I am afraid you assume bias because you see hostility towards your preferred play method when there is none, I said I am looking it from a rules perspective and moving something from a play style to a codified set of words that is a rule system is not an easy task. First I must make sure I understand how you play exactly and then clear out things I perceive will pop out as debates between two people unknown to each other playing the game by the rules and not by talking to each other. And then make the whole thing to as few lines as possible, if CB was to decide on Intent tomorrow a big part of rules would need to be re written, if I am asked to represent your side on the debate, I need to know what your side on the debate really is, if I am allowed to have a debate on the matter, no promises there, but if I am, I am going to do it properly. I have to admit though that personally when I heard "play by Intent" I assumed a much more reserved way of sharing information and cooperative placement that you represent.
None of the rules would need to be re-written thats why the vast vast majority of the gaming community uses "intent". Cb clarrifies LOF can be drawn to anypoint on the table/what a model sees is open info and hey presto nothing breaks.
I think a lot of the pushback comes from people who imagine that as reactive players they are bullied into compliance by the "intent" of the active player. In actuality the reactive player is ensuring that they do not unfairly miss out on AROs, This is why the "intent" label needs to go. It's playing cooperatively, by the rules.
Honestly id love storm to detail exactly how plebian and barakiels video would require the rules to be rewritten. Because im not seeing it
This is what you seem to misunderstand. In Plebians video, he demonstrates Intent completely according to the current rules. Because there's nowhere he breaks those rules as written. The assumption that Intent play by the current rules is not possible is a mistaken assumption, a bias. I'm not saying it's malicious. Or are you saying Plebian doesn't know the rules? If so, you'd think someone might have pulled him up on it playing on the top tables at Interplanetary two years in a row. If so, can you point out exactly where, and exactly what rule he explicitly breaks in the video?
As Daboarder said, that's really not about intent at all, the "intent" playstyle doesn't remove the obligation for absolute clarity whenever declaring movements, it does two things a) Allows players to use all open information to define the movement path your models are taking (e.g: The LOF of enemy models or markers, this would not include distances or other information that isn't open) b) Assumes models reach the defined destination position with perfection as long as it was within their movement range. If, as a matter of convenience, he has allowed you to be a bit more casual with movement declarations because he knows there's not going to be an ARO, that's a choice he's made, but it's a personal one and not really part of the core of the intent playstyle
According to 'Gotcha', at 0:55, when Bert/Burt/Burke asks Greg where he needs to go to see one guy but not the other, Greg should have huffed that he has no obligation in the rules to share this information, and that he wont. Bert then moves to Greg's side of the table, and peers at the corner from the perspective of Greg's models. He then moves back to his side of the table, makes the sign of the cross and places his fusilier at the corner. Then, at 0:57, instead of Greg informing Bert that he should move his model "back a little" to achieve his intended position where he can see "one guy and not the other", Greg shouts "Gotcha" whilst fist pumping and reaching for multiple dice. Bert then should inform Greg that he disagrees, and that he is sure he can only see one guy, but knowing he can't pre-measure LOF, decides to split his burst between the two with his second short skill to be on the safe side. They then use a laser pointer to check LOF, only to find that Bert did indeed move to where he could see one guy but not the other, and the burst he allocated to the other was wasted. Greg smacks his lips at his own tactical genius.
It's nice to see that the fine tradition of ridiculing other side over a difference in game rules interpretations isn't fading away to history. We wouldn't want to lose that one, right? Guys, you're making yet another thread about discussing things that either have no serious implications in the real world games, or which really need to be clarified by CB. And the track record makes it likely that it'll too devolve to the point of closing the damn thread. Also, as an anti-PBI player, I'd really appreciate my side not being made into some kind of WAAC guys. This kind of arguments are unfounded logical fallacies, and the way they are made is often toxic. Such arguments are why official forums are sometimes seen by other players as Ravenholm. "We don't go there anymore". So it'd be really nice if those of you who see us as WAACs could keep it to yourself.
As a pro-PBI player, I'd really appreciate my side not being made into some kind of WAAC guys. This kind of arguments are unfounded logical fallacies, and the way they are made is often toxic. Such arguments are why official forums are sometimes seen by other players as Ravenholm. "We don't go there anymore". So it'd be really nice if those of you who see us as WAACs could keep it to yourself.
I don't know what to call those who don't play by intent, since their philosophy seems to mostly boil down to being a negation of what they don't want to play rather than an affirmation of how they want to play. So if intent based play is PBI (Play by Intent), then I guess the negation is either nonPBI, nPBI or even !PBI. In either case, this is not a "takeback". Let me approach this from the other direction. @psychoticstorm established, and the usual suspects more or less all of them liked the post, that the rules allow you to ask for existing lines of fire before declaring an order. Point to a soldier and ask what enemies could draw line of fire to it, without being obligated to spend an order and move this soldier. So far so good, everyone agrees. What PBI does is that it also allows you to specify a path and ask for that path, before declaring the order. Just like nPBI, but for a hypothetical situation. Yes, there are degrees in hell - or levels of PBI. The core of it is that the area in which you're allowed to ask or check LOF is expanded compared to nPBI, but the order of operation is practically identical.
A potential alternative version of that if the more restricted LoF definition is true: Bert asks Greg for existing lines of fire(which are defined as between models and markers not any point of the table) that disrupt the order and their are non. Bert moves to the point he thinks he only triggers one ARO, Greg calls two AROs. Since there is now a line of fire it's checked and agreed upon. At this point either Bert accepts his model was moved too far or Greg cannot demonstrate the existence of a 3x3 line of fire from the second model. Then the AROs are declared, then the second skill. Depending on when LoF is determined defines which method of play is viable, and neither is disproved without a clarification on that... That said their is one part of the video that I definitely disagree with(aside from the pronunciation of fusilier ) : the permanent intent at 1:30ish when the borac is moved behind the alguacile with intent to get a perfectly intersecting line of fire. To me that takes it to the extreme of intent, because potentially the model is in the wrong place for the rest of the game, and once two or three similar orders are in play the lines of fire (wither always open or restricted) become a mater of who called what first, rather than the determinate facts of volume. Also as a side note (not for or against either method) the alguacile actually still blocks a lot. If you need a 3x3 at both ends of the line of fire (nothing I can find states this, in fact the mutual awareness clause seems to me to say that it only needs to be present at one end) then if the Fusilier went prone before crossing the corner, he'd still be able to squeeze in out the LoF of the greasy borat at about 18ish inch range, though with the mutual awareness RAW, that range is cut down to about 8 inches...
PBI = Playing by the rules, cooperatively. Gotcha = Playing sort of by the rules (etiquette box is not rules!), non-cooperatively. As an "Anti-PBI" player, AKA a non-cooperative player, this is the kind of gameplay experience your side wants to encourage and reward: I'd feel disgusting taking advantage of a mistake like this. Can you think of a single personality trait that would make someone wish to be the beneficiary of this kind of mistake that isn't ridiculous?
very interesting!! Maybe another thing in necessity of a faq... Maybe someone have to accept that the rules are not so well-written as someone is trying to tell us... Infinity nonetheless remains (with intent) the best game I've ever played... Hope it remain this way. Imho. Obviously. Mask
Or both maintain they are correct and we are treated to the spectacle of grown men bickering over minute placement details in what could have been a fun game, judges get called and from what I have heard, people even get hit.
So in short enemy player did refused to cooparete with active player to establish LoF, and just to know who see what ? It's almost like people are not playing on tables which quite often introduce quite a lot of ambiguitity if it is possible to see or not to certain places (Plastic Craft Games Haqq Building set being one of bigger/common offenders). Nice "gottcha" moment ^^
The thing is, whatever method and line of fire version you play, once the model/marker has been moved line of fire is open information, and exists along the whole movement. So if after a the first short skill you ask does anything have line of fire to this movement and your opponent says no, then you turn around and say "hahahaha*twirl moustache * I had a line of fire the whole time" that's being a dick at best and most likely cheating. The right way to do that is ask your opponent if any of their models have lof, then when they say 'no' ask them specifically about the one that you believe you have lof to. Both methods of play are supposed to involve cooperation on determining line of fire, the difference is when the line of fire is determined. With intent play there is exactly the same opportunity to be a dick about line of fire in this case, because the active player would just declare his intent, ask the reactive for line of fire, get a no, not correct the reactive, then move, get no ARO, declare his attack and be a dick.
@the huanglong: whatever you believe about our interpretation gives you no right to use ad hominem arguments. You can judge a player's courtesy or lack of it when you see it, but nothing in these threads makes for a case that one side is less courteous or pleasant to play with. Think what you want, but stop insulting people just because they play according to different rules interpretation than you do.
With intent play (AKA open and honest play by the book) both players would have clarified the active player's intention (including their intention regarding LOF to models on the table) before determining the intended position of the active model and committing to it, cooperatively.
And with the other method you determine the position of the active model, commit to it, then determine AROs through cooperation. If there is a failure to cooperate it just occurs in a different stage. Neither side can provide any concrete evidence to support their position, instead we're getting insults, ad hominems, straw men and virtue signaling. The rules are not 100% clear and two interpretations appear to be viable. Not "best". Not "correct". Which is the best? I don't have a strong preference for either, but I would like to use the correct method. Which is correct? I don't know, and I accept that the correct method might not be the best. Edit: An additional factor in the debate has been which is more popular, which is basically irrelevant since it could be more popular even if it isn't best or correct, and should the correct method tally with the most popular, it would be popular because it was correct, but it isn't correct because it's popular, and best is far too subjective to be of any value.
