So 1.) is your style of Play By Intent (PBI) effectively just a shortcut to positions that could realistically be obtained by eye? In one of the previous debates, we heard from vocal exponents of PBI who insist that either by virtue of their long war gaming experience, or by simply taking a long enough time to position with absolute care, will be able to judge anything that's mathematically possible. Opponents of PBI took umbrage at the claim, and a forum Moderator pointed out that - as in this diagram, once positions reached a certain distance, the distances are much too small to be judged by eye. Your position seems reasonable to me, but since there are PBI exponents who'll claim they can obtain any position that's mathematically possible 2.) how do you negotiate and agree this limit to your PBI with other players?
PBI by it's very nature is going to let you execute things you couldn't reliably execute every time. I'm personally fine with that, and I don't consider using PBI to hit the back of someone's base to be cheap. The answer is as the reactive player, don't put your models in a position where that can happen. Not to draw comparisons to other hobbies but I also play a lot of fighting games (video games) and PBI is pretty comparable to auto-combo systems. Yea, it's annoying that someone with less "skill" than you can convert a situation into a good punishment, but once you learn to not get hit in the first place, the tactic doesn't seem OP.
I honestly tire from people insisting on placing models to nanometer precision – if it's theoretically possible, then it is possible, so please stop insisting on breaking out all the fine tuning instruments and spending 15 minutes on placing a model to perfection, a model which will move right afterwards anyway in most cases. It is just a waste of time. What happens in the active turn is, that the active player moves his troops and kills the defending troops. It is that simple, and it is very hard to avoid so – unless you're really careful in covering all angles, setting up AROs, and have lots of luck with the dice. It is also inevitable, that troops without 360 visors will get shot from a blind angle – which is why you need multiple troops to cover the enemy from overrunning you. A single trooper is destined to be outmaneuvered one way or the other. So demanding 'proof' is more behavior of a sore loser. I love 'intent', for two things : it speeds up the game, and it demands mutual respect and trust between players – which promotes a good atmosphere. - There are so many 'mishaps' during games. Runaway dice toppling a mini, a clumsy hand gesture moving a house, players being unable to see things from a minis angle etc. That demanding ultimate precision is just.. <sigh!>
You’re right of course that the bigger remotes make this a bit bigger of a slice, but only up to 1mm (for 40mm) and 1.5mm (for 55mm). To counteract this the defender can simply rotate their model about 20 degrees and then we’re talking .5mm and .75mm, so basically back to the original question of sub mm zones. I think another issue I have with this is that it is something most players aren’t aware of, and it is not going to be played consistently across different metas leading to gotcha moments which aren’t fun.
So this diagram is interesting, I hadn't considered that this be possible. However my group has always played by the Mutual Awareness clause as stated in the Wiki: http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Line_of_Fire_(LoF)#Mutual_Awareness Mutual Awareness In Infinity, Line of Fire always assumes reciprocity, following the rule of thumb "if I can see you, you can see me". This means that as long as any troop can draw LoF to its target, the target can draw LoF to its attacker as well (assuming, of course, that the attacker is within the target's front 180˚ arc). So in that example we'd have to agree that they either can both see each other, or they both can't. This is of course assuming that firing arcs are legit, because otherwise thats a different discussion. And I would probably err towards Can't.
Mutual awareness doesnt stop you getting shot in the back. The situation is the result of geometry and the requirement for you to draw LOF from the front half of your base while your opponent can draw lof to any part of your base. The alternative was to allow you to draw lof from any part of the base to anything withing the front half of the troop. However due to geometry that has equally "odd" situations and ultimately is not how it was faq'd Edit: for super extra bonus points. Consider a super jumping model on the far side of the wall jumping and which part of the cylinder it will see first hahaha
For those of you who are okay with this ruling, I am curious if you are also okay with taking it to the next step? Basically yellow is posted up behind a barricade or peaking a corner in order to ARO enemies. But there is another building on the board (as there is wont to be), and red can use this building to shoot yellow in the back arc without yellow gaining LoF. Again the sliver is tiny, but definitely exists.
Sorry for being slow here but what is special about super jump that it feels dirty to use? Never used that rule, except for moving around with Bran Do Castro, once in a while.
It seems like everybody here in Melbourne plays by intent, there is hardly any discussion about it. I don't mind doing so. I have tried and failed to play in a different way. I have to admit that I found it a bit frustrating. I think playing by intent makes the game a bit more predictable and does not shut out the players who simply are not as good at eyeing the difference a millimetre can make. On the other side, I feel that the example given is abusive to the idea of intent. I hope no one from Melbourne will see this thread otherwise soon everybody will try such shenanigans. These are just my feelings. It is, of course, possible to accept that this is possible, everybody can do it and move on with it. The game is not meant to be a simulation of reality, so let the Infinity soldiers do what a real soldier could not.
The examples given in most cases are as easy by eye as they are by laser line. And usually involve larger angles
As I mentioned in the post you quoted, I think it's because no amount of facing is going to save you. You turn backwards and now they are in your rear arc, even though they see your front first. Normal rolls no matter what.
But yellow could just have placed himself, so he properly covered the corner he was shot from, and he didn’t expose his back to it. - Another fun thing, a mini has a 180’ field of vision - you as a human are down to just 178’ - so in that, there is an abstraction, this is not a Real Life Simulator. What is even funnier is, that your field of focus is far narrower than the 178’, and it takes a lot longer to react on events in your peripheral vision, than in your focus - ie you need to Change Facing, before you can Shoot. So I really don’t see, why people object to this? - it is simply just another example on, how the advantage goes to the Active Player in dictating the circumstances of Rolls in the game. (Other than it feeling mighty unfair, when an opponent demonstrates this on your Achilles in a tournament - I was not a happy camper ;) ).
I’m not quite clear on which side you’re on here because to me “as easy by eye as by laser line” would mean equally impossible either way because a laser liner is usually around 1mm wide and held by an imprecise human hand. I have given by far the most common cases and we are still talking less than 1mm distances and minuscule angles. Nobody can eyeball 0.0079”. Period. Full stop. The only way these shenanigans work (and for the record I am not advocating this, in fact never do any of the things in the examples.) is with intent, and I agree with the others that it feels like an abuse since I can basically get normal rolls on almost anybody anywhere on the table with a bit of positioning work. In the example yellow is facing towards red already. Maybe he can rotate more towards red to stop the shenanigans, but then exposes his back towards enemies to the left. If we assume yellow is behind a low barricade or lip on a building, rotating 30-40 degrees exposes his back to a huge chunk of the board. Annoyingly this makes link teams of 4+ even better than they already were since they ignore this with sixth sense. Woe unto ye who play vanilla!
What sides? The positioning is possible and the determination is trivial. (Or exacerbated by different geometries like terrain shape, distance, base size) Its an occurance that can happen often Theres really only 2 choices. Play something else. Do not position you troops directly facing a wall. This isnt an attack mind its just what is
We keep it simple and use Warmachine style, keep it separate between LOF and front facing, it counts that you are in the front of the miniature no matter if you are actually looking at the front of it. Is it the most realistic?, no, but we play a game where bullets hit each other in mid flight and you can even stop them throwing smoke grenades at them at juuuust the perfect distance..... its a game. Playing be intent requires sportmanship, the situation described here is anything BUT healthy play, just gamey and not fun. "yea, i will move my miniature and it will stop in the 1mm that im still in your front but i don't see your front so i will shoot you there, of course i cant find that spot by myself so we are both satisfied even in 10 minutes with a laser, so you will just take it and thats that...... and yea, it will happen again 2 or 3 more times this turn hahahaha how fun !!!" good luck finding a playing partner after that Love this, you have to BE WITHIN the target 180° front arc, not SEE it. Just the way i like it, simple and easy to corroborate in a fast manner that dont leave anyone feeling cheated
I don't really understand how this is a next step. I thought this was exactly the situation we were discussing? Yellow troop is positioned to be able to see both directions on the barricade, and to do that he has to give up some security on both sides, which I'm fine with. Also on the note of PBI removing skill from the equation, it's not like PBI makes you any better at eyeballing ranges for weapons, determining how many orders it will take to go somewhere, or reacting with the most statistically optimal ARO. There's still plenty of room in the game for skill to take over even with PBI.
