thoughts on Play by intent

Warning!!!
I have a dog in this fight so take my finding with exactly as much faith as you would from a opponent in a match.

Ok so I just did a bunch of extreme tests myself.
I nailed them every time. The 3mm by 3mm rule really gives me the needed wiggle room as the active player to do this safely and accurately.

When playing Anti-Intent with the goal of peaking out from a corner, slicing the pie, and going back to my starting point.
Step 1) Verify it can be done myself, only really an issue with models of different heights. If I do not think it can be humanly done then no attempt will be made.
Step 2) place a Silhouette down kind of sideways so it wont obstruct my line of sight and using a finger as a block to keep the silhouette from sliding any farther out unless I want it to.
Step 3) eyeball until I am convinced I can see a 3mm chunk of the first models base but not the second model. (this can be hardish if the base is obstructed by cover or something so will take time) then turn the silhouette so it is at its widest
Step 4 aka The magic step) eyeball from the two enemy's point of view and confirm that only my target can see my silhouette (This is very easy)
Step 5) Adjust Silhouette as needed.
Step 6) Repeat steps 3-6 as needed.
Step 7) Allow opponent to attempt to verify, If ANY amount of bumping happens here you MUST start over from step 2
Step 8) Skip all fallowing steps if your opponent agrees with your findings, otherwise call a judge.
Step 9) If the Judge bumps anything point out that findings can't be trusted now and start from step 2
Step 10) after you have accepted the Judges ruling (Keep in mind judges can be wrong) spend another order and do it all over again.
Bonus step) Do not give in to your opponent allowing a little intent at this point. they are trying to trick you!
Protip) If somehow you find that you might have made a mistake in step one, it is better to error on the side of caution and risk not getting line of sight at all, after all if you can make a mistake by going out to far then you can much more easily make a mistake by not going out far enough and be safe.

When playing with Intent
Step 1) Verify with my opponent it can be done. (If we can't agree then proceed with Anti-intent play.)
Step 2) Do the thing or don't do the thing based off of your conversation.

See even when playing intent you can always simply not play intent if your opponent disagrees with you and thinks a pie slice will be to hard.

 

See thats the attitude thats unhelpful.

As has been pointed out, not the least by the corner popping example (see my previous statement), the rules of the game dont cover the situation nor a myriad other situations, which is typically where the discussion comes in. because without said discussion the game cant be bogged down in doing only what the rules say to do to the point where the game is intractable.

Absolutes dont do anyone here any good and wont help resolve anything

 

.

It's not even that firm. It's more like if a debate of positioning/LOF arises during a move, the outcome is favourable to the active player because they are the ones in control of where the model ends up.

Unfortunately this has spilled to a point where checking the lie of the board and the locations of models on it is unsportsmanlike pseudopremeasuring and letting your opponent to forget open information is rewarding. This is bad for the game.

 

This, most of this debate is largely outside the rules entirely at this point and more an issue of sportsmanship and etiquette.

 

What you've described there is PBI and a shittier version of PBI.

The "Anti-Intent" pure position would involve exactly zero of that re-positioning and fiddling about. You declare the route, you place the model (and in your scenario, a marker to easily denote the relevant mid-point), and you catch what AROs happen. You might get it right, you might catch an ARO you weren't expecting.

 

Is the quoting system breaking or something? I don't think you were intending to quote yourself.

 

fixed

 

This!!!!! This is a great thing!!!!!!!!

 

See, the problem here is that they don't believe you, and they don't believe you have authority to make this statement.

 

we also think the conclusion of such logic results in a game that is largely unplayable, not the least because of situations where sillies are typically placed to determine locations/make movement clear ect but are apparently un-placeable within the context of this argument.

 

That's incorrect. You asked everyone to wait for an official ruling after supporting the intent argument and saying it was a valid way to play.

But now you are saying "we" won't issue a ruling because the rules are so simple.

You need to own up to the fact that you've been inconsistent.

 

If this was a discussion about how to fix the rules, that would seem relevant to me. We can't even begin to talk about how broken the rules are and how to improve them if we can't even agree on what the rules actually state. If you're arguing for what you think the rules SHOULD be, not what they ARE, that's... completely irrelevant to what the rules are written as. We can't even get to a place of "let's agree that things work better by doing X+1" if we can't even see eye to eye on what X is in the first place.

 

No re-positioning? What does that mean to you? If the active player hasn't put the silhouette on the table, but is hovering micrometres off the ground, trying to line it up with the reactive models to get the favourable outcome, is it somehow better just because he hasn't taken his fingers off it? Where do you draw the line of positioning and re-positioning? Is it when you have checked for AROs? Because as @Andre82 already said, the active player eyes has already checked for AROs during placement.

 

Yes because you waited for the clarification and did not declare play by intent to be the one true way to play the game despite what rules said, check more and you will find me way more positive and sympathetic to play by intent at the start of the thread, this is not the rules subforum after all.

But when you declare that this is the way the game is played straight from the rulebook, sorry the mood must change.

 

I don't know what I said that would imply hovering silhouettes are somehow OK.

As I have said already, my local meta plays with a light touch of intent to begin with, and how much varies depending on who my opponent is. But I have exactly zero interest in "how people are playing it" in this discussion, when the discussion is about "what do the rules say precisely?"

Because, again, we can't make an informed decision or a unanimous consent to play by a certain house rule if we haven't even established what is the base rule set. If you have a PROBLEM with the base rule set, the answer is to acknowledge it, and propose a solution, not to pretend that the solution was just hiding in the rules the whole time.

 

i do not think the rules state what was being argued, I was humoring the discussion and statement to make a point, that point being that taking the rules to such an extreme in that interpretation results in an unplayable game.

Even stiopa's interpretation of the rules is not consistent with the idea that you can only place a silly at the final destination of your move.

Ergo we have to determine with ourselves as a community what constitutes a defined path, using gaming aids at key points, describing the path in detail ect. And such a determination must be made outside the context of the rules because the rules never define a minimum requirement for detail. therefore we have to discuss what is an acceptable level of detail with our opponent.

EDIT: In short, the rules dont define a minimum standard of reporting for what a defined path is, as such you need to discuss this with your opponent and come to an agreement.

 

For sure! I definitely don't want to be trying to do those kind of adjustments alot. And for some people it will be very difficult.

 

I'm sure he realizes he's quoting the poll to the poll taker since the poll taker seems adamant about ignoring the obvious results.

But you're right, this isn't popularity, this is about the rules. So please point out the rule that says when LoF is measured, go ahead, I'll wait. It's not like I did that search yesterday or anything.

Except the rules aren't written your way either.

 

No soy zurdo, soy chueco. Y en cuanto al sentido de humor, com tanto q’ ambos o tenhamos, tudo bêm! Y, al final, solo doy rosas a mi esposa... te conformas con tulipanes?

 

And you know what, I love this game more than anything, but can we quit pretending that the creator's vision of the game would be able to stand up to a moderate stress test, like @Plebian provided with his mirror example, just because it was their intent?

Even if it was CB's intent that we forgo AROs we could have taken and take AROs we could have avoided, they haven't written rules that force us to. The fact that their rules can be read as such a great game that @Plebian and his ilk play might just be dumb luck, or CBs intent, or it might be the result of English speaking play-testers and translators sneaking in their vision for a better game, who knows. However it happened, there is a basis for this kind of play in the scripture and it is not just better, it is thousands of times better.