Lingering intent, when used to define an advantage rather than compensate for models being impossible to place next to walls, doesn't put the power with the active player nor the reactive player - it puts power square with the player who called it first. I find lingering intent to be conceptually childish because of this and I find it to be extremely annoying to keep track of. But does pre-measuring add more than it takes away? This is the question that's interesting to ask. (I know your answer, you wear it like a fashion statement, but I mean to say the answer is not universal) Most snipers have pistols because most soldiers have pistols, among other things for as a quick fallback weapon in case they run out of bullets. We even have one or two models in game that literally has no use for their pistol, not in melee and not for shooting, but they still get a pistol. Don't read too much into it, unless the pistol is viral, breaker or there's two of them. Or if there is no pistol.
I know your answer but I don't know if you've considered the question or if you have whether the answer is different for other people.
You are arguing about a personal opinion explicitly exposed like a personal opinion... Obviously we respect your personal opinion too....
You tend to expose your personal opinions like absolutes... That is not kind (me too, in effect... Only the "kind" part to be precise). You have to understand that insinuate that verify LOF is easier than most people think could be offensive for who find that aspect very hard to achieve. (for various reasons)
The proponents of ‘play by intent’ are telling us that, regardless of whether it’s supported by the rules or canonized by Corvus Belli, it's courteous, efficient and prevents arguments, which are all good things for the game. Those certainly are good things, which makes for a nice argument at a time when Corvus Belli might actually rule against the variant. Except that the arguments ‘play by intent’ most wants to avert are actually emergent conditions based on the players’ attitude to certain situations. They're not unavoidable. The situations are ones where a player faces multiple enemy units providing tightly-spaced potential Lines of Fire; and the attitude is that their units’ positions can be micro-managed to take no more ARO’s than are wanted. The situations might become more widespread if they're being less gimped by 'play by intent'; but the attitude is always going to be an optional belief. If players are - for whatever reason, less concerned about micro-managing their units’ positioning, then they’ll be less inclined to argue about it. We wouldn't need 'play by intent' to help avoid arguments about fractional ARO management if we just chose to feel differently about it in the first place. [edited]
I'm not saying you don't gain or lose anything through either style. What I am saying is that Infinity is not defined by having unknown ranges for movement and shooting. When you introduce someone to the game you don't say "this awesome high tech squad game is based around moving your troops around without knowing how far they can run or if their guns are in range". You'll likely lead with the explaination of AROs and maybe get talk a little about hacking, remotes and TAGs. Those things are what make Infinity what it is, not the fact my troopers forgot the batteries for their range finders. I'm sorry but I can see how discussing a problem before it becomes one means I am causing an argument. I could place my model and tell you that I have LoF to only one thing and cross my arms till you give in or a judge comes over. The point is I don't want to ever argue about any mm in the game. I'd rather talk about it and not have an issue and move on rather than dwell over mm in an imprecise game. I haven yet to see a PAIL description of how to handle models that don't fit correctly where they legally can or how to handle tough LoF calls without 3rd party intervention that doesn't sound exactly like PBI.
I agree. Wondering if my chain rifle is in range or if I should use a pistol is a tactical choice and I mildly enjoy it. On the flip side this would fix some minor rules hickups like Schrodingers mine, or the effects of an illegal ARO on a hidden deployment troop. It would also as Wolf pointed out, make the game more accessible to people with poor eyesight.
I think it's just because a real answer to the matter doesn't exist yet (and he knows)... As far as I know ijw always reply with answers... Not with personal opinions. This has nothing to do with the smartness of IJW that I didn't know and I can't pronounce myself on it. Anyway. A sage said : "Smart is a person who always has a good advice to keep for itself!! "
Fair enough but since the game is designed with no pre-measuring and that's how everyone plays I don't see too much of a point in discussing alternative scenarios anyway.
Strawman (maybe you could leave what we're supposedly telling you to us, since if we're supposedly telling you it restating it is either redundant or inaccurate anyway) at the top, but one interesting thing you bring up here is that it's actually quite difficult to practically rule either for or against intent IMHO. How can you rule against two players agreeing something is true? On the other hand, how do you rule against choosing to place the model and determine its' LOF with aids? These are only really things the players at the table can decide. That's one reason I keep saying the best clarification would be "Either is fine, decide with your opponent and /or TO and be excellent to one another".
I would give the advice of not putting words on peoples mouths and intentions behind their actions. I am not sure why you are arguing at the moment? and with such vigour, follow the forum rules and keep away from personal attacks.
Spoiler: off-topic - wall-climbing remotes I came across IJW doing whacky stuff with magnets a while back that had pictures of a remote going up the side of a Games Workshop gothic building; this was all I could find. Can you link us @ijw? http://wargamingtrader.com/system/files/images/wt_20120307_17-01-30.jpg
You're basically suggesting that everyone play poorly. When exposing yourself to multiple AROs when it's not necessary can mean a loss of the game... it's not something to trifle with. Not an acceptable answer for a game with a competitive scene. If someone wants to force multiple AROs I expect them to work for it i.e. force it by using hacking + BS attack ARO, or stacking models so it actually is mathematically impossible. Complaints about "lingering intent" are specious anyway, because under a "gotcha" playstyle one has to adjust models and terrain that are jostled during play, remembering their earlier position.
No, I'm not trying to say people should try to be less competitive (in fact far from it); but trying to make a point about the human condition as it applies to play variants. I'm saying it doesn't follow that 'play by intent' (PBI) is a necessary solution to an inevitable problem, because... If players can - for whatever reason, take a different attitude in that situation, then the likelihood of arguments and the need for PBI to help manage courtesy is considerable lessened. It's related to the human condition, not directly to a competitive spirit. @A Mão Esquerda and @Alkasyn have for weeks now been saying they manage to be competitive without also being discourteous and without needing PBI, because - clearly, they don't take the attitude that their units' positions can be micromanaged, so they care less about micro-positioning, and are less inclined to argue about it. I haven't attempted to explain exactly how that's happening or why, but I hope they'll agree and can provide those details themselves.
