Same. Given the list of things two players have to have consensus on before beginning a game (what language and edition of the rules are we playing, are non-CB proxies OK, can you shoot through railings, which Objective deck if any, are we playing in metric or imperial, how many points, Mercenaries extra, which mission, what terrain are we playing on, how is the board arranged, etc. ad infinitum) I don't think it's unreasonable to include a brief chat about what degree of intent/play it where it stands/take-backsies the players are comfortable with during the game, and that has been part of a couple of my own pre-game chats. Something in UX theory that supports the shorthand approach to play is the school of thought around managing decision paralysis. If the game penalizes you for not making perfect moves, you become more painstaking with them, and it bogs down. Infinity's order and skill system already results in very high levels of cognitive load when making decisions, and a collaborative play style at the table lightens that a lot, which helps players to avoid counterproductive perfectionism. Hopefully we don't all cop bans for continuing the discussion, but I appreciate the turn the last few posts have taken.
The game plays fine both ways once you get used to the foibles and specifics of either, with the caveats that: People are frustrated by aspects of both styles. Both styles have benefits. Neither style will make playing against a complete tool fun. The differences of opinion are all really distilled down to swinging the balance between the active and reactive player, which has already been done in N4 by changing MSV+smoke, sixth sense, impact template shotguns, burst 6 etc. The perfect time for CB to rip the band aid off the decision is the ITS12 rules. Lets say that the next post after mine is @HellLois stating that in CB's view one way is irrefutably correct and is the standard for ITS12. If the way CB said is correct for ITS12 isn't the way you played ITS11, it doesn't matter, because it's a new season, and a new edition, you should already have been expecting to do things differently anyway.
Ohh my........ first of all, please dont get out my words from context, I only said that the LoF is open information because you CAN SEE THE MARKS ON THE BASE, thats it. Nothing about intent or pie slicing, so enough, I think it time to close this thread.
