thoughts on Play by intent

[redacted]

 

A special rule expanding on a basic rule does not alter the basic rule, simply adds on to it for those specific units. And, as others have posted repeatedly on what the LoF rules actually say, as well as the Movement rule, and the Etiquette box, etc, etc, etc, I shan’t do so again.

 

And, as replied to Hecaton, a special rule adds on to the existing rules, rather than supersedes the. Hidden Deployment provides a special state where the troopers is in that position, and able to act as normal, using that special rule. It does change LoF, but does what special rules do, giving a specific cases with specific criteria that operate within the bases rules.

 

I thought Line of Sight is grimdark, does it even appear in the rulebook?

 

Line of Fire is the Infinity term, not Line of Sight.

 

Ya thats what I thought.

So, Palanka didnt use the right terms in that video even...

 

This detail doesn't invalidate the video, however. I'd even say it doesn't matter at all.

 

Can you explain this? Perhaps there is a language barrier. I don't see how this relates to not being allowed to check line of fire, which means you cannot look at the board.

 

So is a model with a guided weapon have a forward observed model in their line of fire? Your definition falls apart.

Also where does it say that about target less?

And I think the reason people are getting upset is that is an existential threat to the game play of infinity. I am not exaggerating when I say this would be similar to corvus belli going bankrupt in terms of damage to the game.

I have no interest playing by gotcha the way these people describe.

 

You know what's a bigger existential threat to the game? People using a dismissive, derogatory, or just plain rude language because they disagree with how other people play the game.

Again: the whole conflict of "multiple AROs" vs "fine pie-slicing" comes up in very few situations, when defending player deploys his models in a tight pattern at a very specific angle. This allows them to guard the corner in question better, but usually makes them very vulnerable to templates and attacks from a different angle. There's no 'gotcha', no attempt to misguide or trick anyone. You see all enemy models and you have a rough idea where to move your model, if you want to shoot at only one of them and don't get multiple AROs. But if you misjudge, your unit is in a world of hurt. It's not much different from choosing between Rifle and Light Shotgun and choosing poorly.

And it ties nicely with real life. Imagine a soldier who has to decide if he can safely shoot at one enemy, without getting shot at by a second one. If it's too difficult because even a small error means it's over - the soldier in question would probably choose a different approach. Or throw a grenade. Or call air support.

It's the same case in the game. If you know that making a small error will probably cost you your unit, you should probably activate another one and choose a different angle of attack. Drop an AD troop behind the defenders. Get some smoke, or infiltrator with mines. And if your game hinges on taking this particular route it's usually because of poorly planned table, or poor list creation or gameplay. Or it was a very close game, the last few orders would decide the victor, and if so - Who Dares, Wins.

 

Or you can work with your opponent instead of doing what Stiopa is saying. From the rules:

“Checking all possible Lines of Fire for all figures and Markers on the table can be cumbersome. It is perfectly acceptable for a player to ask their opponent whether existing Lines of Fire could disrupt the declaration of a given Order before declaring it.”

Not after declaring it so you’ve make a mistake: before declaring it. That’s why it’s disrupting the order while the order is being decided, not after.

 

None of the language I have used has been personal attacks, slurs, or in any way the way you characterize it. I have expressed my opinion that this issue is resolved clearly in the rules. I have expressed my belief that I will continue playing by intent forever regardless of the opinion of a few forum posters. You are the only one being rude, ironically for mischaracterizing my language.

Back on topic, the situation you describe will never arise. I have working eyes, my hands are steady as a rock and I have as much time as I need to move. I will never generate more aros than I desire. The only impact of this change would be to take more time for play and to take advantage of newer players who lack my experience playing with individuals who attempt to gain advantage through gaming the rules.

In short, I would benefit from this in terms of win percentage. But I would be massively hurt from losing the most fun game I have ever played.

 

No, this is a pro and con question because there are no rules sections to back up what you're asserting. What is being done is an interpretive expansion of what the word "measuring" means rather than confining it to a more narrow reading which would only bar using a measuring tape/ruler/stick to enumerate distances prior to order declaration and resolution. I am in law school currently, and if there's one thing I've learned its that rules are not rules as you say. There is no rule that can be written with enough precision to avoid having secondary or tertiary interpretations without being catastrophically narrow and specific.

But that all aside, are you seriously trying to say that a player can't break out a measuring tape and laser line/pointer while moving? It says that you can measure the model while you're doing your move. That being the case you can measure the exact spot you need to be while doing it. No skill involved there, just measuring when the rules tell me to.

your quote isn't the same one as found in the Wiki, if you drew it from the print rule book, its out of date, if you drew it from the PDF you didn't get it from the right page, looks like you stopped at page 8 which is the intro to terms section not the rules. Page 19 has the rule which reads:

emphasis added

in real life when a US military member slices the pie they're allowed to use their eyes to determine what they see as they're doing it so that they can stop and engage each individual target as they move. Not doing so in infinity would be counter to a real life combat experience which i think infinity attempts to capture.

No, there would be a gotcha. The way being described here where LoF isn't public and check-able at any time encourages players to not share information and be courteous which will lead to a toxic environment. Its also not the rules as written nor is it the play by intent doctrine. The fact that RAW you must have your front arc displayed at all times as open information by definition means it can be checked. Checking it with your eyes is not only imprecise but sometimes impractical due to table layout or physical impairment. Laser tools to check open information are the only reasonable interpretation of how to use this rule.

 

No, before the order has been declared, when and only LoF still exists. Once an order has begun, LoF doesn’t exist until the skills or order are completed. So, I moot activating Trooper X, and together with my opponent we determine what LoF exists at the moment and could disrupt an order. That done, I move forward with my declaration, choosing my short skill, let’s call it Move, indicate my intended end point, choose my path and measure to make sure I can reach that point, and place my trooper. I then ask for AROs that my opponent believes he has, and make my second skill. We then resolve, and I see if I accomplished my goal, and my opponent makes sure his AROs are valid, etc.

 

You know what, neither side is right, regarding the RAW interpretation. The problem is that Infinity has a history of unclear rules, and we've been taught to fill in the blanks, read between the lines, and self-correct when things don't make sense.

For instance...

LoF is defined as being between two models/markers, but that clearly prevents certain rules from working properly (or at all, in the case of HD).

The etiquette blurb can be read in a way that only relates to models re-entering a marker state, but that makes it pretty useless, and doesn't mesh with the loftier notions of transparency and sportsmanship communicated by the rest of the blurb.

It's still early, but I think the poll I posted shows that there are far more people (at least on this forum) filling in the blanks in a way that aligns more with the intent approach, or who have chosen to consciously reject the stricter notions of Open Information LoF. That's potentially not a great situation, because it either means CB has a problem communicating with their players, or they're somewhat out of touch with what the majority of them want.

I'd be curious to see if the results were similar in the Spanish forum. Perhaps someone can post a translated version?

 

Two Models/markers, etc.

Don't lose the etc. it's literally the reason you can look at scenery and objectives, and in fact any point on the board.

 

This is some of the core issues with the game in general. Too many rules even down to basics that are difficult to determine what the actual answer is supposed to be and then silence from CB when these questions are asked.

Luckily we are for the most part reasonable people and can still play the game at a competitive level without the world ending.

My biggest problem with this particular rule is the consequences for not playing by intent. In the example given a few pages back and then rewritten by psychoticstorm I never saw an explanation of what rule the first example broke. If it was the fact that the marker was moved before the final position was determined that should be explained in the rules as being illegal (and be supported by all CB videos in the future, case in point the video linked earlier). You could still remove the marker from the first example and end up with the same result as the player eyeballing it can still do what they did and the result will be the same. All this does is create an environment more prone to calling judges over or people rage quitting at the FLGS (don't tell me your local club is full of angels, we all have that one guy or more that hangs on the line of acceptable behaviour and hell we all have our own bad days when something bugs us more than it should).

Other consequences like the Hidden Deployment models never being allowed to ARO as they don't have LoF or targetless weapons not having LoF to their intended target just help reinforce that the rules do seem to accept LoF is open to more options than listed or it breaks other parts of the game.

Now combine that with the game table itself being an issue and we get even more chance for arguments. Some of those lovely tables make it impossible to get down to model eye view. Do I now have to make tactical choices based on where I can fit my head to check LoF? Or am I supposed to remove terrain (and possibly models on that terrain) to allow me to see the board better so I can make informed choices? What happens if I don't place it back correctly and accidentally change LoF for several models? By asking me to place a model precisely with no discussion on what is intended vs what is possible in reality we again have possible arguments that otherwise would never happen.

If a rule can be read 2 different ways with no reconciliation between them I will always take the option that doesn't break other parts of the game and prevents as many other arguments and unintended consequences as possible.

 

I failed to see any rules that allowed hidden deployment to draw line of fire. Maybe I missed it, would you be willing to provide the rule I missed?

 

I think that when there's an unsolvable problem about a rule the best solution is to wait for a clarification from who made that rule. And the closest thing we've got to that is psychoticstorm's answer.
Then I can think the rule is awful or very good, but my preference doesn't make it change.
What we can certainly do is to ask CB for a future modification.

Just my opinion.

 

@psychoticstorm didn't write that rule, and clearly has a somewhat shaky grasp on it. He doesn't even work for CB, technically, he's just a forum moderator.