thoughts on Play by intent

I disagree with this.

PS getting the rule wrong indicates exactly why it is inadvisable to decentralize rules authority. I also don't believe this is an issue that requires an FAQ. The rules are perfectly clear about LoS being open information and players needing to agree on LoS. A vocal minority raising a hue and cry where no problem exists is not a good use of CB's time and effort, which should be spent on further developing this wonderful game.

"You must share Open Information about your Army List while you deploy your models during the Deployment Phase, and also any time your opponent asks during the game."

"Miniature poses and irregular scenery can make LoF hard to determine. In those cases, it is up to the players to reach an agreement."

 

I would like to add a disclaimer to this. While I have done far better than I deserve at winning tournaments of infinity over the past half-decade this does not mean I am infallible. Indeed I learn new things about the rules all the time. However I am very experienced, probably more so than most, and believe with every fiber of my being that is is how Infinity is played, this is how Infinity is meant to be played, and this is how Infinity should be played, both by the letter and spirit of the rules.

 

Out of interest, if you may not place a silhouette marker to check lines of fire before declaring your Move trajectory - does the same not apply to BS Attack as well in that case?
I think you can see where this is going...

 

i was more commenting that the top players, the guys putting the effort in (And locally I rate myself as one of them) all reach the same/similar conclusion on the rules. then this is further supported that I presume it either didnt come up once and inter or that the TOs ruled in favour of it. thats all solid supporting info

 

What rule I got wrong? or what you interpret I got wrong?

 

I hadnt intended it that harshly, but the etiquette blurb says you can check LOF. furthermore a models position (Facing ect) must also be open, as such you are able obviously to check LOF before declaring orders (as the etiquette blurb states)

Theres nothing in the rules that calls that measurement, because its not, its looking at the table and the models positions at its simplest form. If you want to tell me Im not allowed to look at the opponents facing, positioning ect while playing the game you'll have to quote a rules reference that stats LOF is hidden information, because its not pre-measuring.

For the sake of clarity, here are the relevant rules texts.

 

Good question and a logical conclusion to the presented rules.
It brings with it other questions as well. Can I declare and ARO without knowing if I have line of sight, and if I don't have los what happens? Also what happens if I do this with a hidden deployment troop?

 

The final position is always an estimate, lets assume the silhouette marker is placed on a position it is one inch further than the model can actually move, the model cannot reach it the final position is where its movement could carry it, as the video shows the silhouette is placed were the player believes is the correct place, the player can ask his opponent up to were the model sees and can check for himself, but the final placement is done by the player, I assume you can place the silhouette while looking behind the models that cover the corner, regardless, once the marker is placed the position is set, if the model can reach it it is the final position, if it cannot, it will try its best to reach it as close as it can to the intended position from the intended path and were it stops it is its final position.

As I said before Rules are solid black and white options for a reason, reality is not black and white if a portion of the battlefield gets knocked off
by accident try to reset the positions as best as you can, same would go for weird positions, place a marker? a spare base? point is by the rules you cannot say to your opponent "tell me were to stop so I an only see one model".

 

I am not sure what part you got that you are not allowed to check for LOF, I specifically said it is open information and can be checked, that been said, strictly speaking LoF is a straight line between two models volume, what we say as LoF many times is to check from a models front arc what the model can potentially see, since the move has not yet been declared or determined there is no LoF to check, once the move short skill is declared the silhouette, or base or whatever else is placed were the model is supposed to go and the model travels its intended path, at this moment its Silhouette occupies at the same time all the actual travelled path and LoF can be checked to any point of the path.

Also given ARO rules it is impossible to declare an ARO without checking for LoF since checking for it is one of the requirement s to gain it.

 

Ts the second part, LOF is not just model to model, its model to potential target (IE the location at which a target may find its order disrupted)

 

Have you considered that "potential target" might mean a model that may be in LoF, as opposed to any point on the board at any time?

 

I have have you considered the opposite? that it means exactly what it says? and how I have presented it?

Thats kind of where we're at.
Throw in weight of community both locally and internationally
Throw in Plebian and Marduck and Rory all of whom were in the top 10 at interplanetary, throw in numerous discussions with the best players across Australia which is 5-6 distinct metas
And finally throw in this forum, who largely apart from yourself Mao FKB and PS read it to say what I have presented and well, I know where I am comfortable standing.

But im also obviously happy to leave each to their own, I doubt it will ever come up in a game because in all my time playing this game I have yet to see it be an issue once.

 

I guess I disagree with how much time and effort it would require. Answering a few emails or texts every once in awhile is not a big deal. Ideally, the mod acts as a filter for all the stuff that doesn't actually need to be run by the design team. Also, other similar sized companies seem capable of doing this without it being a detriment to their growth/productivity.

 

And considering that when LoF is discussed in Basic Rules, it lists off models, Markers, etc., all of which are concrete examples rather than abstract points on the board...

And if the question is weighing the views and thoughts of players, no matter how many and how proficient in what they believe the game to be, versus the exposition of the actual rules text, by someone who has seen the game through all three editions, is trusted by the company to moderate their forums, and has been a playtester since the first twinkling of N3, coupled with a video produced with the approval and input of the game’s chief designer, with the head of ITS (who is also a playtester and designer) literally playing it out exactly as the plain text of the rules reads... how is it even a question?

 

Not really, because it seems kind of pointless when interpreted that way.

The timing makes the information pretty much useless. According to you guys, all I get to know before declaration is whether a model is currently in LoF of another model or not. Why does that need to be open info, and why is it important that we help each other determine this in an honest and truthful manner? After the first order a model receives, you're going to know this at any given time anyway, because you'll either have had the opportunity to check when it performed an order itself, or when one of your opponent's models performed one. From there on out, there's no mystery as to whether it's starting in LoF, so no point in being able to determine current LoF before declaration.

It's calling LoF open info, citing how important it is to be open and truthful about LoF, but effectively keeping you from accessing the only LoF information that's actually useful to making your active turn decisions.

 

what todd said

 

So Psychoticstorm has completely changed his mind from his other clarification post then?
So just to 100% clarify. I can not point to a spot on the table and ask what enemy troops can see that spot and expect a rules enforced answer to this question from my opponent?

Also what Todd said.

 

Yes I think it does, and in more ways than one!

I myself want to make the game as accessible as possible, but that doesn't mean we should willfully interpret the rules one way or another to provide greater accessibility. In a competitive situation, we can only provided dignity by honestly identifying a difficulty with respect to the rules, and then formally stating the facilitation that will be provided. We can't do that if we don't know how to read the rules in the first place!

For example, a wheelchair-bound player might be able to play the game quite well but for the the difficulty of reaching across the table to measure and position models.

That could be facilitated in any number of ways, but in a competitive situation, it would be important to identify the difficulty and define the provision. (And note that the example is carefully chosen, because as discussed, I think that positional estimates and therefore visual judgement is an aspect of the game as intended...)

Accessibility is not an argument for any apologetic interpretation of the rules, but an argument for clearly defining the rules, explaining the difficulty of compliance, and defining an alternative procedure. Then the game will remain fair for everyone, including the disabled player, and they can lay full claim to whatever success they achieve.

 

To be fair, I found his earlier post ambiguous and confusing in regards to what side of the debate he was actually supporting. :tongueclosed:

 

That's not really how proper accessibility works. That type of consideration runs the risk of coming off as patronizing. This is something I often have to account for in my workplace. It's important, whenever possible, that any accommodations made do not unnecessarily emphasize or set the person benefiting from those accommodations apart the group.

For instance (let's assume Joe uses a wheelchair, or experiences some sort of mobility issue preventing him from standing):
Patronizing TO: Communicates that anyone playing Joe has to use the short table in the corner. Also tells Joe and his opponents that they can use intent if they'd like.
Accessible TO: Doesn't say anything unless it's necessary, makes sure to set up several short tables, and simply allows event wide play by intent.

I'm not saying that what the TO that I've labeled as the "Patronizing TO" is doing can't be done in a polite and appropriate manner, only that there are often better ways of going about it.

Then again, while I think the issue of accessibility is important, I don't think that we actually need it to justify our argument for intent.