTrainee mentioned. Why hasn't that happened?
Silhouette markers are gaming aids to help clear with uncertain LoF situations, usually they are not needed, but sometimes they need to be used to give a resolution, I am not sure how this factors in your reply. This is not for me to answer.
What if the decide Intent isn’t the way the game is to be played, are you saying tournaments will not over this?
Then the majority of the playerbase and community is going to be unhappy with CB. What about tournaments? So, say someone's doing a "corner pop," and just says, "I move out, far enough to see reactive model but A not far enough to see reactive model B, then back to my original position." Assuming nothing else is involved, and both players agree that, geometrically, model A will be seen before model B, what's there to resolve, besides one player demanding a silhouette be placed and hoping that their opponent's hands are shaky enough to be a disadvantage?
The first is a big assumption, practice has shown in the previous times that it has been tried to be established as fact the majority of the player base is blissfully ignorant of the intent debate and happily carry on with their games. On the second I will not be dragged in the debate, silhouette markers exist because there are instances were the LoF is not clear and are to be used to verify such situations (and to allow the models to be dynamic without interfering with the actual gameplay) if there were no instances of LoF needing to be verified, Silhouette markers would not exist.
I may have HD troopers or you might not have noticed / remembered about my backline ML/Sniper. That's just one of the many reasons. I need to know how far you poked out, exactly. As the rule demands, the complete route needs to be declared exactly. Another is that I personally do not feel that I or my opponent are entitled to automatic perfect plays in a game of skill.
I'm not remotely comfortable with the underlying ableist sentiment here but that's already been discussed extensively earlier in the thread and is apparently not persuasive, so I won't rehash it.
I'd much rather you didn't insinuate my being "ableist", especially when I've, on multiple occassions, described how differently I would handle playing with a disabled player or how I would assist them. My hands are shaky, too. But I don't demand to make a perfect play just because "it's possible".
I agree totally. Seriously - yes this is the way I play this game. I also play hard Intent to speed up the game and make it more cooperative, communicating what I do and expecting same in return. That being said - wouldn't you agree that what you described above is a rather specific situation, thus you won't always require a silhouette to be placed? Only in such corner cases where this is necessary? Because for me it's usually EZ intent declaration and resolution, but if opponent asks to point an exact location, or if I miss-asked during my intent declaration, sure - let the dice be rolled. I feel like a lot of people consider Intent play to allow taking moves back if something unexpected happens. In my opinion if you ask me about Reactive model A and B LOF to a certain spot, totally ignore model C, then Intent-declare to move from behind cover to see model A, but not model B - I say OK. Then my AROs are declared, model A and C shoot back at you. There's no Intent magic undo of declaration. There's no "my intent was to shoot A to death" because that might have been your plan and intention, but you forgot to ask and declare an entire spectrum of other variables. If you ask me: "how far must I move to see only trooper A" I will reply that there's model C there which makes your plan impossible (unless C is HD obviously). So how about you? Would you play fast intent and ask for silhouettes only when this matters, or would you expect silhouette play all the time, regardless of situation?
I cannot find a way to reconcile your claim that a high-finesse play cannot necessarily be made just because a player can perceive, conceptualize of and communicate it, with a position that does not also hold that physical and visual ability are essential preconditions to being skillful at infinity. Which is an assumption that I fundamentally disagree with. It isn't even necessarily a matter of disability or injury; you should extend courtesy to everyone regardless of whether they wear coke-bottle glasses or have their arm in a sling, or are totally able-bodied. If someone knows what they want to do, and can describe it to me in a way that lets me understand, there's no possible reason I can conceive of that I shouldn't let them enact it. And if I hadn't already thought that before we all started playing a bunch of TTS, I sure as fuck would afterward.
And it is declared, exactly. "I move out around this corner just far enough to see that model and then back." If you need to see the specific place, we can then use a laser guide to set a silhouette marker there.
And there we go, that's all I've been asking for. Thank you. Placement on the extreme points, where requested by the Reactive player. I've had people refuse doing that, especially when the angles were so tight that they were really theoretical.
Well, at that point it's been declared, so you use a laser guide to find the point "just far enough to see that model." So there's no opportunity to declare "Gotcha!" if the silhouette marker isn't placed exactly precisely; if that's the case, you adjust the silhouette marker to the exact location that was described.
I can see how that would sour you on this topic. This kinda calls back to my previous comments about how communities influence perception of communication-based play.
Yeah, absolutely. Like I said many times before - I have no issue with pie-slicing. I have no issue with intent play where's it's done for speed, convenience and both sides are completely clear. I've just met with really fishy plays by opponents who specifically refused to cooperate and place a Silhouette on the corner they're slicing, because they think they have the right to play "by declaration only" - and they're afraid that if they place a Silhouette they will be caught by more ARO than they asked for. I wouldn't necessarily say "only corner cases" but a description of "where the Reactive player requests precision" would be preferable. Most cases, sure, I see what you want to do, I know where my minis are, go for it. That's how I play as well. Not sure how I'd feel about backsies, definitely none of that if I happen to pop out of HD. But if it turns out that you declared the classic "just to see this guy but not the other" and I pull out a laser checking a third or fourth potential ARO you missed and I find that "hey, the other dude #2 actually does see the model now", my reply would be "you didn't declare moving that far, push him back a bit. A bit more? That's enough, now it's right as you declared it". I'm cool with a "take back" like this. I would rather cooperate with you in conforming the model position to your declaration than catch you on a gotcha. Sometimes those "theoretical" positions are really hard to achieve even with lasers and I'd either say "I don't think that's doable" or even say "if you can do it, please show me how, with a model, place him in a position that fulfills your requirement". If we can't get a model into that "theoretically geometrically possible position" even with cooperation and lasers, then no dice, you can't get that perfect play, sorry. And I had people argue that they should be able to, even then. So yeah, definitely soured on some aspects of intent play because of That Guy. Absolute agreement. However, I had many players here and IRL tell me I'm playing "unfair gotchas" when I said I'd play like that. I don't think that's a fair description, I think that you're free to make a mistake and ask a wrong question or ignore / forget about a model, just as I am I'd best like for models on bases to be placed to show extremes of movement path (how far, how wide, how close to cover, etc.). Either bases or Silhouettes, no difference to me. If I can't gauge by the base and imagined volume, I'd obviously ask for a Silhouette, as anyone else would in the same situation.
I've added a bit to that paragraph to explain why I'm not keen on those "geometrically possible" positions, too. Yeah, you were right, some folks soured me on the concept indeed. I know some of this discussion may have made me look like an uncooperative and demanding opponent, but I don't want to be a jerk. I just want to arrive at a game state where we are aware where everything actually physically is. And I'm more than willing to cooperate to get there.
Yeah, absolutely agree. If we can cooperatively arrive at a physical position of a Marker / Token / model / Silhouette that reasonably accurately shows the intent you had, then sure, it is what it is. As above, I had people refuse to cooperate and demand that their "poke out, move back, shoot at the apex" move works "because it can". And... eeeeeeh, show me please? Let's check with a model / silhouette and laser and see if it's achievable? Because if we can't then I'm gonna say "sorry, but it's not there". But I'll do my best to help you achieve it, if it's possible. And if we can't get it to work, but you're still demanding that you should get what you want? Not fun.
All of this sounds legit to me. I play like this as well and consider myself an Intent player. Played a lot since N3 and been to a lot of events. Played against some of the top EU players IRL. Never have I ever been accused about gotcha play, except by Sathuli, (which is funny story on it's own, that I'd rather not put into public not to tarnish his reputation even in anecdotal form), or few people who had very little experience in how the game works and even then situations got resolved in a calm fact based and friendly manner. Might be that your initial approach is based on bad experience with local meta.
During most of this discussion, I had the feeling there was more common ground than either side let on. Assuming the worst in people is not a great way to go about playing games together. If your opponent turns out to be an insufferable jerk, hopefully your memory is good enough to never have to play them again.
