Thank you, but I really wasn't suggesting that the distance between models is equivalent to their Lines of Fire anyway. I said: I said that because - to reiterate, Dabarder seems to want to give his opponent a fair go regardless of visual disability, which is a decent sentiment Unfortunately, Infinity's rules as written and intended are still - unlike most other tabletop games, prejudiced against visual disability. So if you're going to use 'play by intent' to position models by agreement in (legal and theoretically possible) positions for Line of Fire, why not also position them by agreement in (legal and theoretically possible) positions for distance too?
I disagree heavily on that matter. https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/how-do-you-play-infinity.1378/page-3#post-19927 Sorry for linking, rather than just responding but my response to this would be much in the same as this post I made here. For the record, I’m not accusing anyone of anything.
Shrug Theres no arguing with someone that will misrepresent twist your words and straight out lie. Id rather choose not to engage with them at all and hope that people i am discussing this with like caz have the presence of mind to also understand why i wont be responding
You're quite right, there's nothing that does, and whilst we've had many comments of this kind by @psychoticstorm https://forum.corvusbelli.com/threads/thoughts-on-play-by-intent.724/page-27#post-15290 they're only good for clarifying the rules to people who actually DO want to know how the game is supposed to be played - Corvus Belli's formal play testers and forum officials are apparently not authoritative enough to sway the religious devotion to 'play by intent'!
Well then perhaps you could clarify this for us yourself. Do you - or your community, when they talk about 'play by intent' generally also advocate pre-measuring, or not? And again, if pre-measuring is not to be also included on the play by intent ticket, why not? @Plebian, @Todd, @deep-green-x @Hecaton et al
Easy. The rules allow for verification of Line of Fire. The rules don't allow for premeasuring of weapons, Engage ARO, or other scenarios you're citing. I don't think you're achieving much by trying to draw a parallel between the two. It just shows you either don't understand the opposing viewpoint, or you're deliberately misrepresenting it. Neither of those perspectives are doing this conversation any favors.
You make assumptions based on the board setup and if in doubt you can either as the opponent about existing LoF or walk to his side of the table. What usually happens is you ask for the opponent to wait before you finally place your piece where you want it to be and when ready ask for ARO. If at that point I get more AROs than I bargained for, too bad. I usually try to go down to the table level and eyeball the correct position for my little guy. Never had any placement problems and never had a game run out of time because of me. Against some of the most argumentative opponents, the biggest issue is my lack of LoF markings when they conveniently start forgetting the facing of my dudes that I told them about (basically where the head is looking unless there's difficulties with plaxing the model because of scenery) but In a LoF dispute I usually concede the point seeing as I'm too lazy to do the LoG markings and officially they're in the right. I usually finish my games around 20-30 minutes before the clock stops. In my experience PAIL makes for a faster, more dynamic game, especially if both players play like that. Most often the rounds at the events I go to last 1, 45h or 2h.
Anyone that thinks a laser is premeasuring has no place in this argument. They clearly dont know what a measurement is and they clearly havent read the rules limitation on measurong distance. It holds no ground at all
Ouch. Of course it's only fair to point out that based on the video you posted, you also don't know how the game is sopposed to be played. You might have a dog in this fight but you can't recognize that dog without checking tags first. I guess that puts us in the same boat here. I also don't understand what some of you consider "the rules" to look like. I do really appreciate the attempt here but I am looking for a little more nuance. I don't know if this can be shown with text but maybe it will help if instead I ask questions? Let's say I am trying to walk to a corner, slice the pie, and then move back to my starting position out of Log. Let's assume I have plenty of movement to do this. 1) how do you establish how far out I moved considering I never had to actually move my miniature, only describe his exact path? Or do I have to move my miniature and somehow record that path? Basicly how do you determine what that exact path is? 2)Do you allow lasers or silhouettesat this stage? If you don't allow aids at this step then how do the rules handle illegel movement and ambiguous paths at this step?
@Wolf Premeasuring and Intent are not the same. Play by Intent has it's foundation in information which by its visual nature is open to both players and has a biniary value of yes or no, either a unit has a line of fire to a position or it does not. At any point I could go around to my opponents side of the table and see exactly what lines of fire his units have based on their LOF facing as marked on the base. There is no information conveyed in this process and the process of playing by Intent which is not visually verifiable before during and after any order. Premeasuring must by definition involve the disclosure of information which is not open and not visually verifiable by both players. The distance between two points cannot be verified except by measurement, a skilled player may be able to estimate the distance to a high degree (and the concept of range bands means this is a useful skill to have that is not too difficult to achieve) but they cannot verify this distance until it is measured. An unknown becomes a known, it is measured. Allot of what has been said is based on some players abusing play by intent to premeasure, this is cheating no question about it. However it is not represenative of play by intent which does not reveal any information that would not otherwise be open and not visually verifiable. To give two examples If I ask an opponent if his units have LOF to a corner, that is visually verifiable by both of us, is a binary yes or no and I would class this as open information. If I ask to place a shiloute at a position where pie slicing can occur then this is based on visually verifiable information and is therefore open information. If instead I ask my opponent how far his unit is from the corner, then I am asking for non visually verifiable information and he is under no obligation to provide me with this as it would require the measurement of an unknown value. If I were to declare my intent is to move a unit until it is a set distance away from an opponents unit, for example to within or without of a zone of control, then I would be asking for non visually verifiable information and would be asking for a premeasurment. In short and simple, anything I can see with my eyes and verify by simply looking at the table is open information, using this is not premeasuring. Anything I have to ask my opponents to give me which is not visually verifiable, that involves changing an unknown to a known is premeasuring. INTENT AND PREMEASURING ARE NOT THE SAME THING
Guys please, keep it calm, I really would advice to wait for an official clarification, no need to start a new fight over the same subject.
Do you always fix your models to vertical surfaces if they finish their climb on a wall, or do you agree about the position with your opponent? When your model has so many protruding swords, guns and capes that it is impossible to both position it in base contact with cover and maintain the facing you want, do you agree about your facing with your opponent? I don't get why it is such a big deal to just agree about the apex of a pop-out move.
Observations more so than rebuttals here: I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to attach a model to a wall, but if you have a little bluetack, scotch tape or a postit note to remind you where to put the silhouette for consistency that might be helpful. I don't like to leave troopers climbing for the reactive turn in general though, and its never come up that I remember. Marking a temporary facing with the same tack tape or ti... note can help you remember and make it clear what way you're facing at a glance. I'm not a huge fan of "I want to move so i have line of fire to here but not here" or the perfect intersection intent lasting past the order its called because it's possible to place the model in that spot, even if you have to mark a new facing the model's cylinder would still be in the same place... On the other hand pop out and back when it's clear you can do it, and the model won't end its move at that point, I don't see the point in having to call the exact point when you can work it out by eye and will have a fairly large margin for error most of the time. Now if there's a situation were there isn't an agreement that it's possible then I'd want to show the model in the spot, with whatever tools are available to prove or disprove the point exists, or if my opponent asked me to put the silhouette down.
I have to admit I was very surprised when I was informed that using a silhouette might not be allowed. Seeing what PAIL play looks like really interests me. Good question. I assume seeing as they can't use a silhouette that maybe they bring extra bases to mark positions? In the case of hanging models, a snapshot with a phone might do it. Pie slicing feels like cheating. Intent makes pie slicing easy.
I feel like this is a lot of effort just to avoid having to come to the agreement with the person opposite. For clarity, you understand that in the scenario below, no amount of "intent" play would allow active trooper A to see C before it sees B when executing a pop-out in the direction indicated, right?
I guess we should be asking where people got the idea that things close together would always be able to draw the same lines of fire, or that models would ever involuntarily enter their line of fire.
Oh it's not to avoid agreement, it's because I might forget, since I don't have a perfect memory. Well yeah, I'm a short sighted, multiple concussive, borderline alcoholic muppet, but I'm still bound by euclidean geometry.
I think there's a tendency to try to equate infinity to the "real world" in varying degrees. The first problem with that is that a lot of peoples ideas of the "real" world are influenced a lot by TV, movies, and video games. The second is that Infinity deliberately ignores the real world were it would make the game less balanced or fun.
Amusingly my very first argument involving intent was a pie slice almost exactly like this one, but the building B was behind was a bit farther back. I tried to explain that I could easily see B before A but was informed I would have to come around the corner, both models could clearly see that corner and that no amount of intent would change that. In the end I just took the two ARO's. My second Intent disagreement was basically the same argument but with a much harder to slice pair of myrmidons. I now keep a straight ruler on me to demonstrate LoF when moving around corners by having the miniature push the ruler. I kind of think the issue that people get hung up on is LoF on a cylinder and corners.
I know this is not completely on topic, but... Nobody, and I mean nobody, is allowed to use scotch tape on my buildings to mark unit positions. When I get around to putting magnetic paint on them they get to enjoy the luxury of putting reminders on exactly where their models are climbing, but not before then and not ever using tape.
