It must be "at any point on the battlefield, at any time and silhouette gaming aids are allowed for the checking" it is not a simple FAQ entry since it must have some other clarifications on top of the above core, but it can be a big FAQ entry. I can see people claiming it as a rules rewrite rather than a simple FAQ entry.
If we discuss it ahead of time however we will be less heated in it as psychoticstorm pointed out. I agree that these situations will come up in both forms of play. What PBI gives is a chance for the players to try to reach an agreement of what to do between themselves without needing a 3rd party at all. I say I intend to peak out and see one thing and not another. You tell me it is impossible. I will either agree with you and not declare that order or disagree and we both take closer looks from both perspectives. If I really want to do that thing and you really don't think it is possible as the active player I now have 3 options. 1 - Agree with you and not declare that order. 2 - Disagree with you and not declare that order (won't be as happy but conflict is avoided and nothing was lost). 3 - Ask for a dice off since it is so close and either declare the order or not based on the outcome of that dice off. This is what happens in every game I have played where the issue came up. Number 3 occurs when we both shrug and say I have no idea and is actually probably as common as option 1 (with 2 being much rarer) in my experince. With that way of playing it is still a fairly netural outcome but all parties feel that they have been heard.
All I said is players set to argue, will argue in both systems, PBI makes it easier to back down on an argument for the active player, I am not sure if this is a good thing though, but in a really important order a third party will be needed.
This is where the video comes in. If, in your active turn, you have set up your minis such that it is not mathematically possible to slice the pie, and you have communicated that as your intent when doing it, then there won't be an argument because the (now) active player will not attempt the impossible (slicing that particular pie). OTOH, if you did not declare your intent when positioning your minis for the reactive turn to cover the corner, then the active player will still be able to check if it is possible if they use PBI. If you set up your models perfectly, then (again) there is no argument because the active player will not make the attempt knowing it is impossible. With PBI, this is all done before the order is even expended, so there isn't even a chance for the argument to arise. EDIT: Note that PBI is about agreement in placing. Once something is placed and both players agreed on the ramifications of the intended placement, there is no going back on that.
I definitely see less arguments, or giving players the option to cause arguments as a very positive thing. Feel free to disagree, but I think PAIL fosters more arguments in the first place, because as you said, players will argue whether or not something is possible either way you play, but from my perspective, it seems like with PAIL, there will ALSO be arguments about whether or not the active player was successful. Sorry if I'm being hard to understand, @Cry of the Wind is pretty much saying everything I'm trying to say but doing a much better job
I am not that comfortable with lingering intent, it can be forgotten one or two rounds later can be accepted without thought because it was unimportant on round one and be suddenly important on round three and so on. I was kinda shocked when I saw it on the video because I never took that leap of logic, but it is a logical conclusion of intent, that been said I can see top players (or experienced players) arguing for such intent, actually I would see (experienced) people argue more over future intent than temporal intent. I feel PBI more speeds up the gameplay than filter the important arguments.
At first I unsure about lingering intent as well, but all it really is saying "do you agree that this guy can see that corner?" Which I think would really go a long ways towards preventing the whole "Is it possible to slice the pie in this situation?" Argument we keep talking about
I've never once in hundreds of games with intent had a problem where players did not mutually remember what had earlier been previously agreed about LOF, even in highly competitive tournament games. I've had plenty of games where future positioning would have been affected with PAIL because a player knocked the terrain (as Palanka does even in Wolf's video). Doing that is necessarily going to affect the actual placement of models outside the limits of the rules, and create essentially illegal situations in regard to PAIL. Also I agree with Barakiel that conflating really basic stuff like Open Information (LOF) and pre-measuring really doesn't do an argument any favours whether done deliberately or not. The constant appeals to authority don't help either (especially authorities that don't exist - like Psychotic Storm is a forum moderator, not a rules clarifier, and IJW AFAIK doesn't really take sides in intent debates, and doesn't determine the rules either, though I've often wished he could). AFAIK even Wolf's own meta doesn't generally play PAIL and therefore his insistence on it has been a source of conflict in it. I think it's fair to regard Plebian as a far more reliable source as to what the consensus mode of play across many metas is. Lastly, the idea that the rules would need to be re-written to accommodate Intent is fanciful, they do already, all over the world. It seems a bit like it is trying to be built up as a Strawman against Intent to me. Once sentence to clarify it in a FAQ would do that CB wanted to ("LOF can be drawn from any two points on the table and is Open Information"). Or two if they really wanted to hammer it home ("Yes, players can agree a particular LOF exists between two points at any time for clarity, since LOF is Open Information"). Given both of those statements are necessarily true anyway (eg to be able to use targetless weapons) it's hardly necessary to enable PBI, which already more or less seems to be the international standard.
I play by intent, but not lingering intent. I believe intent has no memory for more then the order it was declared in. So you can say that you intend to a model looking at a corner barely, but after the order is finished, then the model needs to be placed correctly. As the reactive player, if they want help, absolutely. But i am not going to remember the intent of all the models of the table and how they may differ from the final position.
If you're helping your opponent place their models where they intend them to be, that's playing with intent. Lingering intent is: "I want this Kriza Borac to be able to watch this corner" "Okay, move his this way a little bit more. There." "Yes, we are now both in agreement he will be able to see anyone who comes around this corner." And now, assuming the Kriza Borac hasn't moved from that spot, when the fusilier comes around the corner, you'll both know and be in agreement the Kriza has LoF.
I don't like or trust lingering intent... but then if both of you did your job and work together, you don't really have to remember. If the two players took a moment to make sure the Borac was in the right overlapping spot and both are happy the spot is good if they had there memory erased, I would hope they would come to the same conclusion. However maybe that is me being optimistic.
I feel like there are a lot of people who think that intent play doesn't involve placing the model in the correct spot and that's why some people are against it, but with PBI, the model still gets put in the correct spot; the only difference is you work with your opponent to agree on appropriate placement in order to eliminate excessive arguments.
I agree with the idea that lingering intent is not a path you want to focus on. The thing with lingering intent is that it is no different if you play PBI or PAIL since in both cases you will find models that cannot be placed where they legally are allowed to because of dynamic posing or just the nature of the terrain. In either case you have a model that is not in the proper place and could effect future events because of that if the players forget. The discussion that goes on between both players is itself a memory aid that my opponents and I have all had to rely on one time or another. Thing I find with PAIL is that it is similar to an octagon wheel. Sure it might have been designed that way originally and it may look nice but once it hits the road it won't last. A round wheel will be more functional and give both a smoother ride (more friendly player experience) and is less likely to cause damage to the system or itself (what happens when you take LoF rules too far and have issues with targetless and Hidden Deployment). In any event the octagon wheel is going to be rounded down by use anyway (as players find short cuts and gentlemen agreements to get around grey rules and speed up play). My point here is that clinging to possible intentions over previous editions as well as the insistence that since its the rules as written (regardless of which side of the debate) it has to be this way isn't necessarily the best thing for the game and its future. If the global community seems to trend to a certain play style why not just make it official (the customer is always right remember :tonguewink:)? Even if PAIL is law tomorrow it won't change how most of us play the game (besides maybe skipping events that don't houserule PBI in the tourny package). I'm even a fan of pre-measuring everything and don't think it would take away anything from Infinity. LoF debate is already stretching the lore of the game since we are told all troopers are connected to command as well as battlefield surveillance and have a rough idea of the map and where things are at all times. Its why our troopers know to stop at a corner and start aiming accurately at a sniper they had no way of knowing was there without their computers and comm-links. TAGs are described as having all sorts of high tech gear well beyond simple rangefinders in their weapons and yet they must guess how far away a target is (our current pre-Aridana tech level can put a rangefinder on a civilian rifle: https://www.burrisoptics.com/scopes/eliminator-iii-laserscope-series). TAG computers even can predict pilot intentions and likelihood of success of their actions (so they should know if it is likely they can make that jump or not). The fact that we have no pre-measuring and are even having an LoF debate is actually damaging to my immersion in the game and its wonderful background. I know lore doesn't always need to match game play but it does bother me that such a high tech game uses low tech game mechanics.
Well maybe I'm not one of the people who you meant since I'm only against lasting intent but here goes: If that had been the way it was described to begin with I wouldn't have an issue with it, but at first the argument from others here was that it should be used as an exemption from placing the model correctly in case someone had shaky hands, or that because the point exists mathematically there's no need to spend any extra time to place the model when its close. The main reason to clarify one way or the other is that using the "wrong" one can potentially shift the balance of the game, especially when there are a few holes in the Line of fire definitions that can cause multiple interpretations already. Also the global community trending one way if the designers intended another means that if a group of new people start, read the books, and potentially interpret the game the way the designers intended, learn it play it in their local meta, then go somewhere that plays it differently, but since the global trend is the defacto method its not mentioned until it comes up mid game... However if we know the more popular way is a variant, it can be included in the tourney package, and everyone knows about it before hand. Making it the official way also serves the same purpose, but it has to be noted as an errata in doing so rather than simply doing nothing and riding along with a common misinterpretation. If it's what the designers intended, then it's already the official way, then an FAQ has to be included to point out the other method is wrong, since we're dealing with between 10 and 20% of players according to the poll....
I don't think we are in any disagreement or misunderstanding about that point. All of us on all extremes of the PBI to PAIL spectrum want an answer one way or another. Both camps will have to adjust their play slightly as I doubt the official response will be exactly what everyone wants regardless of what it is. Question is will that adjustment be a list of house rules or just a small tweak to how and when things are determined and whatever smaller consequences come up as a result.
It occurs to me both sides might be wrong, to take things back to the octagonal wheel analogy, the two sides could be arguing over wither the wheel is an octagon or a circle when its actually not a wheel at all, we're just going too slow and its an aileron, or we're on the wrong surface and its a ski...
Hope its not an aileron, we pick up enough speed we're gonna roll on take off the way we've been messing with it :sweatsmile:
To be fair I am not sure everyone is on the same page. Sometimes it can involve not moving the model at all. This would be mostly done in situations like popping out and back in to full cover to take a shot. Intent won't stop steps that need to be done. The Kriza Borac would need to be put in the right place, but both players are working together to make that happen faster. As oppose to one player being very carful to move his Kriza Borac out millimeter by millimeter so I don't accidently go over the distance I want to, My opponent and I simple figure out together where that Borac needs to be placed and make corrections at need.
This is simply incorrect. Allowing pre-measuring in Infinity would definitely take away an aspect of the game, which is guesstimating ranges and choosing the correct weapon for the job. That is one of the reasons most Sniper models have a pistol too - to encourage this kind of guesstimates.
