thoughts on Play by intent

I'll try it with a heavy rocket launcher.

 

Is... always the correct answer. :tearsofjoy:

 

Great minds think alike? :tongueclosed:

 

And the secondary LoF is drawn from something other than a model or marker, why are you more comfortable with a dozen exceptions rather than accepting that the list isn't all inclusive? Also no response to my comment that the rule book doesn't say anywhere, anything about when to check LoF. Really I can't see a single shred of ground left for your argument to stand on, it's a bald assertion that would make the game much more time consuming, is counter intuitive and would make the game less fun.

 

The capriciousness of allowing a mirror to aid line of sight but not a laser line makes my point admirably, thank you. Although I was hoping @psychoticstorm would respond what he meant by disallowing instruments, and where he drew the subjective line on what an instrument is.

To me the question now boils down to the following:

What is the limit of human mechanics? If I need to move my model a Planck length in order to achieve a desired outcome, is there any reason I can or cannot do that?

The Play by Gotcha crowd will say that if I am highly skilled then I will be able to make that move. So I, being very interested in playing infinity at a high caliber, I train, and train and train, until I can move a grain of rice a nanometer with the touch of my breath. And I show up to our local ITS, and prepare to show my skill. The moment comes, and I move my model the perfect distance, down to the sub atomic level! The crowd holds its breath.

However, my opponent, being a surly individual, disputes my perfect movement and calls over a judge. The judge, with shaking hands and blurry eyes, is unable to confirm my perfect movement and just tells us to dice off. All the work, all that skill, is for naught. Because when you get into such small distances, not only are they difficult to move the model, but they are also difficult to perceive!

MY DEFINITION OF PLAY BY INTENT:

What Play by intent allows is to play the game in a realm of Platonic ideal, where the human failing of this meat machine is not a hindrance to the real skill that infinity measures: decision making. To that end, it allows for opponents to agree that if something is possible, there is no reason to strain eyes, ligaments and vocal cords unnecessarily arguing about it. If the opponent does not agree that something is possible, then the onus is on the active player to show that it is. Note that at no point does Play by Intent ever allow premeasuring or anything that is against the rules or impossible. There are several reasons for to embrace this system:

• It is the rules
• It reduces conflicts that require the intervention of a third party
• It speeds up gameplay
• It puts the emphasis on skillful play rather than bloodyminded argumentative play
• It resolves problems around idiosyncratic terrain pieces
• It resolves issues with dynamically posed models
• It allows for infinity to be accessible to those who are not perfectly in control of their body, no matter the nature of their ailment
• It solves the constant problem of table jostling
• It is more fun

On the other hand, playing the way you describe will lead to nothing but arguments and not even change the results on the table. No one is going to carefully eyeball their placement, and then allow you to take more AROs than they thought was warranted. The only winners from this are the people who enjoy arguing, and the losers are everyone who values the bullet points above.

In conclusion, I would like to win games bases on player choice, not because I lied to them about what should have been public information or that their hands shook when moving a model.

 

Well put @Plebian

 

I agree with you completely but devils avocado demands you justifying the skill of range estimation vs the skill of placing models precisely on corners.

I use the word skill loosely of course.

 

I at least don't differentiate and wish that you could measure ranges ahead. I'm fairly good at eyeballing ranges and I don't want that to be the difference between me winning a game or not. I want to make better tactical decisions than my opponent. Deployment, list construction, order effeciency and expenditure, those sorts of things not the execution of unit skills.

 

My point is there is no such skill, barring extreme mistakes (that probably arose from some physical handicap). What the real "skill" is would be arguing about the placement, since your placement will likely be so precise that is is unclear what the actual LoS is! The game isn't in discrete space, it exists in continuous space, and measuring infinitesimal movements made by hand with the naked eye will never be as clear cut as the Play by Gotcha group pretends.

The end result would be to disempower people with physical handicaps or people who don't want to spend all their time playing a game arguing. Luckily the rules do not support such a horrifying system.

 

I think people who oppose play by intent have faced players who don't do this;

.

Play by intent is about discussion. It does not remove the onus from the active player. It doesn't force the reactive player to "place my model".

On this I think both sides can agree.

PBI encourages players to agree that what I'm trying to do is possible and forgo the hassling. Where agreement isn't possible, the active player still needs to achieve it, and if necessary a TO or dice off would be done.

Its not sportsmanlike to disagree with relatively simple slices, and its not sportsmanlike to spend forever trying to physically slice (at some stage, you just need to accept the AROs).

I feel like the only place we really do disagree with "play by rules" is whether or not you can use tools and markers to assist in determining LoF. Two arguments are presented for why one might not be able to;

1. Assertion that LoF doesn't exist except from and to models/markers.
A. Except when using targetless weapons or HD troopers. But the rules don't explicitly explain how and when these rules override the core LoF rules (which might not let them function properly if interpreted too strictly) unless allowed for under "etc."

2. inferred timing from a number of rule references.
A. this is logically inconsistent with measuring which clearly states its timing limitations. If LoF was to be treated the same, it seems arbitrary it did not get similar treatment

 

E dai? Any way I wish to play and have the agreement of my opppnent is fine, especially if we wish to accelerate the game or we’re playing casually. That does not change the fact that we are house ruling it, and not playing the game either as designed nor as written. As written and designed, intent as being used in this question does not exist, and if used, it is being house ruled in. And, once again with feeling, it is a valid and can be an enjoyable way to play, but that does not change the fact that is not the game as designed nor as written.

 

It's "valid." Argument over. Furthermore, Fatherknowsbest now likes this line of argument even though on the old forum, he ended up arguing with Psychoticstorm over this post. "Once again, with feeling" absolutely ridiculous

 

I argue with what I feel like. I’ve argued with most posters of note at some point over the past 7 years or so.

I even argued with Solkan on one occasion. One does not argue with Solkan.

 

Valid =/= official, simple as that. And the argument ought never to have begun, because intent (as used by you and your ilk) appears nowhere in the game either as designed nor as written.

Beyond that, you’ve consistently dismissed and denigrated PS throughout this thread, and now suddenly his word is gospel, when you’ve pulled a single post w/o context? Tenta novamente.

 

Reading the context will not help your argument. Trust me.

 

You and your ilk? Who's denigrating who here? We've pointed out that PS has no authority to issue rulings and that his opinions don't matter anymore than anyone else, that's all factual. Bringing up his past opinions and stances is to show inconsistency, I can link you the full thread if you'd like so you can get some context. I don't have my computer right now to do a long search for intent, but even if it's not in the RAW it's a logical outgrowth, a reasonable inference to smooth out play. It does nothing more than reduce time spent on the mechanical execution of orders.

 

"Ilk" just refers to similar people. It's not a pejorative term.

 

While I don't disagree with that at the same time I have never heard that term being used in anything but a negative connotation in modern usage regardless of what the base definition is. I wasn't sure so did a quick 2 second google and found one case directly stating it is used in a disparaging way and another that while not stating that, used the word in a negative context. I could attribute that to not being a native English speaker but many words tossed here have been less than friendly at all times.

I also disagree with the stance that the rules never supported intent play. If they did then LoF/line of sight checking would be as clearly defined and restricted as measuring distances. Since it is not then intent play is simply the results of what you can do with legally allowed information. Nothing forces your opponent to agree with you, but if they don't then you are stuck with a dice off/judge call being made rather than just discussing the literally visible issue before it gets to that point.

 

Not by definition, but it's often used that way. Usage tends to shape the meaning of a word, or at least how it's perceived. Once it's perceived a certain way by enough people, its meaning is effectively changed.

That is, it sounds bad to some people because they're accustomed to hearing it used as a pejorative. Look at the typical synonyms listed and you'll see just as many that focus on lumping individuals into a group of for purpose of setting them apart, as you do examples that are meant to tie them together and show unity. However, when we hear the word actually used, it's typically in the former context, not the latter.

That said, I don't think Mao meant it in a derogatory way.

Edit- Just wanted to add that there's a further harshness to hard consonants that words like "Ilk" and "Kind" land on when spoken. That adds to the perceived unpleasantness.