thoughts on Play by intent

Please don't hold me accountable for other people.

If you say an external factor affects a model, you should revert to the previous situation, and I am attempting to place a model at a previously indicated point, than only an external factor would perturb the final position of the model and it should be placed on the point of intention. Then play should continue from that point.

Players with Parkinson's disease, to reference an extreme example, should not be at a disadvantage.

 

Could not agree more with everything being said here.

 

This is contradictory. If I can check a models LoS to any point, then checking LoS to a silhouette would be a subcase of the former. Whether that silhouette is a potential movement target is irrelevant.

I agree you cannot premeasure any movement (which is what makes cautious movement dangerous) nor fire ranges. But you can clearly use a game aid, such as a silhouette or laser line to precisely determine LoS before any move, which means you can move exactly where you want, given the legality of the move. Any risk/reward that takes place after that will be depending on the AROs that the active player intends to trigger, barring models being perfectly aligned so as to make the geometry of the sweeping LoS line be tangent to both silhouettes simultaneously.

 

I agree with all this apart from 2 points

Can you provide a reference from the rules where it says that a final intended point for a movement must be estimated rather than defined?

The difference being, with reference to your example;

An estimated final position would be one where the active player places the shilouete at a point he believes that he will have LOF only from C based on his own measurements of LOS using eyeball, laser pointer etc and with no conformation of this from his opponent.

A defined position would be one where the active player places the shilouete at a position that he believes and has declared as being the intended final position that he will have LOF only from C and is allowed to check this with his opponent using the shilouete as a placeholder for the final position of the miniature.

The second is how the mechanics when the estimated position (as defined above) is used, work in situations where it is difficult to accurately place a shilouete or when the position of terrain or indeed the minis themselves are altered by accident?

For example in your situation above, if the player had placed his shilouete in a position where it could only have LOF to C and the building was nudged by an elbow or the mixture when placed had fallen over or another situation where recreation of the exact estimated position was now very difficult or impossible how would this be resolved?

Would the players have to make do with as close a situation as before through discussion of where the shilouete should now be (which is now a defined position as per my definition above) or through some other means

 

The ranking and number of folks coming out and saying they play a particular way has no bearing whatsoever on what is the game as designed and written... and, as the blurb notes, you can check LoF that exists as the order is mooted/pondered/thought of, to see if something would disrupt it. However, that all takes place BEFORE the order begins, and once it's begun, then it's off the table until time to resolve it.

 

It does when they are the best players in the world, at least somewhat (Surely we can agree on that?)

The blurb notes you can check what would disrupt before declaring, if Im moving, then the LOF clearly would disrupt the order and LOF can be potential targets (Its in the lof rules)

 

I mean, this isn't even an important part of the discussion, it's just language semantics, but "disrupt the order" could easily be interpreted as "nullifies it" such as an attempt to re-camo, as opposed to simply provoking an ARO. The unexpected ARO when you Move-Shoot does not disrupt an order. The Order as declared is still carried out.

 

Incorrect, while an order is taking place LOF is still open information otherwise how would a unit in ARO that can only see a gap between two buildings see a unit move across this gap?

 

Do you actually believe that's what it means though? That would mean the etiquette blurb, whose wording seems to be fairly general in scope, only exists for the sake of one very specific situation involving a couple special skills. If that was the case, why would they put it in the Movement section (or Introduction apparently, if you go by the most recent Spanish version), and not the Camo and Hiding section? I mean, there isn't even any movement involved in the situation you're saying it's meant to refer to.

 

i dont think mac does think that, but its an interesting reading into it. certainly not what i read it to mean given its location and placement in the rules

 

What if you read it from the wiki instead?

http://infinitythewiki.com/en/Open_and_Private_Information

 

Whoa now, you calm down. Let's keep it civil and respectful in here.

Sorry, but that etiquette blurb is way too specific to LoF related issues to essentially be the "golden rule" situation you're saying it is. Maybe it's meant to be, but if so, CB really missed the mark with it's writing.

Also, are you actually confirming that LoF is not open information unless it's agreed upon between those playing? Because that's coming straight out of that box, and nowhere else.

Eh... nevermind, I guess that means the etiquette blurb does contain some clear cut black and white rules?

Okay, please be very clear here, because you seem to be confirming that while LoF is open information, LoF can only ever exist between models/markers. If not, I feel like you're contradicting yourself.

This has huge implications regarding the way many of us currently play. It basically means that straight edges and line lasers can only ever be used to draw lines between models and markers, and never open terrain (unless that open terrain is part of a declared movement path). For the time being, I'm just going to ignore the repercussions for targetless weapons.

It also seems to mean that Silhouettes should never be placed unless a declaration has been made, and only then can you use a laser or straight edge to determine LoF to it. Is that what you're saying?

Like I said, this is huge, if true. I don't think I'm alone when I say that I'm going to need some more official confirmation that this is definitely CB's intent.

 

Its still the general location not the specific location it would be in if it referred solely to camo. As such it is still the general rules to be followed in all cases baring noted exceptions, and thats before we even get into the wiki layout being a case of making the wiki work for each bitesize chunk of info rather than as a single document.

So no, I dont think that is what the box is referring too nor do i think the argument is strong enough to chang emy mind. I merely pointed out that it was an interesting take on it. Do you believe thats what it means mac? thats not how your initial statement read to me.

 

As far as we know, that could have just been IJW's formatting choice, not CB's.

@ijw , can you confirm whether the choice to move the blurb from the movement section to the open/private info section was directed by CB or not?

 

My point had more to do with the fact that reading the exact same rules, using the exact same words, could have wildly different impact depending on which source you're looking at. And we have PS posting here about how etiquette in general is an encouragement, not a cut and dried rule, but also that LoF is Open Information. Basically what I'm saying is that there's obviously some disconnects here, and it would be great if it could be resolved in such a way that there were no more questions on it.

 

PS as he himself has avouwed is not an official of CB, thats his interpretation of the rules, one which i and most other gamers (certainly the only ones ive ever met or that people I play with have met) disagree with

 

Personally I would find it concerning if the mod thought I was playing the game wrong, and I'd want to figure out where things got bunged up. Again, obviously there's some misinterpretations and misconceptions going on here, on one or both sides of the discussion.

 

How CB doesn't consider it a total embarrassment as a game company, that the people they've played the game with and have professional connections with don't feel confident enough to confirm fundamental mechanics like this, blows my mind.

Don't get me wrong, I get why people like PS and Deep-green-x have taken this stance. It's just lame that they have to.

It's 2018, the game is over a decade old, and N3 was supposed to be a newer clearer direction. Why don't we have things like rules moderators, a public list of known issues, FAQs that actually get published when they've been completed and not months later, etc?

 

So LOF can only exist between Troopers and markers?




Who's been allowing hidden deployment troopers to cancel their hidden deployment state by declaring an ARO based on LOF all these years?

 

Id find the 1st and 3rd placed inter players to be more conclusive. but even that aside the sheer weight of the community. honestly FKB, Mao and you mac are the only people of seen read the rules that way. certainly no one Ive personally ever played has read them differently in this instance.