"Gotcha" accurately describes your viewpoint as described in the locked thread. You advocated that if a player moved a model, eyeballing line of sight, and if when the time came for AROs he didn't have LoF to what he thought he did, due to table jostling or whatever, he would take more AROs than he expected. That's why the term "gotcha" was used, as its an apt description of your viewpoint. If you find it unflattering, then perhaps changing your position might be in your best interests. And nobody arguing in good faith can interpret my point of view as "take backs" - when a model is moved, its moved, you don't get to rewind things if you *actually* move your model. To be frank, you call it that because you're attempting to misrepresent my/our position, and potentially doing so in private messages to CB, it seems. You also use patronizing and disrespectful turns of phrase in Portuguese when talking to people, which doesn't help your case for presenting yourself as one with an earnest viewpoint.
There are a few explanations but if he is unwilling to share it would be kinda hostile to speculate imo. Still it is very frustrating considering even some of the people opposed to pbi don't know what pip (is this what we are calling it now?) Looks like in contentious actual gameplay. Tempted to make my own videos and see if I can't tease out real answers that way.
I'm actually sad that some of the vocal PIP supporters seems to have abstained from voting in the polls (been awhile since I checked) and don't want to show how they actually play a real game with examples and the pros and cons of their positions. The platform has been given and respected. I like the fact some people have actually bothered to explain why they like PIP in general terms. The ability to make mistakes in placement is not an indefeasible position to take and has merit as a design decision when a game is made. The argument against focuses on the fact that line of sight is always open info even LoF might technically not be (which is where our rule clarifications need to come in and well clarify). Making vague posts about other means of communication sound almost like the "gotcha" play we want to avoid as PBI players and I admit I find it kinda humorous. If all you have is "I think the rules say this" to back up your position I suppose you really don't have that much to add to the discussion then anyways however so no real loss. I'm too new and casual a player to have insider contacts or whatever is being insinuated. All I want to know is if my group needs to say we play house rules or RAW and to know if I need to ask tournament organizers if we are playing RAW or house rules whenever the final call is made. This whole thing literally has no effect on my game play as the locals will just house rule PBI if it is not RAW in future and I'm personally not likely going to spend the money to travel to out of country events regardless. I put out my views in the hopes that CB staff take how we play the game in reality in my country is taken into consideration when a final ruling is made.
Sorry PS, but I can't seem to find "life" on the list of private information on page 15 of the rulebook.... :sweatsmile:
For the record: Hecaton and I appear to live on opposite sides of the world, and I don't believe we've ever met. I'm pretty sure we've never played, and I doubt we've even watched one another play the game. Thus, I can't myself proffer any opnion about the way he plays the game.
I think I need to put a few things in perspective again. "Gotcha" is a new term spawned by the locked thread and it was a reaction of disbelief that some posters were advocating the rules say something that was not only, not PBI, but actually opposed to it, it is not a terminology that was made in good faith, though I understand it originates to express the belief that players advocating PIP simply want to exploit minute mistakes their opponent does, it was coined in mockery and it is not descriptive to what PIP advocates, I think it was coined by @Hecaton but I have not double checked it. Moreover on "Gotcha" what @Hecaton described in his example of not taking back it actual movements of models is a "gotcha" moment played with PBI, a system that advocates shielding from these moments, so I think "gotcha" is possible on both play styles. On the other side one can easily argue that the perfect information PBI advocates that involves plotting the entire possible movement and LoF of a model before deciding how to spend the order and if the outcome is not preferable decide to not do it, is a take back, even if technically it is done before deciding to spend the order and actually move the model and call shenanigans on the excuse to not call it anything but a take back with a virtual order played to mask it as not a take back, it is not exactly how PBI is illustrated by its advocates to be played and indeed as @Hecaton said a committed movement is a committed movement even if it turns out to be unfavorable. And I think theses are the reasons why the terms have started to be used. Both terms are used to mock the other side, definitely not what the forum rules want and so I would rather see them stop been used and use BPI and PIP do describe the opposing play style. Thanks
Well I used the term gotcha because as a new player its how that felt when it happened to me. Described my intent, dude says ya ok, move, then he unleashes multiple aros that no one said jack about. Was kinda miffed
@psychoticstorm Gotcha has been used a looong time. I'm fairly certain Hecaton is innocent of coining it, but you'd have to dig into the old forums for the original debate.
The 2015 thread is still there and the WGC FB blow up from the BOLS article is still there for review too. Was that BOLS article CBs attempt at correcting the communities playstyle then...?
I don't think CB were involved any more than he describes. It was written before I started so I went looking for it when someone suggested I was making the same mistake they did. The suggestion was that we both mistakenly presumed other people would want to know how to play the game properly - regardless of what that style happens to be. That's the thing about conceit, of course; it (by definition) gets us all. :-(
"No takebacks" is not the same thing as "gotcha," and wasn't intended to be. "Gotcha" is enforcing a situation where it's impossible to know LoF until after an order is declared, in contravention to the Blue Box. "No takebacks" is just as it sounds.
Can you clarify any examples of 'Wolf's BS', and how IJW has pointed it out, please Daboarder? I think I've only said one thing that required correction so far - back in December, when I'd mistakenly said we couldn't check for LoF until Step 7. @ijw implied that we could, because the full movement path of the model is known after Step 3. If, as you suggest, I've said anything else that needs further clarification, then both he and PsychoticStorm have a standing invitation to correct me. You're welcome to ask them any direct questions about anything I've said here, so that they can answer them properly - thank you.
Explain to me how the situation you described is different? from what I understand, distance was not an issue, you just forgot to ask and check projected LoF when you intended to do a cautious move and got caught with unwanted AROs because of LoF, it would be the same as if you played under PIP. In theory under PBI there should be no takebacks because all information is already readily available and provided by the opponent so unwanted AROs from non private information sources should not be possible, from my understanding since you declared a cautious movement your opponent should have informed you that your intended ending position still has you in LoF with enemy troops.
From my understanding of PBI (there are a few different interpretations of exactly how much you are entitled to do in advance if an order with intent) if Hecaton declared a Cautious Move after asking what units had LOF to the area of his intended final position, he would still have to complete the Cautious Move even if he had misjudged the actual distance (since he can't premeasure this) to the final position he had marked with the Shilouete. I think it's important to state that IMHO PBI should not allow take backs of any kind. Once you declare and spend the order to move to a position you must make that move even if you have misjudged the distance or forgotten about an ARO your opponent had informed you about. You don't get to change the destination of your move. For this reason when I advocate PBI as a system I would discourage the mapping out of a move using shilouete markers until after the order is spent. The active player would be completely entitled to ask what opponents units can see and if they can draw LOF to a point or area and the opponent should answer honestly for all units that are not in HD or otherwise hidden. The active player should not however be able to place shilouete markers at various positions and ask if it is in LOF until after the order is declared and the intended final position specified. Also under no circumstances should the active player ask about non visual information like Zones of Control. PBI does not allow the active player to move to a point a specific measurable distance away from a unit, for examine to just out of ZOC. PBI covers visual information only and thus avoids any premeasurment issues.
Sorry about the meta-discussion and snipping. I think that the rules should not address take backs at all. It should be obvious for everyone playing a Wargame that, just like the boardgames you played as a kiddo or the ones you argue over as an adult over on Boardgame Geeks, taking back decisions is a courtesy extended to you by your opponent. Addressing it within the rules would significantly diminish the player's ability to brew their own meta where the beer and pretzel is more important than the structure of the order (I play in such a beer and pretzel meta, but without the beer and with no pretzels). It's just one of those things like "you don't move the terrain during a tournament" or "don't look at what models your opponent has prepared to deploy". CB should be able to trust us, the players, to be able to settle those things and the issue of take backs as adults. As for sticking down silhouettes, I do agree. The simple solution is to make sticking down silhouettes a matter of agreement for expedience. I'm fairly sure this can be addressed in a neutral way should CB want to make the issue of PBI versus PAIL a matter of local agreement (which at this point I am beginning to think would be the best thing to do, essentially say "you're adults, solve this with your friends, we play this way;" and I promise that the way CB plays will gradually start taking over without people having to flip the table over sudden meta changes)
Only someone who has continued to constantly not read descriptions of pbi would think for a second it allows taje backs. If you dont discuss LOF before you move thats it. No take backs. If you do ask then you and your opponent have already determined what units will see you therefore there is no need for a take back. And again. Cautious move is an unknown in terms of its distancr component. Determine the agreed upon location before declaring the order. Marking it with a silly. Then measure, if you don't make it tough luck. You cannot intent your way out of unknown information.
One aspect of intent that I couldn't fully grasp from the discussion is what happens if everyone agrees on LoF and then someone notices during the order execution that actually there was a previously missed ARO possibility. It could be something silly like a flat marker hiding behind a wall. It doesn't have to mean ill will on any player side. Under PBI it wouldn't be fair if the reactive player used such an ARO that wasn't agreed, as this would be the "gotcha". What would happen in a tournament situation?
Sometimes I'm feeling lost on the purpose of keeping track of all the facet about the two sides PBI/PIP. just to keep up my mind. A question. What's the position of PIP supporters about the possibility of checking LOF to a point of the table where there isn't a troop nor a marker??? Thank you. Mask
