1)I'll ask you to put a silhouette marker if slicing the pie is ambiguous (i.e. if you want to see one model out of several.) I require you to correctly place a model; to execute the action; not only talk about it. That's also because as per the rules I have to be able to see a model performing an Order before I ARO. 2) I don't have a problem with lasers or silhouettes, but I usually dont use lathe former as I have no need for them. Silhouettes I do actually use sometimes, as people forget about the volume of models all the time and many models are dynamicly posed. It's far easier to establish LOF in this game than most people think.
Wut? Seems pretty easy to do it, I'd probably be able to do it with patience and even without a laser pointer.
Nitpicking, sorry, but you draw B's LOF from corner-to-corner in this situation, so this is even easier (regardless of PBI or PAIL) than the diagram shows. Do note that @the huanglong wrote that Red can't see LEFT and* not RIGHT with PBI. * logical "and", not everyday speech "and"
Maybe the scotch tape you get is stickier than the slightly cloudy clear stuff that barely sticks to its self I'm thinking of... I think you might have misread the instructions there. Though technically you could slice the pie to C if you cautious move to the other side first, it just can't be done in one order...
Spoiler: off-topic I live with a frenchie, Scotch is basically any office tape for me because that's how they refer to all office tape apparently. Only tape that I'd allow on my buildings is the stuff specifically made for masking miniatures during airbrushing, but I don't think I know anyone who owns tape like that except me and that would also lead to a slippery slope of misinterpretation. I am one of those in my meta who always, always, bring terrain to tournaments and our tournaments are getting consistently 15+ people, so enough that it's hard to communicate boundaries
Of course, I know the rules don't allow for pre-measuring any object distances at all, but the extent to which the rules allow LoF verification is very much disputed, and therefore unfortunately, the authority of the rules to arbitrate the legality of play styles is already questionable. If the rulebook has lost its authority to arbitrate play styles, then there's nothing to stop players interpreting other sections however they please, which could reasonably include that distance measurement of some kind be allowed before the Resolution step(s). This is not an idle argument. There are players who've claimed that their visual disability permits the extension of 'play by intent' to include pre-measurement, and they've argued strenuously at at least one major ITS tournament and absolutely ferociously on the forums. It's not a provocative 'straw man' argument or a failure to understand basic rules either. It's a sincere request that 'play by intent' advocates formally distance themselves from pre-measurement, defining it themselves, and clearly explaining why it's not part of their remit.
I'd like to see those rules. Pantemiming a declared movement path is just as much a player invention as discussing it and agreeing on the AROs. The rules say to "specify" a path, and there is no prohibition on using the position of an enemy model in the process of specification. If someone specifies a path that extends from cover far enough to gain LOF to one model but not another, what basis have you in the rules as written to require that they act it out with models?
Think? Sooooo....they never tried... Thank you for the clarification... It's easy... Stop thinking!!! you lazy bad people... Don't quit without trying only because seems sooooooo hard when you look at the table from your standing position!!!!!!!!!
Last call to the calm and good manners or I'll close the thread and give warnings to everyone involved. Thank you for your collaboration.
@Koni Since we got your attention :) Can you tell us if the team's actually preparing an answer to this issue or not ?
Yes, but IJW and PsychoticStorm have almost unequalled experience of the game beyond its creators; they're both formal associates of Corvus Belli; both served as play testers', and IJW is their rules wiki administrator! If people are genuinely interested in playing the game the way its creators intended, then they really don't have to look much further. For 'play by intent' advocates to ignore their stature and openly claim they're without authority on the matter is not only incredibly disrespectful, it reveals the religious extent of their commitment to the variant whether it's supported by the rules or not. When IJW corrected me about checking Line of Fire I didn't bitch about it, I accepted it, and when I misspoke myself later on, I got in a disclaimer before PyschoticStorm could do so again. Then someone rather ignorantly suggested I was making an 'appeal to authority' (as a dishonest argument). It's not an appeal to authority, it's properly deferring to their authority for goodness sake! Since you mention it, I do have a few things to say about the criticism you raise. Yes, it's regrettable that despite the enormous effort of flying to Spain to properly understand measuring rules; getting personal instruction from their staff, and even coming back with a video record of it all, I did still misunderstand some important elements. Mea culpa. The thing is that I'm not afraid of being wrong; I'm not ashamed of being corrected by Corvus Belli staff or their associates, and if anyone else has the cojones to quit their religious beliefs and come join me, there are still plenty of seats on the train.
We are aware of the situation and I have said several times please wait for official clarification. That would be all. Also further behaviour deterioration will result in thread lock-down.
Thank you, this is very good news that I think we have missed so far. Seeing as there's nothing else to be added, I'll make my exit from this topic.
May I just say for the record that the apparently aggressive renarks from @deep-green-x in reply to my post weren't aken personally. I asked for a definition of pre-measuring and a dependable statement that it's not an accepted aspect of 'play by intent', and appreciate that it was amply provided. No harm; no foul there.
I agree that any extension of PBI to get premeasurment is cheating and against both the spirit of the rules and against the entire ethos of PBI. The point is that anyone doing this is not playing with intent and should not be seen as a representative of the very large number of players who use PBI. From what I understand the whole reason your original video was created, down to what is discussed and who is in the video is down to the actions of one player who was recognised as cheating and using PBI as an excuse. There's no need for any PBI advocate or the large number of PBI players to distance themselves from this person anymore than some other player who was cheating