thoughts on Play by intent

So you don't agree lof is open information?

 

Sure it is. However, where in the movement skill does it describe stopping to check LoF to your opponent? You declare Move, your target point, your path, you measure, you move. Where is the “stop, check, and measure LoF to enemy models” step in there? You can ask, but I’m under no obligation to respond.

 

Did you actually read what I wrote before responding?

LOF was checked prior to ever entering the order declaration sequence.

Beyond that when did open information ever get to be not open while declaring skills? So you refuse to tell an opponent what a model is armed with when they are decising if they want to go around a corner and you just happen to have say a light/boarding shotgun?

 

and how long to you give your opponent to "finally position the model"?

"Is this in LOF, No, What about this? What about this? yes ok."

LOF is open so I can ask about it for the final position jsut as easy as the initial.....

 

The phrase is “existing lines of fire” that might affect the order declaration, nothing about new Lines of Fire that come into being during the order. You can ask for any existing lines, but, yet again, you declare your movement, you pick your end point, and then you plot your route. If you’ve threaded the needle, bully for you, but since you *can’t* premeasure or set up a Silhoutte to check every corner exactly, you might miss something. Making sure you’re getting it exactly would mean premeasuring and using Silhouettes, which isn’t included in the rules.

 

Save the rules say “existing lines of fire”, rather than ending... and, again, where does it talk about “endlessly fussing over facing”? It says declare Move, state intended final point, declare and measure path, and place finally. If I’ve placed my trooper, the skill is concluded.

 

Did your reactive model somehow move when I declared Move?

This isn't even about asking, just drop a red/green line to the corner from the reactive models and declare/place accordingly.

Or is using LOF aids now not within the rules?

 

And beyond all the mechanics, how thematic is it a model bumbling around a corner because they lost basic motor skills (Unless Angus, he would do that) in a supposedly clandestine wargame, or are we assuming they might be able to actually pie a corner slowly and carefully sorta like the real world?

 

nothing says I cant ask for LOF and re-determine that exact spot while placing the model, so thats not really relevant

 

Exactly. You're asking whether or not enemy models have LoF to a point, then moving to that point.

 

FKB in the house!

Down with other people's pie-slicing? :tongueout:

Actually the specific phrase used is disrupt the declaration, which doesn't make very much sense at all, because their are very few ways to disrupt the declaration of the order. I seriously doubt that CB felt it was necessary to include an etiquette blurb so people would share LoF solely for the purposes of being able to reliably re-enter a marker state. This tells me that you can't take the blurb too literally, but you can infer intent. Let's dissect it though, shall we (ugh...because apparently we have to)?

First sentence...

Checking all possible Lines of Fire for all figures and Markers on the table can be cumbersome.

So, we know we're talking about right out of the gate, pretty much any LoF that exists or could exist, at least from the perspective of the active/reactive player's models. I mean, how else can you interpret that?

Second sentence...

It is perfectly acceptable for a player to ask their opponent whether existing Lines of Fire could disrupt the declaration of a given Order before declaring it.

Working from the already established premise that there is something wrong with the way this blurb is written, what information does this give us? Well, I know that it doesn't literally mean disrupt the declaration of an order, so that must mean something else. Affect, like you used, is a reasonable assumption. As in, potentially interact with my order in a way that may or may not be desirable. The other really important bit of information it gives us is when. That is, when do I get to know this information. I think the reference "before declaring it" is pretty clear. It's obviously before declaring it.

Third sentence...

Players are expected to share this Open Information in a truthful and sportsmanlike manner.

Aw shucks, do I really have to? Yes, it is expected (requisite, necessary, etc). What information? That's right (just let intent into your heart), all potential LoF that could affect an order (we went over that already). In what manner? Without deceit, accurately, faithfully, reliably, etc. (i.e.- you can't fulfill that without gaming aids, if they're necessary to determining the information - because that is not the same thing as pre-measuring distance, which is explicitly not allowed). Why? Because it is Open Information, a specific game term for information that is the opposite of private (i.e.- you get to know it). Also, we know it's important that we're behaving in a way that is fair and shows respect towards the other players (for example, by doing the things we just told you to do).

Fourth and final sentence...

Honesty and fair play are conducive to a better gaming atmosphere, and all players benefit from that.

Translation: "you should do this stuff, it is good, everyone will love it."


Conclusion:

 

Gold

 

"Betrays HD with awkward checking"

....I have done that

 

I feel that a good half of these "intent" battles are set-up when people realize they can't technically cover approaches with several models to compensate for that reactive B1 no matter how insightful they are with their ARO placement (save for "vertical stacking", that will have to "intent" into existence as well, though), and that they have to start thinking differently, kinda like "N models will hold for N orders or more if I'm lucky, going down one by one".

If you had to expose certain area in the center of your silhouette when you shoot in active turn, making it almost impossible to slice horizontal pies, there would be way less arguments over "intent".

That would be pretty different game though.

 

I am not sure why I should say this, but escalating the debate does not help the situation at all.

 

Well, yes and no, Daboarder. Yes, you've described a peek/pie slice using your 'play by intent' style; but no, that's not the same thing as managing Movement by the rulebook, as you're trying to suggest.

As elsewhere discussed, 'play by intent' is a game of notional positioning by agreement, whereas playing by the rulebook is a game of actual positioning from estimates, and the reason for a silhouette marker in the 'peek and pie slice' is so that we can comply with these rules:

"You can measure immediately after declaring Move and before determining where the trooper ends his Movement.
The sequence of events would be: Move declaration, clarifying the direction and the intention of the trooper's final location, measuring, and declaring the real movement’s ending point."
Moving and Measuring pull-out p61

"If movements are declared, the player measures the movement distance and and places the trooper at the final point of its movement."
Order Expenditure Sequence p31

"When declaring any form of Movement, you must specify the exact route the trooper will follow, so that the opponent can declare the appropriate AROs."
General Movement Rules p61

Thus in our scenario, you'd tell your opponent what you're trying to achieve, eyeball the table and drop a silhouette marker at the extent of your estimated 'peek out', then finally measure to find out if both the 'out' and 'back' are within MOV range. To keep this description simple, let's presume they both are, so you'd leave the silhouette marker in place and the model where it started, and you've now properly specified 'the exact route the trooper will follow so that the opponent can declare the appropriate AROs'.

You need to illustrate the exact path your trooper has followed like this because - despite what 'play by intent' advocates would have us believe, there is no positioning by agreement in the rulebook; there is only actual positioning from our estimates.

 

"You can measure immediately after declaring Move and before determining where the trooper ends his Movement.
The sequence of events would be: Move declaration, clarifying the direction and the intention of the trooper's final location, measuring, and declaring the real movement’s ending point."
Moving and Measuring pull-out p61

Since line of fire is open information I can ask you at any point what your unit or units have line of fire to and declare that my intent is to move my unit to a position where it's line of fire is to only one of those units.

As long as my unit can reach this position using its move short skill and along a path I specify, the position that my I have declared that it is my intention to reach, then I am as per the rules allowed to move to that position.

The only way that my unit could not occupy this intended position is if it didn't exist. in which case it is your duty as my opponent to tell me, as per the open information status of LOF, that this position isn't there.

Shilouete markers can be used to aid this process once I've declared my intent, however this does not mean that any premeasuring has occurred since I've already declared my intended move and now have to to follow through with the declaration of the order. There are no take backs in this scenario.

IMHO the current rules back up the play by intent position.

 

Well, as we continue down the rabbit hole of parsing an etiquette box that only appears in the english version of the rule book...

If you want to ask me about existing LoF, fine, that's something to be shared. "Does that Fusi Fireteam have LoF to that corner?" "Yes, they do, as does that Nisse MSR." That exists, so I share it. However, that is different than, "does that Fusi Fireteam have LoF to this much of a Silhouette 4 at this corner?" That doesn't exist, so I can't share it. Again, you can ask, but if it doesn't already exist, I can't share it.

 

My spanish book have it...