thoughts on Play by intent

I agree. The Accessibility issue, while important, is secondary to our discussion. The core point is that Play by Intent meets the letter and spirit of the rules. Play by Gotcha does neither.

 

That you cannot check LoS until an order is declared.

 

I'm very much in agreement, and I'm sure I can speak for most, if not all of the other 'rules as simply read' posters in saying we're none of us interested in 'gotcha' play either - let's be clear about whatever areas of common ground we can find, and be friends where we can be friendly.

I think it safe to say that the 'gotcha' issue is being revisited so often with so much angst because many - maybe all 'play by intent'-ers like the way their style obviates this sort of gotcha. I understand and appreciate that, but as I previously posted https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/thoughts-on-play-by-intent.724/page-20#post-14703 there are other ways to avoid 'gotcha' play, and my personal approach is to exercise courtesy that I freely acknowledge as being beyond the rules and the suggested Etiquette.

The difference that's key for this debate is that I (and most of the 'rules and simply read' players) want to clearly distinguish the rules from whatever personal preferences, courtesies and etiquettes we may exercise or indulge.

Let's find common ground where we can, and say that 'gotcha' play is the sort of gaming bullshit we can all do without?

 

Yup because its not like an argument would ever happen about LOF after models had been placed. I mean who would be willing to get physical about something like that

 

We know that Barakiel, and no-one's saying that the PBI faction want ... their models to get an extra inch (fnar, fnar ) or to claim a weapon or hacking range gets positive MODs when it shouldn't, but unfortunately we can't find anything in the rules that allows players to position models notionally (without reference to the real situation, as @macfergusson continues to point out) and by agreement (which is the foundational principle of 'play by intent'.

The most significant difference in the two rules readings we have, at least as far as the game is concerned, is whether players should be estimating positions (which is the only simple reading available), or whether players can notionally position their models by agreement.

The difference is not whether either group wants to cheat, or allow a 'gotcha' style of play.

 

Given the Blue Box, players functionally *can* position models by agreement by placing silhouette markers and checking LoF before declaring an order, then leaving the marker there and declaring it as the endpoint of a move. You do know that the formal way to declare a move is to indicate your endpoint (with a marker or silhouette, for example) and route, then move up to your full distance until you reach the marker or run out of distance moved, right?

 

How does one use targetless weapons, then?

 

or ARO out of HD

 

... I think I'm not going to get into this with you (or anyone else) @Hecaton because we've both been here from the start, and I doubt we'll be breaking any new ground after a fortnight. Plus, the sooner we all get back to business as usual, the sooner I can enjoy reading your interesting and informative opinions on the forum again.

What I'm trying to do here now instead is draw some lines for how players can discuss the game with one another so that players of both factions can play together, and no-one need suffer a gotcha from the other. I hate that bullshit.

'Play by intent' players as well as 'rules as simply read' players need a way of explaining to beginning players that there is a divisive debate on the subject, and explaining to new opponents how they want to play a particular game.

You've yourself posted very often in the old forums about the lack of clarity in the rules causing problems, and in particular, causing problems in tournaments where it's down to each TO to set the standards for an event. I'm in agreement, and especially as regards these rules.

So if I attend your tournament (presuming you'd temporarily lift the contract out on my life, yeah? ) or you attend mine (drop in whenever you can), how are either of us going to explain to the other how the rules should be played out in the event?

As I said, I think the issue in terms of how the game is played is the degree to which models are placed by agreement and whether or not they're placed notionally. Do you have any other suggestions, or are we back at "It's in the RULES; you have to do what we SAY!"?

 

You're evading the question, to avoid admitting that you have no practical basis for your position. Just because you *want* to be able to force your opponent into making errors that cost them AROs, doesn't mean that the game's rules of etiquette, for practical purposes, mean they can't avoid that.

I'd emphasize that playing using your methods, where you try to be a clever dick by refusing to give open information to gain extra AROs, is unsportsmanlike behavior. 1 warning, then DQ.

 

even if, even if you argue that the blue box is not the rules, at the very least it tells you exactly how you are expected to behave. IF you break that behaviour then what you are doing is worse than breaking the rules it is playing not in good faith and you are therefore not worth playing with.

As a TO I would remove you from the event if you would behave in such flagrant opposition of the written etiquette.
As a player I would stop playing.

The situation at minimum is much the same as becoming violent towards other gamers, how those gamers deal with you is probably going to be by refusing to play you or banning you from the store, as such I would suggest that such etiquette isnt just the rules, its the strongest rule in the game as it has the most serious ramifications for breaking it.


Of course, the purple monkey dishwasher box is the rules, so therefore the argument that it isnt is irrelevant anyway

 

We know that historically, there's been an issue with 'Line of Fire', 'Facing' and 'line of sight'. In the (authorized!) video, Palanka actually says 'line of sight' several times and you have to listen to his whole sentence to decide whether he actually means 'Line of Fire' or not.

So I would answer your question by saying that a unit moving across a gap 'is visible to another model' or 'presents a sight line', because 'Line of Fire' seems fairly well defined as the line between two models, as @daboarder quoted.

I'm very big on defining terms clearly, because you can build from a definition to get some agreement (about how to differ, if necessary) whereas without it, you're never quite sure when you're going to disagree - it's deadly divisive to leave the threat of 'gotchas' unresolved.

We know that Line of Fire means quite a lot of things, but can we agree at a minimum that it definitely means the line between two models, and (unless there's further meaning we can agree) try to avoid using it to serve our respective agendas?

 

Thanks for the clairificarion, can you give us the reference from the rules (Spanish or English, either is fine) that states that it is definitely an estimation? That should help clarify things.

Could you clarify the following as well as It appears to be a contradiction.

"as the video shows the silhouette is placed were the player believes is the correct place, the player can ask his opponent up to were the model sees and can check for himself, but the final placement is done by the player,"

"by the rules you cannot say to your opponent "tell me were to stop so I an only see one model"

If I understand this correctly the player moving the shilouete can ask their opponent what the unit represented by the shilouete can see, its LOS/LOF, and can confirm this themselves. However they must place the shilouete themselves and cannot ask their opponent to do this for them or aid in its final placement.

Does this mean that the player is allowed to move the shilouete themselves to a position where both they and their opponent agree on the LOS/LOF of the unit? However this agreement does not allow the repositioning of the shilouete?

Basically after placing the shilouete at a position, can it be repositioned by the player to a final point that results in agreement for LOF/LOS between the players?


Also can you confirm if possible if the video posted by Wolf is considered "Official" now since it has Palanka in it?

 

It means other things as well, because you can target points on the ground, and you need LoF to do that.

 

None of that really matters, right, because you can place a silhouette and examine LoF before you even declare/commit to an order?

 

No more than Bostrias games in Beasts of War videos or Toms videos on "how to play" both of which are clearly trumped by the rules within the rulebook itself

 

So, summing up the past couple of pages:

Against intent: LOF is a line between two models and can thus only be checked for a model's actual position. This is consistent with the LOF rules.
For intent: LOF is an area and can thus be checked at any time. This is consistent with how the rest of the rulebook treats LOF.

Possibly, maybe, this is grounds for a clarification from the devs.
Is LOF an area or is it strictly a straight line connecting two models/markers?
Are we allowed to check LOF at a point where there is no model (yet)?
Are we allowed to check LOF during a skill declaration?
I don't know about you, but those look like kind of fundamental questions that there shouldn't be any doubt about.

 

Guys, I know I've said it before, but recent five pages of heated discussion proves that I'm in the minority here. We won't completely agree if PBI is supported by the rules or not, because the rules are not clear on that and it's a grey area. It's not about the rules, it's about how we prefer to play.

And even though PS isn't official CB spokesman, I wouldn't take his word lightly. In fact, if he would present an interpretation different to how I prefer to play I'd at least take it into consideration. Most likely with a conclusion, that my way of playing is simply that - my way of playing, not the set-in-stone-ten-commandments-like judgement on how the rules should work.

Let's face it. It stopped being about coming to an understanding a long time ago. Last half of that thread - at least - is about I HAVE TO BE RIGHT AND YOU HAVE TO BE WRONG. This is bullshit. We shouldn't be doing this. It's a game, not a dick, let's not take it that hard.

 

im with stiopa on this

 

I'm pretty sure that in the future - when passions have cooled, people reading this forum topic will (if they don't completely lose the will to live, let alone play the game ) be able to make their own decisions about whether people including myself are really 'evading questions', or 'wanting to force [their opponents] into making errors', and about what methods can be attributed to whom.

Well since you raised the issue, the practical basis for my position is the instruction on movement and measuring I received at Corvus Belli headquarters in person from their staff. It was translated into the video by game designer and forum official @Palanka - David Rossilo for the benefit of non-English speaking players, and the authority to do so was provided Gutier Lusquinos, Corvus Belli Director and rules author. There are a number of issues that aren't entirely clear in the video, especially with regard to 'play by intent', and these have now been mostly clarified by PsychoticStorm's posts in this forum.

All of which is practical enough for most, I'd have thought.