Personally I think announcing PBI as the 100% rules orthodoxy is a step too far, I would accept to argue that neither group can hold that until an official announcement is made and move on from such claims. Why the rules would need a rewrite? obviously because at the moment the rules are supposedly supporting two versions of the game been played, (and many variants in between) PBI and the mockingly named by the PBI supporters "Gotcha" if PBI became how the game is played then the rules would need a rewrite to make sure the other variant is not eligible and vice versa. Why someone would say this method of play is takeback? well, if you, without commit and measure, plot the entire order with some assumptions on distance and no clue on hidden models can plot the entire order and decide if it is the best or not course of action before committing, it feels like a takeback to many people. Why I ask questions about Intent especially after the video, because the assumption of intent I had was quite reserved, only limited to getting the perfect position on an already committed movement, not plotting orders before committing, nor moving intent to the rest of the game rounds.
This is why, at a tournament, whenever my opponent asks 'any ARO's?' I simply reply, 'who can your model see'? He must answer the question truthfully. Best way to avoid such bullshit. Edit: Obviously, I don't ask this EVERY time he activates anything, just whenever I'm in doubt about multiple ARO's.
The game you're playing here is neither fair nor honest. You know well enough that "Gotcha" is the closest thing we've come to describe how playing without intent goes, and that everyone involved recognise what it means, because no one has made an effort to properly describe it without having a vested interest in discrediting the stance that you guys take. If "gotcha" feels like a slur then please at least work with us in finding an alternative.
How about the previously used term, 'as placed'? There was no need to use a derogatory term, except to inflame the thread further.
How about nPBI? It's really not hard to find a neutral description for both groups. "Gotcha", "non-cooperative players", "playing sorta by the rules", and describing PBI as "strictly-by-the-book", while implying the other side ignores the rules is only inflaming the thread.
This all reminds me of the "This Is The Morats Thread" fiasco. Some plebs ;) just haven't realized that this game is not a democracy.
I'd just like to state that I absolutely believe the great majority on both sides believe the way they play to be the more sporting way to play. I don't see why they both couldn't continue to be supported by the rules. It'd be nice to have it clarified that they are though. Then no one is wrong, and it's up to you and your opponent (or you and your TO) how you want to play, as it basically is necessarily anyway. What would be wrong with that? Play as it lies or as placed or what ever is fine. Just as play (or LOF) by mutual agreement would be a fine and perhaps less prone to misinterpretation way to describe Intent (since people sometimes interpret Intent to mean that a players intent trumps what is physically possible, which it does not)
It's not a democracy, it is a game played for fun with a fairly large investment of time and money. If CB rules that PBI is against the rules and the play it as it lands is correct it simply means I am more likely to stop supporting the game. It already has enough rock/paper/scissor match ups and other unclear rules that take away the fun of the game. If they want less cooperation between players and hoping you don't have bad eyes or the shakes it reduces the market of people interested in the game. You can be king of the rules but if no one buys them your coffers will run dry. I've seen Warmachine/Hordes go from king of the games to a handful of players in multiple cities because it fostered a play style that was no longer fun for people. Sure the super competitive guys love it still but it is a game of Gotchas (or was when I left) and I don't have time for that kind of play anymore and it seems that the majority of players in those cities agreed and moved on. TO Camo is the bane of my existence as it is, I don't need to worry about my non-Impetuous troopers charging blindly around corners (and then only because my fingers betrayed me when I placed the model). If my opponent is supported by the rules to keep their mouth shut and let me misplace a model by 1mm I will likely lose interest in the game. That's the biggest issue for me personally and why I fall into the PBI camp. If the game is more aggressive than cooperative between the players I am no longer interested in playing it. I want my wins and loses to be about my tactics and my opponents tactics, not over 1mm of placement too far and that is the only thing I can see gained from non PBI play. I have plenty of other games to spend my time and money on and this is the only one where gotcha moments are really possible (TO, AD, etc...) and I would rather not see that spread to basic movement. A TO model being sneaky and winning the game is thematic, an elite trooper stumbling over his feat and getting shot by 3 guys isn't.
Nice to see I'm some kind of a spokesperson for the non-Play by Intent people. (Hint, I am not). Also, I reported your post, as it is a pathetic attempt at a personal attack. @psychoticstorm @Koni Can we PLEASE get some moderation going on ? Lock the thread if you must, but while you're at it, please provide a rules clarification, too.
I would rather not see this thread too degenerate so please keep up the course correction actions. Please understand that attributing motives to one side or the other will not help, especially if you call each side names. Personally I am getting more and more interested on how to each side extremes each player plays, what motives they have and what they see good and bad for their side and the others side.
On the one hand it's quite fascinating to see the very diverse interpretations of the rules, but on the other hand, I hope that the answer doesn't lie in either extreme, since frankly both extremes are a bit silly, even if you trim it down to the things that have actually happened rather than the hypothetical results suggested by the other side...
Personally I like my original reading of the rules. Fundamentally PAIL but possible lines of fire (Or what a model can see) being open information. This allows PBI to simply be a gentlemen's agreement to speed up the game as every advantage of PBI is still there along with every rule step of PAIL.
It would be cheating. It's also the position the gotcha players started with before they were forced to walk it back via argumentation - the idea that players would be wasting their burst because LoF was unknown. If there's ambiguity in the rules about so important a topic, the rules need a rewrite. They should be clear; and whether you agree with intent or you take the gotcha perspective, the rules aren't as clear on the topic as they should be. While the gotcha viewpoint is inherently contradictory, that's only if you take the second-level analysis and think "what breaks if we play by the gotcha method?" There's nothing in the rulebook that very explicitly tells you to play one way or the other, though there are implications. On the other hand, playing via intent is the only way to play in such a way that things like hidden deployment or targetless weapons work without house rules, so it requires the least kludging. You say it feels like a takeback... but there are people who have unreasonable feelings. It's not a takeback, it's just like in chess if you considered moving your knight up and thought about if it was threatened by an enemy bishop. I can't interpret this any other way than being upset at an opponent's cautious play - and there are members of the gotcha camp who have said that not only would they not allow an opponent to use intent when declaring a move, but if they took time to plot their movement so precisely that they effectively sliced the pie they feel it's poor sportsmanship. I think insisting that your opponent make sub-optimal moves to make oneself feel better is exactly poor sportsmanship - like the person in question is a child who needs to be babied through games to avoid ragequitting. If one wants to force multiple AROs on a target, put the work in to *force* it, don't just act like it's deserved. Well, the post that @the huanglong quoted clearly showed that your viewpoint was grounded in the idea that LoF was not Open Information, which is pretty explicitly against the rules. Reporting him for that just comes off as you attempting to use moderation to avoid being called out for what you're saying.
I am afraid that this is open to interpretation and perspective, you believe they break the game others feel they do not break the game and the game works fine, I think it is pointless to debate it in yet another thread. I am glad you agree that either way the rules could be needing a rewrite or a really extensive FAQ on the subject.
To be fair @Alkasyn was not the only one claiming @Superfluid should eat normal rolls in that thread so it might seem a bit cruel and personal to hold his post up as an example, when there were others. That said, even if you take the orthodox by the book interpretation that only existing Lines Of Fire between two models or markers expected to be shared, and only when it can disrupt the declaration of an order, the declaration of the second short skill of an order is still the declaration of an order. By not providing information that was expected, that player was being non-cooperative, in violation of the rules. I am almost certain the kind of play I described above is not open to interpretation. What's debatable is the extent the two players are required to cooperate regarding potential Lines of Fire, which is whether Greg helps or huffs at 0:55 in the OP video. I think it is challenging but possible to make a RAW case in the rules that Greg must help, but seeing as Bert could find the answer on his own eventually (and with greater likelihood the more time he takes), the only benefit Greg can gain is a possibility of gaining unintended LOF, AKA a "gotcha". I'm pretty sure this is the only difference in outcomes between "PBI" (Greg helps) and "PAIL" (Greg doesn't help).
This sounds a lot like a way to say something without actually saying it. Sort of "pbi is against the rules and the only way to make it work is to change the rules"!!!... The other side, for exclusion, is not!!! This sounds a lot like a (inevitable) take back. Mask
