No one could answer my question in the last thread so I'm wondering if someone could PLEASE address my biggest concern with PAIL: If I'm trying to slice the pie playing PAIL, I'm going to place my model where I'm 100% certain I only have LoF to one target. This will cause only two different situations: I successfully slice the pie. Or My opponent and I disagree about LoF and we have to settle it with either a die roll or TO intervention. Keep in mind, I will always be certain I successfully sliced the pie (unless I'm playing incredibly sloppy, which I don't do) but my opponent will sometimes insist I did not (due to a disagreement on the 3mm x 3mm square requirement or whatever it may be. I guess I don't really have a question, just a concern I wish for someone to address because this does not sound like a healthy meta game state.
I don't know about any of that, but like I said in the last thread I am more then willing to except PsychoticStorms opinion as the defacto rule until an FAQ comes out. See this is where it gets funny... I am the guy who pointed out the issue in the video and I thought your video was exactly correct... every part of it. My argument was that you might as well do intent anyway as it only speeds up the inevitable and that intent was done in the video on accident, in regards to that movement path being assumed to be the best movement path to satisfy his intention of cover shooting. I was stunned and got very unsure of my argument when it was pointed out that your example was wrong in other ways. I don't know what can and can't be done anymore. Like you said, You flew to Spain, got personal instruction, and still made fundamental core gameplay mistakes.... the hell kind of hope do the rest of us have then? At this point I don't know what counts as cheating and what counts as being a carful clever maybe a bit of a rules lawyer player and that is a very important distinction.
Yes assuming you are carful then those are the only two game state options. assuming this is done at a range that a straight ruler can't be used to show confirmation.
Okay, in that case, I have a hard time believing the game designers vision was to have to have a third party tell people who and what has LoF instead of just having people work together to avoid those arguments. Unless of course, I am fundamentally misunderstanding something.
Yes. You either succeed in your attempt or you fail in your attempt, having made a mistake. Looking at it from the other side, if I feel that I have set myself up well for my reactive turn, covering the various and sundry approaches, it's not unreasonable to expect you to either succeed or fail in your attempt to slice off my guys, rather than simply giving it up. If you want advantage X, then place your troop in such a way that you have advantage X. And if we have a disagreement on whether or not you achieved your goal, why wouldn't we ask a third party to settle the matter?
Not an unfounded concern, but the variance in your example comes from a line of fire interpretation that is adjacent to the PBI vs PAIL debate. It's definitely more of a concern with PAIL, but it's not inherent in either method IMO. However it's resolved thought it's the reactive player who has to demonstrate that they have fulfilled the requirements for a line of fire, and if those requirements are known before hand, presumably they factor in to your certainty that you have executed the movement correctly, and you can suggest that to them,then the TO. But after all that, even if PAIL is certified by CB as the one true method in the next post to this, if you ask your opponent to allow intention because it will prevent such an issue,and they agreed, it's not like they're going to send a bunch of goons to your house and correct you. Even if you and your opponent agreed to allow intent moves at interplanetario they probably wouldn't really care. People just want to know what the default way of playing is according to the rules,so that they know when they are playing a house rule or variant.
Okay, but I think you are misunderstanding me a little bit. I will not place my model until I have 100% certainty. If my opponent disagrees with me (which theoretically, they could every time) the only way they are getting extra AROs is if I lose the random die roll? If we're agreeing up to that point, I guess we only disagree on whether or not that is the way we want the game to be played; I'm not going to argue about that though, because it's just a matter of taste and personal opinion
As a TO I might object to it. Even running as few as 4 tables, if some troll/clever player starts pie slicing a linkteam or or even just a few models just well placed I can wind up being there personal pocket judge for 5-10 mins. Time I could spend running the store or desperately trying to look up the rules to see if that other player's Moderator really can just stick Achilles climbing on a wall for succeeding at his engage.
Well, the whole crux of the argument is whether or not there is a way within the rules to *have* that 100% certainty. Those advocating PBI would say yes, based on their reading of the rules. Those advocating nPBI would say no based on their reading of the rules, specifically that there is no LoF to disclose or to share until after the end of either your first short skill, or after the entire order skill, at which point you would be able to see if you succeeded or not.
What I'm trying to say is, I can achieve 100% certainty by using my eyes, and my opponent can disagree, but their eyes are approximately as good as my eyes, and so we need a die roll to resolve our disagreement or a TO if we're at a tournament
We aren't talking about the math probability or 100% certainty here. We are talking about one player saying yes I have LoF and other saying no you don't. There are tons of different reasons why players would disagree on this and at the same time not be able to draw a proper straight line from one model to the other with aids or not (most people will not remove all intervening terrain/models to check LoF). Without PBI you are at a stale mate with both sides claiming their view is correct. Now we need a dice off or a judge called. Game tables are not black and white diagrams like the books and in any game (not just Infinity) with any kind of LoF mechanic and terrain I have seen disputes over LoF. Most games are less defined and players simply discuss how to resolve the LoF to the "active players" intent since most games you can measure your moves before declaring them.
Well, yes, again. If you've a disagreement, then either having a roll off or asking either the TO (in a tourney) or someone at a neighboring table would be the answer. Otherwise one of the two of you will be surrendering an advantage you used all of your skill to achieve.
"Most games" aren't Infinity, and the designers have made a conscious decision (through multiple editions) not to allow premeasuring. And, again, if there is a genuine disagreement over whether the players have achieved their goals, what is wrong with asking for a third party's opinion? One could just as easily state that the active player should defer to the intent of the reactive player. If they both believe themselves to be correct in their view, then either roll it off or ask a third party.
There is no skill involved in a dice off, that's the point. I'm not a clever player by disagreeing with my opponenet when neither of us can be 100% sure of a situation. PBI is meant for those situations, since if it wasn't such a close call you could slice the pie regardless of how you play. All it does is build a bad atmosphere, it is never fun to call a judege over. My point about other games is not that Infinity should be like them, simply how these arguments are universally present in table top minature gaming and are attempted to be avoided by game mechanics in other games. PBI as a game mechanic prevents arguments and reducing player skill to a dice off.
I just personally think it's an unhealthy place for the game to be in, but if you disagree, I don't think we'll convince each other otherwise. I do want to thank you for clarifying my questions on PAIL though
But if the result of our skill means there's a situation neither of us could be 100% certain of, why should one or the other surrender their stance in favor of the other? Your skill at positioning means you're confident you achieved your objective, I'm confident that my positioning for my reactive turn prevented you, so we go to a neutral way of deciding the matter. Simple. If, absent the major reworking of the rules that would be necessary to include PBI, we have a disagreement we were lead to by our skill, that neutral or "skill-less" method is the fairest, rather than either side forcing the other to accept an outcome they feel is unjust. Forcing me to accept your view as the correct one could be argued to be fostering just as much of a bad atmosphere.
The arguments can rise on both play styles. Nothing really stops the reactive player denying that the pie can be sliced in an edge case resulting in needing a 3rd party to resolve if a move with the intent to be seen only by a single model of the link team is possible. Granted since the order is not committed, it is easier to disengage from the argument by electing to not take the order and the model is free of consequence. The argument can happen, but since the model is not committed, it is easier to back down from it.
Major reworking? It barely needs a faq. Just establish lof can be drawn to any visible point on the table and that is open information and you are good to go I think. You are correct. But on the plus side a TO only needs to settle the dispute once as opposed to each order.
So you agree arguments are less likely to happen, or at least less likely to need to be solved by an outside force when playing with intent?
