thoughts on Play by intent

And finally we get to the old and tired insults

 

I apologize. It wasn't my intent to insult. Just my anecdotal evidence of my experiences. I'm totally sure others have found the non intention players who have come across as win at all costs people. So again I apologize for that.

 

its good to stay away from cries of "win at all cost" and "Un fun play" in these discussions/arguments.

Such statements are by the large personal in nature and based purely on your personal perspective. for example while I play competitively I am not by nature WAAC (given the derogatory connotations of that phrase) and on a personal not I find games that are played "loosely" incredibly unsatisfying and unfun. now thats just my opinion and should really have no bearing on my stance with regards to "intent" nor should it have a bearing on anyone. This is because we are merely discussing a means of playing that is available to all who play infinity, regardless of the outcome of this discussion the effects on both players at the table are the same.

With that in mind thank you for apologising, its rare to see that online.

 

its also worth pointing out that the Pro-intent crowd will often see themselves as teh sportsmanship crowd, given they are 1) willing to help their opponent achieve what they wish to during their reactive phase (as pointed out by andre) and 2) they arent trying to punish their opponents physical placement of a model where they didnt want it placed.

Its important to keep that in mind, I know I would feel thouroughly unsportsmanlike if I was telling people I could shoot them with multiple models because they couldnt place their mini accurately enough despite what they declared.

On another note, how does the non-intent crowd deal with "corner popping" IE the declaration of moving to a point to gain LOF then back along the previous path to the final position out of LOF? The rules dont cal for you to place the model at all points only at the end position therefore you should never be able to "gotcha" an opponent moving in such a way outside of HD.

 

I just wanted to thank you for that. It's pretty much the exact same thing people said about many of the more hotly debated mechanical improvements that we've seen implemented over the years (abstracted LoF, measuring from edge to edge, etc). Whether or not it's supposed to be the case already, I'm now confident the next edition of Infinity will include explicit approval of intent, pie slicing, and probably whatever else you don't like. :tongueclosed:

 

If playing by the book, you're obliged to declare your intent, describe the unit's route and final destination, then measure to see how far along that route you travel.

So if you want to 'peek and pie slice' (in the normal, real world tactical sense) then you could use a silhouette marker to indicate the extent of your peek position, and simply state that you'll move back to your starting position (which is effectively marked by your model).

Measure it out, and see if you do get all the way back; if not, move the model there. Leave the silo' there to help with AROs and LoF for the second Short Order.

 

And this is mostly what I am thinking when I say the issue is not intent but with pie slicing feeling like cheating to new players.

I feel your pain but this probably has more to do with you being a new player. You can't really have a well covered corner without using a trick or two like elevation or hidden deployment sadly. If you have three guys watching a corner they are going to get killed one at a time even without intent.
The goal of a defensive positon is not to kill the attacker but to force them to spend more orders then they want to, effectively slowing an offensive push.

 

I move to get LOF to this guy, not that guy, where is that? This point? OK thats where I move to and back as far as possible"

Sweet I place the model at the final location which is 2' back from that LOF"

No I gotcha your placement was different than intent there. Here you are accepting that the "stated intent" is the exact path it moves. why then do you have such a hard time doing that at the other end?

 

This is exactly the way I play with my friends. Fast, fun and simple.

 

I think I was clear on how the rules are supposed to work.

In any case I have to remind the posters that play to win and win at all costs are two entirely different things, WAAC has negative connotations because it implies bending the rules and cheating in order to win, while play to win is simply playing as best as you can.

 

And don't forget, I'm playing to win but anybody who's beaten me is WAAC.... /s

 

That's the big thing. You move where you move, you see what you can see, and you take your lumps. There is no intent in the rules, if we play with it, it's something we've added to make things more convenient for us, but it's something we've added. We can't premeasure or take back, and if my opponent insists that I stay where I moved to, then I have to stay where I moved to, just as if they insist that it's theoretically possible to glimpse one troop but not the other, then it is. However, neither one is likely to get them a second game...

 

Theres nothing in the rules allowing a movement path not to follow the declared path either.

 

Are we ignoring blue boxes again?

 

We do not need more discussion about WAAC I think.

 

What, the part where you conclude all your movement before your opponent declares any AROs? That one? The one with nothing from your opponent in the entire sequence stated? You can INTEND to avoid being in LoS, but since nothing in that sequence indicates I’ve a duty to respond, then you declare, clarify where you intend for him to be, measure, and put him in the final destination...

 

I use my laser line, place a silhouette, can x see here but not y, what about now... now? Only X can see to this area? Great.

Ok. LOF and position agreed on, first skill move, model A moves to that place where we both just agreed x can see but y can't, is my model able to make it there in its first move skill? Yes. ARO's?

Agree or no?

 

Didn't you read the whole thread? That's illegal pre-measuring of your LoF distance. You're explicitly not supposed to know how much LoF length you have until resolution, and that's exactly what lasers tell us. It's right there in the rules. :tongueclosed:

Unrelated. FKB be lurking and liking. I see you, FKB. :kissingheart:

 

As my teen says, “nope on a rope”. Going by the rules, you say “I’m moving, my intent is to arrive at this point, I’m measuring the path I’m taki... nope, not a valid path, ok, this one is perfe... nope, not a valid path either, ok, this *is* a valid path, my mini fits at the destination and that’s where I want it to be. AROs?”

With no takebacks.