thoughts on Play by intent

here that boys, its guttier now, not just palanka ;)

 

What purpose do posts like his serve? How do they contribute to the discussion?

Why is there no report button on the forums?

 

fair point, my apologies.
Suffice to say I have personal doubts about the video, the way in which the discussion was done off camera and the fact that CB has not made an official post about this clarification, particularly when the top players at the main tournie all played the game completely differently.

edit: that being said, Stiopa is right, CB likely refuses to clarify the issue as in CBs mind there probably isnt one, the blue box means that theyve stated how they believe the game should be played in the rulebook with players acting in good faith.

If players choose not to follow that then who is CB to care, provided the two people at the table are in agreement there is no issue, and I agree with that stance really.

 

Apology accepted, but we have to remember that we are responsible for the quality of the forums and if we don't want them to degrade like the previous ones, we have to maintain a certain level of discussion.

 

yeah was just thinking that

 

We are working on this please be patient, in the meantime please PM me or another member of the moderation team.

 

First of all allow me to clarify one thing, I said I am not a CB employ because I am not a CB employee, neither is Ian, nor the few non CB employees who helped play-test, shape or word the N3 rules, been or not a CB employee has zero impact on rules knowledge and understanding to the people who are listed in the playtesting section of the rulebook, it should not be, some of the rules you read are shaped by us and we know the objections, clarifications and constrains that have been put on the rules before they take their form.

I strongly dislike throwing weight under names especially since I do not view any of us as game designers, but I think we have a fair grasp on the rules and how they are supposed to be played, we are not infallible, we have quite a few iterations of a rule in our head and we can get confused at times, but when someone of us gets down on the books to give an answer it has some weight on it.

There is no change on my first and last response, there is a difference on "I understand were you go with this and it helps speed up the game,
but such and such can be used to cheat the system so don't do them" to "this has gone so wrong I need to state how the game is played purely by the rules" playing the game is a social contract between two people to engage in a challenging but also fun activity, the rules exist to give a common ground in understanding on how the game is been played I understand and have no delusion local meta can change or alter some part of the rules usually in a way that does not break the rules for many reasons, local preferences, influence from other game systems, mistranslated ectr. it is fine if it does not change the basic rules or can be used to cheat in the game, giving unfair advantage to players, but ultimately if the question comes to how the rules are actually written, I must answer how the rules are written.

First of all premeasuring is not allowed, you can only measure and resolve something at the step seven of the resolution sequence, the only exception to this is movement that is measured and determined right after it is declared for obvious mechanical reasons.

That means that during its declaration you cannot premeasure to see were the model will go, you must give its intended path and intended final position and then try to see if it actually reaches such position.

Second you may have noticed there is no reference to line of sight, because there is none the game designer does not want that rule in the game and there is not in the game, what you have is line of fire and it is strictly "The Line of Fire (LoF) is an imaginary straight line that joins any point of the volume of a model or Marker to any point of the volume of another." LoF is open information and the players must answer truthfully if such a line exists, models that have not yet been moved are set in a specific place and until they move LoF is determined to the position they are, after they move LoF is determined to the entirety of their movement path.

As it has been asked I need to point out targetless trait allows the model to designate a point on the battlefield instead of model as the target, LoF needs still to be drawn to that place.

The rules do not allow or prevent a player to check what the model may potentially see and If someone actually suggested one is not allowed to do so I would have a few strong words about it, but this is not LoF and is not open information "potential target" means you can check LoF to any model and determine if the model is or is not in LoF, not to check all potential places a model might go and determine LoF to that model.

I hope this clarifies a few things, Ill come back later today to answer more questions about it and hopefully resolve this.

 

Just a couple of self-corrections, for the record.

In fact PsychoticStorm manages to clarify the question using the extant language just fine here:

Which is the same point that IJW was making when he corrected an earlier post:

 

Was the Video deleted or am I just crazy? Seriously, I just checked every one of @Wolf 's posts and I can't find any video. I even checked on the golf website just to be sure...

 

I still see it on YouTube bit can't find the post in these forums.

 

If it's the video I'm thinking of, probably worth noting that it was composed by someone who was kicked out of their LGS for physical attacks on other players and is basically considered cancer in their meta.

Well, that's hearsay and I haven't seen the video....so....ignore me, I guess.

 

Could you maybe have found a way to put that out there, that isn't likely to get the thread closed?

 

I think it's taken on a more aggressive tone, because many of us are being asked to reconsider fundamental assumptions about how we play the game, and that's a pretty big deal.

Let's all just play how we like is a nice idea, but there really should be a baseline default for what this is, and it should be clear, not contentious. Playing someone, whether it's an away tournament or LGS, shouldn't require a conversation about what version of the game you play. There should be an accepted version, and only when one player is an outlier who doesn't subscribe to that would it be necessary for them to broach that topic.

I mean, do we really want TOs to start having to announce their events as Intent Friendly, or some such designation? Will that create a divide when the community? Will certain events be seen as less or more competitive because of it?

Again, CB can easily address this problem, and has chosen not to for years. It's now even more of a problem, if it turns out that the style of play chosen by what seems to be a minority of players, is actually the version they intend.

 

Did Palanka tell you to ignore the Blue Box? Because that's what you're doing. All you're emphasizing to me is that, assuming you're not making shit up (the "my uncle works at Nintendo" argument), Palanka didn't read the rules either. Which would be par for the course for CB, but w/e.

You do acknowledge, then, that the Blue Box allows one to verify LoF before declaration of an order? You just have secret knowledge that we're to ignore that?

 

Regardless of whatever history Wolf might have, this is not his fault and we should perhaps lay off him a bit. Neither is it Palanka or Psychoticstorm's. They don't deserve our aggression.

This lack of clarity is an error in judgement that CB, the company, has made/perpetuated, not any single player or group of players.

 

First off, any personal attacks have no place here. If you know Wolf outside of the forums keep it to yourself. This is a venue for discussion of ideas, and if you can't adhere to that you should be banned.

This is the only point we are in disagreement, and honestly I don't see how that is even possible. Every time you look at the board you see potential line of fire lines. Should players play blindfolded?

 

I created a poll, not to argue/vote for intent, but to find out how people actually play the LoF related things being brought up in this thread.

Sorry, the limit of one question and response characters made it hard communicate the different viewpoints as well as I'd like.

https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/poll-what-does-lof-being-open-information-mean-to-you.1181/

 

If the etiquette box is enforced then it is a rule. If the etiquette box is not enforced then I would expect and want my opponent to ignore it.

This has me confused and seems to contradict itself.
The rules do not allow or prevent: So am I allowed or prevented?
If someone actually suggested one is not allowed to do so I would have a few strong words about it: About what? If someone said you are not allowed to check what a model might see?

Are rules being broken at any point in this example. Wolf feel free to answer yourself as well

Player 1: I am spending an order on my guy here and moving along the wall to this point and then back to his starting position. :player 1 takes a marker and spends the needed time walking around the table and eyeballing all the models that might see him, He asks his opponent if he thinks this location will slice the pie and his opponent says "maybe" he then makes a correction on his marker placement and only once convinced he can only be seen by the intended troop finalize and declare his move.

Player 2: :Walks around the table checking and eyeballing sightlines on models: Considering how close it is and we can't know if I disagree because I am right or because it is in my best interest to disagree with you that only one of my troops can ARO, I am going to disagree and we will have to call a Judge to settle the dispute.

Judge: Walks around the table checking and eyeballing sightlines and then settles the dispute.

Player 1: After the end of the order picks up the marker and then announces he is going to do it again. He starts to place the marker...

Player 2: No need. We already know you can do it from last time.

Player 1: I want to fallow the rules and I might not place it correctly this time.

Player 2: But I want my last turn!

Player 1: Yah I wanted my last turn in my last game as well so I know how you feel... but the rules are the rules.

 

Haha, I thought I was being pretty chill.

Also, is getting the thread closed a bad thing? Honestly? :)