thoughts on Play by intent

you need to read my post above then.

It contains very specifically the rules themselves written down and even highlights where they differ in the implications of the blue box and hence its impact on the game.

So thats a good way of making the conversation relevant and in my opinion you make good points.

I think this argument makes the blue blurb even stronger, as you say, we dont want to call a TO every time therefore we need a guide on how to behave with regards to the game. Thing is, CB must agree as they have gone ahead and written that guide in the blue box. Some of the argument here is posters wishing to ignore the presence of that blue box.

 

A common statement in my meta is "I am going to move in this direction, when is the first point a visible model has LoS?" Then we check and he makes some move-moves until he hits that point or I reveal some hidden deployment. That is the keystone of Play by Intent. Use a shortcut to facilitate play within the rules. No rules are broken, the same thing would happen than if my opponent meticulously placed ever single move and then checked LoS for the next one before continuing, we are just both a half hour younger at the end.

 

Open Information to Intent is fairly simple at the basic level.

Since I will always be able to look at the table and determine LoF combined with the fact the LoF is Open Information I should always be able to place my intended movement marker with precsion to allow me to have/not have LoF to any part of the table or model.

I am not asking if you or I have cover. I am not asking if you or I are within a certain amount of inches/cm from each other.

All I ask is that my marker have LoF or not have LoF to a model on the table.

Since both of us have that info we should be able to figure out where a model should be placed (if it has the movement needed) to gain/deny LoF to any other model. You can either help me find that place or wait for me to figure it out on my own. If I don't actually have the move needed to get there sucks to be me.

We can either agree on that point before a model is moved and be happy or move the model and possibly have a less friendly disagreement on what the LoF it has in its final placement.

Not sure I can break it down anymore than that.

 

Daboarder is right about getting off track, but it's not like the thread has anywhere else to be.

This is not the same thing we're debating here at all. In this case, the etiquette developed beyond what was specified in the rules, as means to protect an unspecified method chosen by players to record HD positions. However, a method already existed that both covered the situation, and didn't lead to a mde up phase of the game where players turn around or otherwise leave the play area.

In the case @atomicfryingpan described, the choice to utilize a method outside of what the rules actually call for necessitated made-up etiquette that was then subverted by the player in order to deceive his opponent in a way that's not supported by any actual game rules.

 

I'm still trying to understand the "logical and grammatical" gap that is a mile wide.

My very first reply includes a simple question which would clarify your other posts to me. Rather than make general inferences to a whole bunch of very disparate posts. Could I request you answer the very specific question.

I'm not trying to gotcha you, merely understand where this hypothetical "mile wide gap" is between how we play. Because the posts imply very hard line positions, but examples given (including your video) often include things we would interpret as intent, so it becomes blurry, what you guys actually consider "play by intent" and what is "rules as simply read".

 

Simply put, open information means that you know something is possible. This may be geometrically (I see this model before I see that model when I round that corner), it may be temporally (I know that it will take several movements before I am seen by any visible models), it may be numerically (the visible models include 3 specialists) or arithmetically (with mods I will need 6s to hit that model given a range band estimate).

Play by intent basically means to me that I help my opponent reach the obvious conclusions about play state, so we aren't taking forever to accomplish things that could be accomplished together in good faith. I have played in many national and international tournaments, and every quality player I have faced plays this way. It is the only way to play. Playing in a way where you attempt to keep public information from your opponent is rude, it wastes limited time, and I would argue is against the spirit and letter of the rules.

 

Yeah, I'm not seeing how any number of my lengthy posts (not just the particularly valiant one ) haven't made it clear why I've arrived at the conclusion I have.

Meanwhile, @Wolf , I feel like you're still bouncing back and forth between "it says what you think, but we don't actually have to do what that says" and "it doesn't actually say what you think it says."

 

OK, I suppose I'll throw this one in:

PBI gives us access to a much faster (and by extension, more enjoyable) game. Rather than independently checking and verifying the LOF of each and every model with a potential ARO prior to 'Slicing the Pie' or whatever, interrogating a potential game-state and reaching a consensus with your opponent is quicker and achieves the same outcome.

To whit, it's not terribly hard to 'Slice the Pie' manually. It takes a lot of eye-to-the-table and tweaking/correcting a model's position to do so but it's eminently feasible. All the while you are doing so, your opponent is in a non-interactive state, waiting for you to complete and confirm your placement before declaring their AROs.

So, I suppose I would argue that PBI is a courtesy to your opponent that they then reciprocate by confirming or denying the validity of your intent.

If someone presents you with an intent that you feel isn't applicable, you're well within your rights to call it out and ask for a more precise measurement and I would encourage you to do so at game-critical moments.

However, in the interests of a game that is enjoyable for both players (and one that can be completed within the strict time-bounds of a tournament setting, PBI isn't just for Johnnys ya know) I would submit that conceding the obvious intent-statements and pulling your opponent up on the critical/turning points of the game is the best way to enjoy the game while also playing it with precision when required.

Does that help clarify 'The 'Why of PBI'?

 

Are there penalties for not fallowing the etiquette part of the rulebook or can I opt to ignore it in a ITS match?

 

Literally every post you make is a gotcha because your point of view is self-contradictory. If someone places a silhouette to mark their movement, and says "I move here" and then you say "Aha! You moved a millimeter past it and now my 87 ARO pieces get to make normal rolls against you!" then the other player made an illegal move and it needs to be rectified. Infinity is not a "play it where it lands" game, considering you have to mark your move endpoint.

 

I think this is one of the smarter posts we've seen recently, because the lines are about as well drawn as they're ever going to be, and I don't think we're going to see any breakthroughs in the way things are being expressed or being understood. If that's true, then it only remains for us to find some way to get along, and @cryofthewind is pointing out that we are capable of getting along in other situations; why not this one.

 

This. Intent for me has always been a way to speed up what can readily be done within the rules. Countless times I've argued if LoF isn't freely given up then I'll just take time to check it for myself. Which is a waste imo.

 

Eh? How could someone move too far? If they've placed a silhouette to mark their intended end point, they then proceed to measure and make sure that it's a valid/viable endpoint, and then place the model. If the intended endpoint, as indicated both within the rule text and Palanka's demonstration, is too far, then you place at the end of the measured movement... and if you're simply looking to "peek out" and then move back, you place where you intend to move out to and where back to, measure to make sure you're within your MOV value, and then ask for AROs. If you've estimated your "peek out" point poorly, then, yes, you're going to take AROs.

 

"You must share Open Information about your Army List while you deploy your models during the Deployment Phase, and also any time your opponent asks during the game."

"Miniature poses and irregular scenery can make LoF hard to determine. In those cases, it is up to the players to reach an agreement."

This is a rule in infinity. Players must reach an agreement on LoS. Players must share Open Information. That can be done before any skills are declared. Play by Intent is the rules. Play by Gotcha is not.

 

There is no "estimation" involved. You can check LoS freely to the potential endpoint before you decide to declare the order. This means the only way for my opponent to keep me from achieving the exact endpoint I want without lying about public information. If I have enough movement, that movement will be exact. My hands trembling or my eyesight blurring does not punish me-I move to the end point I declare, which has the line of sight I want.

 

Bottom line is that the rules of the game as written support play by intent. They do not support play where it lands, no rule in he book supports play where it lands.

We're also playing a game with bumpable scenery, tipping miniatures and careless elbows. Do you really think it is the designers intention to pinalise a player for imperfect positioning of a miniature in a tight position when it can be solved through taking to the opponent so that a mutual agreed position is found?

The idea that someone's well thought out tactical play is ruined by moving a mm out of their intended position and that an opponent would try to capatalise on this by invoking play as it lands just straight up stinks.

Infinity is a game of tactics and skill, not mm precision placement of miniatures.

 

So we're still ignoring the written rules example of Cautious Movement failing to carry out as intended. Got it.

 

We must be working from different printed books and pdfs, then, considering that the only rule that involves "intent" or "intention" is the blue box involving MOV, paired with using the word "intention" as a descriptor in FtF rolls, with a handful of inclusion in fluff descriptions of weapons... Infinity is a game of estimation and attempting to do what we wish to do. If we fall short, we fall short, and accept the consequences. If we arrive at an understanding or establish a convention with either individual opponents or within our local meta, that's all well and good, but we have established something outside of the rules as written and designed, and should be honest about that. The level/quality of players who participate in said convention, or how widespread it may be, do nothing to change the fact that it remains a convention, not the game as designed.

 

It seems that people are back to talking past each other; assuming things are so obvious that just saying them and not backing them up is enough. It clearly isn't. I implore both sides to re-read this:

@daboarder had a very good post that seems to have been completely ignored:

 

Here's a thought, PBI also borders on being an accessibility issue.

Imagine a situation where someone has poor long distance eye sight, or some semblance of mild double vision which makes it tricky to check precise awkward LoF. Or if someone has a condition that makes their hands shake preventing them from placing models precisely. Or someone that can't stand up to peer over the top of the table and would really appreciate an honest answer about LoF?

Should the physical attributes be allowed to potentially dramatically affect the course of a Turn Based Strategy game?

I mean, I've got a lower back problem so I try to not hunch over the table where possible, should this affect my capacity for implementing strategy?

There's a thing called the Curb-Cut effect by which systems implemented to help people with disabilities ends up helping those without disabilities as well.

(RE: the lower back thing I always come back from tournaments sore, I suck at remembering to sit down during my reactive turn)