thoughts on Play by intent

I don't understand how you can restrict my ability to look at the table without a rule saying I'm not allowed to look at the table. That is the whole point behind intent reasoning. If I am not playing blindfolded then I can look at the table and determine LoF at any time. Don't need to call it LoF say I'm checking line of sight, the fact is they will be the same thing once it is "proper time" to check LoF. Using a laser just speeds it up, or just agreeing with your opponent that yes X model does/does not have LoF to Y model.

I'm not breaking any rule by looking at the table from a different perspective. What I am doing is using my eyes to figure out where I can move and see or not see a spot on the table (those marked bases help me visually identify who has LoF). Since a laser isn't measuring anything (it certainly isn't LoF since I'm not checking the line between 2 models as mine isn't even there yet) it is simply an aid for my eyes to verify what I already can know and make it clear to both parties. Take that to the next step and have a courteous opponent who agrees we can speed up this process and we end up with play by intent where I declare a legally allowed placement we can both agree on without resorting to craning my neck over the table every order I issue.

For what its worth I agree this isn't necessarily a truly rules supported method of play but is a natural conclusion to what the rules do allow me to do (i.e. look at the table) combined with courteous opponents and a desire to move the game along to the real tactics of choosing which model goes where when. I honestly would love if they put pre measuring into the game next edition. Being able to guess 8" is pretty easy anyway after a few games to the point when you watch experienced gamers play they hardly bother to check ranges (not to mention the boon it would be for our local gamers whose eyesight isn't what it used to be). My favourite game has pre measuring allowed and that rule is being carried over into its sister games 2nd edition because of how popular that choice was. Doesn't make movement or shooting any less tactical and instead focuses on the real decisions in the game that matter and not wondering if I'm 1/4" short of something (keep in mind you still can be, you just go into your turn already knowing that).

I am now also under the impression that based on these LoF and ARO rules that a model in Hidden Deployment is not allowed to declare an ARO unless it has a special piece of equipment allowing it to do so since it has neither LoF nor a ZoC while in hidden state. The rules example mention the trooper "would have LoF" but it currently doesn't so that means the example is an illegal ARO. If the Hidden Deployment or TO camo listed an effect of that skill/state that is gains the ability to ARO without LoF or in ZoC I would agree it is possible, that is lacking however. If however we can check LoF from a non marker/model in this case why not in others?

 

Specifically in regards to booty: if a substantial majority of your community (especially as represented at an event like the interplanetario) is consistently playing a rule in a manner contrary to the nominally correct written interpretation, that is a damning indictment of that rule.

 

Thank you.

 

Weird as in, I would do it as errata, not as FAQ, it is a clear change and not a clarification, Booty is a mechanic to give to the model a potentially expensive advantage at a low cost countered by the fact its random and may be useless or in extreme cases hazardous, it does not need to make rational sense because N3 puts game mechanics over realism. I do not argue that it may need clarification I argue that "this is how they played it there" is not a valid argument over rulebook.

 

Okay. Then, as some of us are trying to point out, perhaps there's a better rationale for why such a large number of people would get something wrong (intentionally or unintentionally) than essentially dismissing it as "people just get stuff wrong, it doesn't mean anything."

Edit- I also agree that it's an errata. CB need to get more comfortable with changing their rules, and drop the whole "we don't want to invalidate our printed books" thing. Calling something a FAQ instead of an Errata doesn't make a printed rule any less invalidated.

 

I'd also like them to remove pages and pages of unit stats from the books, and get more comfortable with balancing things between the books, while we're at it.

 

I agree, there is a natural predisposition for people to play the game in a certain way, for various reasons, it may feel more natural, makes more sense fluff wise, fits their preferred play style, regardless of that, the rules do not change because people play them wrong.

I do not get where you heard CB say that, Bostria has said that the PDF were created so they can update them and the physical rulebooks can be out of touch their selling value is the fluff and artwork, not the rules.

 

Have they actually edited any of the PDF's text since publication?

I'm pretty sure it was something I heard Palanka, IJW, or one of the English speaking proof readers say at some point.

 

I think it fair to say that the rulebook did not translate the game designer's intentions as well as it might've done, but it's not quite as simple as just saying the book isn't clear. The fact is that people are willfully misinterpreting the rulebook because they prefer playing a different way.

One of the very earliest posts (by Andre81 I think, I'll find the reference) suggested that we can and should find our own interpretations, and Plebian - who is one of the best players in the world without any doubt, is claiming that it's his way or not at all.

We should all be trying to understand exactly what the designers intend - however badly the rulebook might be written, supporting IJW and PsychoticStorm's clarifications, and then clearly distinguishing our preference in casual games from the rules as properly understood.

 

Sure but if at least 70% of you gaming community plays in a way that is not intended by the designer you have a fundamental issue in either how you write the rules or how you communicate them to your player base. Even if I was 100% convinced that play by intent was full on cheating it would not change the fact that the rules haven't been written correctly to convey that looking at the poll results here and in various FB groups.

I always find game designers/rules writers take the easy way out with their examples of rules. Just look at the diagrams in the book and you find mostly one model vs one model. When more models are involved it is a static situation. All you need is one pie slicing diagram and a clear explanation of the steps taken from looking at the table, picking the model and order all the way to resolving the order (both with 1 ARO and 2) and this entire thread would likely not exist and 70% (if not more) of your community would be playing differently since it was clear the first day you opened the book/PDF. Many written examples in the book seem to be good but complex situations should have complex examples. I recall someone put out a great set of diagrams outlining how Repeaters and Hacker zones interact with each other. Putting a single page in with that diagram set would have been awesome even if technically unneeded as all the info in that set of diagrams is written out.

 

Yeah we should, im certainly of the opinion that we havent here.

Unless you think bostria's BoW videos are the designers intent as well, Or Tom's videos on how to play.

 

I think we probably need to come to terms with the fact that the designers had contradictory goals for informed decision making during an order and didn't think too deeply about the most extreme implications. It's obvious that they didn't want everything guaranteed from the outset of declaration because it's not as cool, but I doubt they also wanted to make predicting future Lines of Fire (using the strict definition of LOF in the rules) illegal as that requires blinding (and deafening and removing earthbending) from every player to enforce.

 

unless they want you to play with your eyes shut

 

Echolocation is now an Infinity skill.

 

nah, thats "pre-measuring"

 

Granted, but the idea of 'slicing the pie' as hardcore 'play by intent' players want it managed has never made any sense to any simple reading of the rulebook text, and never made any sense as an representation of real world or near-future fluff at all.

Play by intent' is a deliberate attempt to make the game more theoretical and feel safer, with less shooting from the hip under pressure. That might have merit as a different game, but it isn't what the designers intended or described in their rulebook.

Imagine the conversation between real or future tactical squad trying a to clear an objective room by pie-slicing the enemy units' lines of fire:
"Hey guys, I'm going to storm the room and kill you both, but I don't want both of you shooting back. Can you tell me exactly where to stand?"

 

no, its an attempt to remove arguments from the game by coming to a consensus about movement and positioning.

IE: It is about working together, cooperation and sportsmanship

Which really means we come again to the etiquette blurb....

 

Top kek.

 

And while we are using real arguments, pie slicing is easier when things are scaled up, it's only the small scale of an Infinity that makes it difficult.

Also, please try defending the orders mechanic using a real world example.

 

@the huanglong

How does that help?