Im a new player and have been noticing a very heated topic. I am just looking for a straight answer. This is a very simple question. It's not a debatable question. Its a yes or no question. Does Corvus Bellie offically use and judge tournoment games by play by "intent" at Inter Planetario?
That shows how new I am. Do they offically use "play by intent" at that tournmonet? What is Corvus Bellis offcial stance on this matter for ITS tournoment play?
Depends on who you ask, but it’s seems in the main yes. They do not have an official stance. Unofficially it seems their stance is not to have a stance.
The classic chicken shit stance. To the OP: CB is too afraid or lazy to make a ruling on many contested rules, not just this one. It's not uncommon that you and your friends or local community will have to come together and figure out how to navigate the rules together because CB have not and will not take the time to make a decision. We'd all like them to man up and make a decision one way or another and god forbid, if it turns out it was the wrong answer simply change the answer if necessary. But they don't. It's almost 2 months since @HellLois last answered and marked a rules question as [SOLVED]. Kinda undermines the value of their solved rules sub forum.
Still relevant. Although there’s more recent options Utopia in Australia or The Thick of It in the UK. But I’m 90% certain that it coined the phrase “ Government policy has been longstanding: to not have a policy on [x]”. It has a an extremely funny take on UK participation in the EU (from the early 90s) that makes Brexit make sense.
CBs stance is for you to have a conversation with your opponent like an adult and agree how to play the game in a way you will both enjoy. TOs and metas who need rules on how to interact with other humans are free to create them Rules of a game are a framework to come together and create an experience. Whether that's to have a tight match and see who's the best general to creating a fascinating story.
Azuset I am going to save you time .No there is no written reference ... It will change event to event and even situation to situation. I am not one of the ones that hold much venom about this topic . When you face an opponent or in your group just discuss how they like to play . I hate slicing the pie approach but if someone really wants to pull it I'd rather him not waste 10 minutes checking los to make it work. That is really my only beef with either route .
I have high suspicion that this topic will degenerate and should be closed / erased right away. This topic has generated more than enough toxicity. @Koni or @psychoticstorm ? I have participated to 3 Interplanetario so far, that means 16 games. Me and my opponent always played by intend (ie meaning "Do we agree I can see this mini without seeing this one ? Yes / No"). Last year's final was played with intend and pie slicing. Sometime we disagreed with my opponent on what the line of sights are. When that happened we just called the TO. It's not written in the rules you don't have the right to flip the table. Is that confusing you ?
Not really the topic, so much as a person. The rules police aren't going door to door gangbusters style. People will play as they want. But there's a certain troll who hasn't been banned yet from this forum despite being an absolute fool, who likes to cause things to degenerate.
There is no official stance on the "Intent debate" if CB had an official stance it would not be a debate and it would not be a question. Its a critical subject that has many different proponents of many variations and no clear preference or direction from the community. We encouraged several discussion initiatives to clear the landscape of opinions and through several confrontational meltdowns it remains as entangled as it was when it first started. As it has been stated several times already it is not a debate of how the game was designed to be played, but a company attempt to rule on the best solution that will satisfy the majority of the player base. And it is not an easy task.
The rulebook is very far from perfect, but it does describe this aspect of the game clearly enough. It defines what Line of Fire is, and recommends players help one another out with whatever existing Lines of Fire there may be before an Order is declared. Thus assured about what ARO.s a unit's actions will likely provoke, the Active Player declares their intention for a unit’s movement path and destination, makes an independent visual estimate and place their model at their best guess for that destination. They measure to find out if they managed to achieve their intended destination in reality - which is primarily why the intention had to be stated, then this actual final position is used to check for actual Lines of Fire. The reactive player declares their ARO.s against that position, and after all the Orders are declared, players likewise measure for actual weapon range and check for actual partial cover against the actual position. In no place does the rulebook ever suggest that a player’s intention for a position and their desired tactical outcomes for that notional position should override the actual final position of the unit and its actual tactical outcomes. Every variety of Play By Intent reduces to a system that contrasts dramatically with this in which the Active Player’s notional intention overrides the actual final position, and (as long as the intended position is legal) the reactive player agreeing to it. It's generally desirable if a units actual position more or less matches the notional position, but even if it’s detrimental to the reactive player, or if it couldn’t realistically be achieved in practice, the reactive player still accepts that notional outcome. And the thing is that despite a majority of players being able to work out what the rules say, and knowing full well that they don't say a player's intention can override their estimate, pretty much all of us use this style to some extent. Especially where intentions are insignificant, like a 3rd turn objective dash across an uncontested table, but even when notional positions becomes more significant, most of us will be pretty happy to allow it as long it remains at the reactive player’s discretion. And this agreement between the players is the key to understanding what’s going on for Corvus Belli and why they won’t simply settle this whole interminable debate. Because as much as they do care about their rules, they’re not nearly as interested in maintaining a ruleset they wrote 5 years ago as they are in creating cool new miniatures, and expanding their Human Sphere universe. So whether players’ agreement is affecting the game in trivial ways that aren’t significant, or in ways that vastly change the game and even the points balance between units, if players are agreeing to play together then Corvus Belli can keep doing a Gallician Shrug™ and have nothing much to say.
Oh look, it's @Wolf to give his arguments that only stand up because the mod team intervenes when people argue with him, ready to misinterpret the rules in the way his nonexistent playgroup (i.e. just him) plays the game. As @Marduck indicated, Intent is the de facto worldwide standard and I've never been to a competitive event (admittedly, I've only played in the states, though I've played against players from all over) where that was contested.
