thoughts on Play by intent

And how do you "place" a silly marker....am i not allowed to loook or use a laser line as i place said marker.


Again quote me a rule that says i am not allowed to use a laser line to place the silly in the end position i desire.

 

What I said directly above, the player checks what is not LoF, before declaring intended moment path and placing the silhouette marker, hence before the declaration of the short movement skill, during the declaration of the short movement skill you are not allowed to do so.

Actually it may not be allowed since it is not in the rules, but I have no strong feelings against it and it is both impossible to enforce and illogical to ask not be done.

 

Please quote a rule that says I cannot use the laser line to help determine where I want my end point to be

 

I do not think it is illegal to look at the table it is illegal to check LoF that is not the same thing

Quote me were it says you can check LoF during movement or any other short or long skill that do not have LoF as a requirement.

 

@psychoticstorm , could you please address my previous post regarding the situation you brought up. Considering the context, I think it was extremely unfair to cite this as evidence of players not comprehending clearly written rules.

Also, aside from the issues I mentioned, it seems that CB did issue such a FAQ, and it actually contradicts what is written in the rules. The skill's text seems to indicate the rolls are made after each model placement, while the FAQ pushes them to the end of all the player's deployment.

 

By looking at the table....looking at the table and hte marked position of the minis on the table because thats obviously what you are allowed to do unless you are arguing that we have to play with our eyes closed unless specifically told we are able too.

Quite frankly this is ridiculous and I for one am glad the global community has rejected this farse, its only the forum here where it has continued

 

How silly of someone to want take advantage of say a multi-sniper rifle from a vantage point, when it's possible they were instead airdropped onto the tower attached to a motorcycle.

 

When you attack anyone that opposes you and spread your own gospel, it's quite easy to live in an echo chamber.

 

Seriously? You think applying rules obviously intended for things like Transmutation is a more acceptable solution than simply writing the Booty rules so that you don't end up with a model that can't exist where it was deployed?

How did it get there? Where did the bike even come from, if it won't fit?

 

indeed

IA, INZ and WGC infinity, Marduck, plebian ect....

Even on this forum the current count is 30+ to 4

 

I mean, I agree that there is an issue with how Booty is written, but there's nothing unclear about how it's written, and it's completely irrelevant to this thread...

 

Again, I don't think any of us should be attacking each other.

This is CB's mistake for letting it go this long, not any specific player for interpreting rules a certain way when there's clearly some room or interpretation.

Also, we know they are aware of the situation, because we've seen Bostria make a joke about it on BoW.

 

It's relevant if CB is oblivious to the reasons players might get it wrong, despite how it's written. It's relevant if they think it's so ridiculous that they shouldn't have to issue a FAQ, but do anyway, only resulting in actual confusion over the roll's timing (do you do it after each model is placed as the skill indicates, or after all deployment as the FAQ indicates).

 

The point was interplanetario is not an example of how the game is played perfectly, it is a big, fantastic, tournament were players play the game and they can play it wrong bringing in their own assumptions, not the pinnacle of rules knowledge and I illustrated a point were almost everybody played a clearly written rule wrong because they felt it was played in another way.

When drawing conclusions on rules how they play it at a big tournament over the rulebook is not the right way to go.

And indeed the FAQ changes the rule making the roll go even further back so that the entire deployment is finished before you know what your booty/ metachemistry troops do, weird.

Citation? I see a small group of people preferring to play the game with their own house rules, nothing wrong about that, just not the game in its pure form.

Since you do not know what you will get you cannot get any advantage of it, if you bought a bounty hunter with a sniper rifle either do not roll on booty L2 or don't roll at all its optional after all.

 

If you can get them to publish an official blog post clearing all this up, I'm all for it.

 

If I am looking from the perspective of a model to any point of the table I am not checking LOF because LOF does not exist between models and tables.

If there is no restriction on checking the perspective of models on the table, then there is absolutely nothing that can stop a player from identifying which AROs from models and markers on the table a model will generate during it's declared move, before declaring the move.

There is no premeasuring in that process.

You can't prevent this unless the rules were to prohibit looking at the table a certain way or from a certain perspective, which is breathtakingly ludicrous.

 

Youve yet to quote a rule that says I cant put a laser out to determine my end point or that says I cant look at the table so yeah.

As to citation, look to my last post

EDIT: Hell under your argument half the time ill have to break the laser pointer out anyway to check who can see the model in its current position.

 

I'm talking about continued use of "'gotcha' people" description. It suggest that by not participating in fine pie-slicing we're trying to act in an unsportsmanlike manner and trying to pull some dirty (in a bad way) trick on opponents.

Link to the wiki: http://wiki.infinitythegame.com/en/Line_of_Fire_(LoF)

As for the line you've quoted, which is directly above the one I've quoted:

Line of Fire (LoF) is the criterion by which players determine whether a troop can see its target (another model, a Marker, etc.).

As far as I'm concerned a valid target in Infinity is another model or Marker, a point on the battlefield when using a weapon with Targetless trait, or a piece of Scenery, when using D-Charges. Not a speculative position of enemy trooper after he moves.

Ah, but it is. For me it clearly speaks about checking targets. I've explained my position to deagavolver. Also, please don't suggest that I haven't read the rules. It's both wrong and an ad hominem.

I'm not saying it exists there only for the re-camoing. It was simply an example. The box clearly speaks about existing Lines of Fire, not potential ones.

I guess we'll have to simply agree to disagree on this one.

At no point I suggested to Plebian to "git gud". As far as I'm concerned he might be an awesome player, and either way it has no bearing on this discussion. The sentence you're talking about wasn't about him or any player in particular, but about situations when the need for fine pie-slicing shows up - for example when mistakes during the game force you to take a path guarded this way, without orders and troops in position to try another approach. It happens to all of us at some point, myself included. My only problem with Plebian is him calling us "'gotcha' people", as I've explained above. I also have a problem with the general tone of this thread. It's far more toxic than any discussion between normal players about LoF is likely to be, and it can show potential new players who might look here not to waste time with Infinity. So I'd suggest everyone to take a step back, deep breath, and try to discuss the issue without getting personal.

Also I don't have a particular need to prove anything to anybody. Whatever happens in this thread, we'll continue to play according to our own interpretations. And it's ok. I have nothing against people interpreting the rules as supporting intent-based play, and playing that way. I prefer another way, because I believe it's better for the game, but it's only my opinion and while I'm happy to discuss it here I have no intention to force it on anybody

 

People in this very thread were telling a player that he deserves to miss declaring AROs because he didn't realize the active model had moved to gain LOF to one of his reacting models, and the active player never disclosed that he had. This response was supported by the people most actively anti-"intent" play in the thread. I'm sorry, but there isn't a flattering word for this attitude.

 

Weird? Like, "that's weird that this thing I was citing as an example of players overlooking clarity in the rules, just up and changed...again?" Not weird, like "wtf, I thought the rule was totally clear, why change it...again?"

Also, how does this not support the idea that we sometimes need official clarification, rather than leaning on event experience, veteran players, play testers, a guy who knows a guy, etc?

We're not talking about not being able to use the model you want, we're talking about the mechanics of one possible outcome not making any sense in conjunction with the timing of the rule's application.

What does Booty even represent? Is it a trooper bringing something along to the battle that they've previously scavenged, or is it a trooper finding something upon reaching the battlefield? Regardless, it makes just as little sense for a trooper to bring a motorcycle to a battle, carry it to the top of a tower/wall/etc, and then fall, as it does for them to climb to the to the same vantage point and discover an item that can't possibly fit in that spot. Oh, and then fall.