thoughts on Play by intent

Ugh... I hate it when people discuss probabilities prior to placing models. It's not really up to me to help out determining what MODs my opponent is looking for prior to measuring, nor the best possible skill declaration :( [/offtopic]

In either case, for nearly everyone here, it's more about how much help you are expected to give your opponent in determining the placement - even if some of us are likely to misunderstand each other while discussing it.

Also, thank you, forum, for keeping timestamps as arbitrary values..

 

I think it's charitable of you to present the anti-Intent crowd's position as stronger, but as @Wolf mentioned, a lot of them don't think that, as, for example, he thought that you didn't get to know LoF until after you declared a BS attack, and could potentially lose burst that way.

 

They do have to answer accurately as LoF is Open Information, or I can just place the silhouette myself and go to their side of the table and check each model. If I ask you if you have an assault pistol or heavy pistol you have to tell me and I will make my decisions accordingly, no different from LoF. Again, I don't need to declare an order or even place a silhouette near any of my models to ask about LoF. I could ask you during your turn after you move a model what its new LoF is and would expect a truthful answer, in that case there is no intent as I'm not even giving an order, just asking for info.

The point of the gaming etiquette blurb is that while I am entitled to the LoF information it is easier if both players work together to speed up the process rather than have one player darting around the table checking all the LoFs personally. It appears to just be a reminder that if you do help your opponent with LoF that you do so in a truthful and sportsmanlike manner. By going "hmm I don't know, find out after you spend an order and move" it simply means I am going to be going over to your side of the table and checking everything with more care than needed since you don't want to follow CBs recommended gaming etiquette and would prefer as they put it a more cumbersome gaming experience.

 

What exactly do you think is not clear? Because even if intent is not allowed, even if I am not allowed to ask for your open information about lof I will still be able to simply move out millimeter by millimeter. Then when I am convinced I can only see the model I want
the absolute BEST you can hope for is that we disagree and need a TO.

So even if intent play is wrong, the only thing that actually changes is how long it takes and how often a disagreement will happen.
You might as well just play with intent...

Exactly. ​

 

Being able to make you hold that laser light and ask you 100 times who can see here as i move fractions of a millimeter further forwards, before chose what location i wish to stop at, absolutely is 100 percent what you are allowed to do in the rules.

Now you can fascillitate that or not up to you but by doing that i am not intomidating you into playing my way i am playing the game as it is designed

 

Also keep in mind this discussion has devolved from arguing about whether or not intent is part of the rules. To one side arguing they can dissemble or outright lie about open information. That looking or determining said open information is pre-measuring and that the rules written in the book are more guidelines than actual rules....


Keep that in mind

 

No you simply cannot make me do what you describe.

For one, it would fall under the description of slow play, and at least in my events you'd be penalised for that.

Another thing is, if you'd require this from me and generally continue playing in such an disruptive and confrontative manner as you post, I'd simply forfeit the game. As I said, rule number one is to have fun, and it seems you're forgetting that.

I have no problem playing against opponents who play intent, in fact it sometimes happens. I just think it's not the correct way to play, and is not as clear in the rules as you want it to be. Open Information is not a catchphrase that will explain everything and anything.

 

I can because lof is open info. That really shouldn't be up for discussion

 

As to slow play, you are refusing to fascillitate faster play....you are the slow player aiming to gain advabtage

 

That's what tells me the people arguing against it aren't arguing in good faith. There's continual movement of goalposts to avoid having to be sportsmanlike.

 

Guys please we had this conversation again in the old forum,repeated, restarting it here again after it has already concluded once benefits nobody.

 

So... What's the official answer?

 

Yeah, please remind us what that conclusion was again?

Because, as I recall it, we just ran around in circles until we wore ourselves out like toddlers at a birthday party. Pretty sure we'll do the exact same thing here. Way I see it, you can either send us all home with no cake, continue to make balloon animals, or go get the adults so they can actually sort this out. :tongueclosed:

 

Conclusion was to agree to disagree.

 

I wonder if CB has the same argument internally. Maybe they can't even decide how it works.

 

That is just mean.
Show up and tell us it has already been answered so arguing is pointless... but fail to tell us what that answer was.

 

Which is not really a good answer from the people writing the rules.

 

I highly doubt you'll get one at this point, so why not let this go back to sleep again?

 

I am sorry I am late rough day.

Anyway that is of no importance.

Infinity is played with Intent, take a breath and allow me to finish, the rules themselves state that in movement you need to state the direction you intent to move for example towards the wall the maximum I can.

The question in intent should not be if Infinity plays with Intent, but to what level of Intent it is played.

The question is really Can I say to my opponent "I move towards the corner so far that nobody (from the visible models I know of) can see me" or I cannot say it.

I would say yes, you should be able to ask this question because it helps speed of play and frankly the player can check it himself for an extra 10 dead minutes of play time.

The other question is Can I say "I move towards the corner so far that only X model (from the visible models I know of) can see me" or I cannot say it.

Again for the same reasons mentioned above this question should be able to be asked but with an exception since the intention was for the model to expose itself if it cannot achieve the secondary intention (been seen only by a single model, from those the player knows of) it cannot take back its exposure.

Finally if you are not playing a really friendly game you should not be able to take back action declarations if they do not turn how you expected.

I am open to debate and questions about this please feel free to comment and raise your questions or objections.

But please to it in a civilised manner.