thoughts on Play by intent

at the moment its revolving around
1) The "gaming ettiqute" blurb is the rules, and how to play the game. theres no real argument that this blue box in particular is the only blue box in the book that isnt the actual rules.

2) That the "Open information" nature of LOF doesnt apparently mean its open information that must be determined and divulged to the best of your knowledge but that a "Shrug, maybe this guy" would suffice.

 

Ok so you are choosing to not help. That is the entire point of the blurb. Good ettiqute and sportsmanship recomend you do help. As far as I can tell we are both playing the game by the same rules. You just choose to make me walk around the table rather than answer a question I can ask at any time (I dont need to declare an order to ask you your weapon or do I if we played?).

 

How am I contradicting the rules? You're placing your silhouette marker HOPING you only have LoF on a specific model. That LoF did not exist at the declaration of the order, but is rather what you hope to accomplish. If it wasn't extant at the declaration, it will have no disruption on the order, and I have not obligation to indicate if I do or do not have LoF to your intended end point. That's the point of the resolution step. You say you want to move, I indicate any extant LoF, you indicate your intended position, you chose path and measure to make sure you get there, you place, and ask AROs. What part of the rule am I contradicting? Any LoF that would come into existence at the end of the skill isn't there when you declare, so it's not something I have to share.

 

No, I am choosing to follow the blurb, letting you know any existing LoF that might disrupt the order. You want to eyeball if you can make it to a point and stay out of LoF? Fine, but that's the risk you take. You telling me that I have to confirm that you *will* remain out of sight isn't covered by the box, and is not my concern. Again, I tell you any existing LoF that could disturb the order. LoF that one of my troops could have at the end of the Move skill doesn't already exist, so it's not something I can share. That's the risk you run, to see if you CAN make it to the point you want.

 

Im really baffled that this is an issue. How can you determine any ARO's for a unit at their finial intended postion without placing something there to mark this?

Once this maker, which is so conveniently now an exact shilouete matching the model, is in position if it doesn't match my intended and declared position because you refuse to provide open information how is anyone but you in the wrong

 

LoF to a point always exists, not just when orders are declared. You can always look at the table and determine it. Without measuring I can place a sil down and try to determine if I can legally get to it. At that time I can look at the LoF of any model/marker on the table.

If I am considering an AD placement for turn 2 on turn 1 I might place a sil somewhere no where near my models and check LoF without declaring anything. I just wanna see what can see that point. Nothing stops me from doing this. Feel free to help me as recomended or just sit there and watch me circle the table. End of the day Im still doing it, up to you how long it takes.

 

I don't draw Line of Fire to a point, I draw LoF to a target. A point on the table, save for a skill involving Targetless, isn't a target. And you wouldn't be able to place a silhouette to determine if you're coming on via AD out of everyone's LoF, because you're premeasuring. At no point in the description of AD does it allow you to place a silhouette to make sure it's outside LoF.

Because the AROs are declared after they've finished their Move short skill. LoF doesn't exist until you've finished your movement, because there is no trooper there until your movement is finished. I can, if I elect, chose to react anywhere along the path, but I don't have to. You finish your first Short Skill, I declare AROs, you declare your second Short Skill. If you've remained out of sight, then I have no AROs.

 

Given that targetless weapons are a thing, you *need* to be able to draw LoF to points for the game to work, and that information is all public to both players upon examination. At this point you're just mistaking wishes for truth.

And, on a slightly sarcastic note, if me and @deep-green-x agree on something, it probably has a VERY strong factual basis.

 

Yes I'm about to sleep however this almost never happenes, there's some serious voodoo going on when Hecaton and I agree on anything short of the colour of the sky.

 

Only for a Targetless skill, which in ARO would mean perhaps a Pitcher or some species of grenade, but, again, I don’t have to declare my ARO until the enemy trooper is placed at it’s final point. If I don’t have a skill that uses it, it’s a moot point. And you and @deep-green-x agreeing on something has no bearing whatsoever on the matter at hand.

 

You can check LoS/LoF before you even declare an order. It's public information at all times. For example, some models might start the game with LoF to each other - you can check that before you choose who to spend an order on. Due to the fact that targetless weapons exist, LoF to all points on the table must be known as well.

 

Yes, you ask who has LoF that would disrupt your order. As such, following your reasoning, only troops with targetless weapons would have to declare, so my Fusiliers wouldn’t have to, nor Teucer, nor a Sphinx, etc, etc, etc. Additionally, since they’re Targetless, they don’t need nor would they have LoF. And, one more time, only extant LoFs are relevant to the Move skill. I won’t have LoF for a grenade until you’ve moved and I’ve chosen a point along your path to react with. Also, you can’t force me to chose an ARO before the Move is concluded.

 

Regardless of what you read into the final placement of a model, placing sillies to determine and query the final position and movement path of a model is "part of an order"

As such asking who are LOF to said silly/point is asking who would be distrupting the order and therefore has to be divulged even if the model has not actually moved to that location yet or even declared it as the location it wishes to move too.

On a final note the view you are expressing is solidly both questionable in its interpretation of the rules ans demonstrated above and can be shown to be exactly against the spirit of sportsmanship and the game as instructed by the creators of said game. This is evident due to the etiquette blurb regardless of it you consider that a rule or not (And there has been little to no evidence as to why it alone is not)
To therefore argue that such behavior is acceptable is unsustainable.

 

How is it questionable in the interpretation of the rules? Declare Move, I advise extant AROs, you decide final location, choose and measure path, move to final location, I delacre AROs. You can ask along your path, but I’ve no duty to reply, since there is no LoF since nothing has happened yet.

And unsustainable in who’s opinion? Yours? That matters not a whit. You say I’m out of the spirit of the blurb, I say I’m entirely within it. After all, I have, in a sportsmanlike manner, advised what are the extant LoFs as you declare Move. Where does it say I have to advise at any point alongside your movement path? How i# that outside of the spirit? I’ve fulfilled my duty, and could just as easily claim you are acting in an unsportsmanlike manner for requesting more information than is required. If your meta plays that way, bully for you, but it’s neither RAW nor RAI, and to claim otherwise is disingenuous.

 

The ban on premeasuring only refers to distances.

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Distances_and_Measurements

 

And where in the AD rules does it allow you to place a silhouette to make sure you’re out of LoF? Premeasuring is, I acknowledge, the wrong word to use, however where in the rules for the skill do you place a silhouette? You make sure the template fits, then place your model, or you simply place it on the board edge in the appropriate segment. Nothing about checking LoF.

 

Even given that 'measurement' usually means 'calculating standard units', there's no available reading of that text that supports the idea that 'premeasuring only refers to distances'.

Personally, I'm sure that (in the Move/ARO/Shoot scenario we're mostly discussing) no kind of measurement (or other synonym) can be carried out until Resolution of the Order Sequence except to determine the actual position of the player's estimate of their Move.

The reason I'm sure is because I made the considerable effort to speak with CB staff about it, and in the case of laser pointers or straight edges to obtain LoF information, had the benefit of Palanka (David Rosillo, CB Forum Official, Aristeia Game Designer) demonstrating that we shouldn't apply the ruler OR the laser pointer etc. until Resolution.

I accept that this does not equate to an official position, but it is sufficient for me to teach others to play correctly with confidence, and to inform them that there are players who prefer a more in-depth interpretation of the rules that they call 'play by intent'.

This claiming that the use of a laser pointer is not measuring per se is such an example of the 'play by intent' faction requiring a strenuous and complex interpretation of the etiquette section to obtain a special meaning that supports their version of the game.

The Intenter's much-valued 'conversation between players' is really an absurd series of requests that could be expressed as "LoF being Open Information means my opponent must gauge the angle from the facing of their units to a theoretical point at which I could position my unit to obtain a tactical intention (even if it's only mathematically possible) and tell me whether they do or do not have Line of Fire to that point"

If my own language is less than straightforward, it's because I'm trying very hard to be polite - when the mount has expired, it's common wisdom to discontinue flagellation thereof.

 

Summary as fairly as I can.

Intent argument.
The open information nature of LoF, the etiquette blurb, and the moderator ruling all allow for effective intent when pie slicing as it forces the players to work together to find the correct position to slice the pie.
Apparent reason for the pro intent argument.
It speeds up gameplay, is less workload on TO's, prevents fat finger missplays.

Anti intent argument.
Open information on line of fire falls under the premeasering rule. As such the player is only required to inform you who might have line of fire. As such any pie slicing you attempt will have to be done by your eye alone. The moderators ruling is not official enough.

Apparent reason for this argument.
To discourage pie slicing. Honest belief this is the rules and a wish to fallow the rules for the rules sake.

/end

In a personal note. Playing without intent will not stop me from pie slicing. I am willing to spend the time to do it by eyeball.

 

Can you please cite where the rules make a general blanket statement that pre-measuring is not allowed, where it's not also specifically referencing distance.

Seriously, I've been unable to find one. However, I can find specific references to the timing of when distances can be measured, which leads to the accurate and commonly referenced notion of "there's no pre-measuring".

That still doesn't make determining open information relationships with gaming aids illegal.

I'm also in the Deep-green-x and I don't usually agree on things camp. Yet, here we are agreeing.

Considering the BoW video where I recall Carlos snickering and joking about intent probably included Deep-green-x, and considering how strongly he seems to feel about it, I'd be super surprised if it didn't come up in conversation. While its unfortunate, I completely understand why he's holding back (he's a bit too close to CB, but not close enough) on confirming such a conversation.

The thing is, I'm not sure if it even matters, because I'm not sure all of CB even feels a certain way. It's possible different employees have made contradictory remarks, or perhaps the same employee has even said things that contradict themselves at some point.

For what it's worth, some of us spoke to Gutier about Exrah at Nova right before N3 dropped, and it very much seemed like he was confirming they'd remain playable. Was he being intentionally coy? Did I simply misunderstand him? Who knows. My take away from the situation was that sometimes stuff gets lost in translation. By translation I don't just mean the language/culture barrier, but also the creator/fan dynamic. It's possible that a fan's perceived expectations can shape a creator's response, while also clouding the fans perceptions of that response.

 

If you could have turned up an example of anything other than distance being "measured" in the rules, you would have. Also nice work quoting halfway through a sentence. I never said 'premeasuring only refers to distances'. I said the ban on premeasuring only refers to distances and I provided a link to that ban in the rulebook.