thoughts on Play by intent

@Sabin76 I was posting on this discussion 20 pages ago. I never once said that I would refuse to discuss possible Lines of Fire with my opponent. I never said that I would refuse to help someone in placement of a model when asked. I'm actually a pretty nice guy IRL, I promise. So, no, @daboarder 's post has absolutely zero to do with my position.

As I was saying from the beginning of this mess, I'm happy to discuss potential lines of fire with my opponent prior to the declaration of the order up and down. This is sharing of Open Information. As you Declare and Resolve the order, however, where the model is placed is where it is placed, this has nothing to do with what Open Information was shared. In a friendly game someone might say "I'm trying to get here without being seen, does that look possible?" and I would answer "No, but maybe if you back up half an inch."

To be quite fair and totally honest, my play probably lies somewhere in between the extremes of the Intentioneer crowd and the opposing side here. There are times where it is discussed and I simply go with what was discussed without double checking it. This is generally because it is obvious enough or easy enough to let things slide. That doesn't make it a "per the rules" decision, it's simply a courtesy and a time saving measure. From the start of this, I have never been completely ANTI-INTENT, I have simply been starting from the position that INTENT PLAY ONLY is not actually how the game works. This is obvious to me from the fact that weapon ranges can fail to be in your ideal range, that Cautious Movement can fail and provoke AROs, that placement of your model ACTUALLY MATTERS in the rules. If you choose to streamline the process and hand wave placement on an order where it is tricky, or where it is inconsequential, and BOTH PLAYERS AGREE, then great! That's lovely! But that is not something that can be FORCED ON OTHER PLAYERS WHO DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATED INTENT. And y'all can't tell me that this never ever happens. The amount of disagreement in this very thread is proof of that.

If you want to play a game based entirely on intent and narrative, where model placement doesn't matter, then you don't actually need models. Play a narrative RPG. World of Darkness is a really fun system. Heck, I hear there's even an Infinity table top RPG out there.

 

@macfergusson I certainly wasn't calling you out specifically, and I don't really see your posts as hampering the discussion.

As to this, again my questions remain: "What happens if the scenery was bumped?/My Samaritan fell over and I had to put it back?/You incorrectly (through no fault of your own, perhaps you just missed it) told them that only one model had LoF, then 2 orders later they activate it again and you suddenly realize that 3 other models actually had LoF to that position... and moving it back a couple mm would have kept it to the one?"

 

You fix it to the best of your ability, with your opponent's agreement.

Then I missed out on 3 AROs 2 orders ago by failing to identify Lines of Fire properly, and I probably already said "well shit." We discuss the best way to resolve it going forward.

 

What are you talking about? I struggle to even imagine this situation.

Player A: Does that model have line of sight to this point? *places silhouette*

Player B: *leering evilly* No.

Player A: I attempt to move to that spot. *measures* It is within 4" (10cm), it is a valid move.

Player B: I declare ARO.

Player A: I thought you didn't have Los?

Player B: I DISAGREE WITH YOUR STATED INTENT. I WILL NOT BE FORCED.


Who plays like that? Because it is not the way the rules say to play.

 

Now combine that with the last one. Now we don't know whether those 3 other AROs were actually available before the scenery was bumped. You put it back "to the best of your ability," but if you had both agreed that those AROs weren't available before, you are about to have an argument about whether they are available now.

And what would you, as the reactive player, advocate for? That you now get those 3 AROs? The obvious counter-argument is that you didn't inform the active player of those AROs when they were placing their model and would have declared a different end-point had you done so.

I had also forgotten one of the more obvious questions, "My model can't quite fit where I want it because it's gun is sticking out of it's silhouette, so I'm going to put it here (a spot very close to the intended)." You have 0 AROs on the intended position, and 3 AROs on the actual position.

Lastly, I don't want to come across as singling you out, and it's clear from your description of your play style that you apply the LoF rules just as a PBI player does. It's just that we seem to be having a conversation now :).

 

There's no point in having a discussion where you obviously intentionally misconstrue and mis-characterize what people are saying. "Leering evilly" seriously? This is part of why I bowed out of this discussion once already, the Intentioneering crowd constantly flinging morally/emotionally charged language around and then playing offended at anything that comes back their way. It's ridiculous and inappropriate to any kind of thoughtful debate.

But fine, I'll bite.

You say "attempt to move to that spot", OK, so did they actually go there or not? Because if you moved to where you intended to move, then great. We're already moving on. If you didn't move to where you intended to move, I'm going to have to check LoF against where your model actually is now. You don't get to just alter reality by saying it will be other than what it is.

The first time around I posted examples of my concerns, from real live actual gaming experience. So, yeah, it's real and it happens, and neither person was an evil morally objectionable character with malicious and unsportsmanlike intent.

 

And if a pair of opponents or even an entire meta wish to play with takebacks or with intent or whatever you wish to call it, then they are welcome to. However, they ought to be honest about what they are doing, which playing by house rules and conventions, not by the game as designed and written. As designed, you make an estimate of where you will end up, etc., you indicate that "intention", and then you find out how good your estimation was. If it was correct, wonderful! If not, then you accept it and the consequences of that, rather than changing the game to prevent dealing with consequences of your mistakes.

 

I put in the leering evilly comment to add some light heartedness to a discussion. If you would like to misconstrue that as somehow being offensive, be my guest.

My question to you: How can I possibly move where I did not intend to move? Did the table shake? Did my hands tremble from some affliction? Are those the kinds of things you want impacting your games? There is nothing in the rules about table shaking. A reasonable person would allow the intention to match the actuality. Your method makes infinity a game that is unplayable and unfun, and is not supported by the rules as written.

 

You keep saying this and it continues to be untrue.

If I find out line of sight to a specific point, then declare my movement to that point, the same line of sight measurements already agreed upon still apply. There is no quantum line of sight that pops into and out of existence at your whim. There is no estimation-line of sight is public information and withholding knowledge of it is explicitly against the rules. Play by Gotcha is not an acceptable way to play, whether from a moral or rule based standpoint.

 

If that's the case, then you haven't seen how some of your allies in this discussion have been behaving.

If an external factor affects where you were placing the model, then fix it? If someone just bumped the table, you try and put things back where they actually were. This has nothing to do with a rules discussion.

If you just pretend that the model is actually where you stated it's intent to be, do you then measure your next move from it's intended location or it's actual location? Over a game how much "intended" movement is racking up into extra inches of actual movement?

 

Nevermind. I read too much into it.

 

If those AROs weren't there before, and they are now, then how are we agreeing that everything is put back in place correctly?

If your model can't fit in a spot with correct facing, we generally place the base accurately. Facing is then inaccurate, but clearly stated what it should be. Alternatively, use a marker/silhouette while it's in that spot. Whichever method you use, the silhouette is still going to be accurately placed on the board, which is what matters for Line of Fire.

All of these things being raised up as concerns are external factors or "problems" that should be mediated between the players. And that's fine and dandy. I don't see why it should be considered a problem. These are above the table considerations to be agreed upon in a friendly fashion. It sounds kinda ... intent-ish, doesn't it? But this isn't something that is applied in general sweeping terms to every game at all times. It's in tricky situations on a case by case basis.

 

My point is that if the "agreement" on those 3 AROs was because the reactive player didn't consider them before, how could you or the other player know whether it was actually put back correctly? An argument can arise:

a) "These 3 models have LoF to your trooper over there."
b) "But they didn't have LoF before right? So I'll just move the scenery a bit more to block them."
a) "Well, actually, I hadn't considered them before... I think they had LoF before, but I lost my AROs because I didn't declare them."
b) "But I've already moved the scenery..."
*TO gets called over, time is wasted

I don't believe that you, personally, would argue like this. As I said, you seem to use more PBI than your posts against the PBI crowd would suggest. That is not to say, however, that a PiWiL (play it where it lands?) player would not argue as above. Agreement on something like this is hard without communicated and agreed upon intent.

 

I mean, honestly, if you're in a tournament where things have got that bunged up, you probably SHOULD have a TO mediate quickly to make things fair and objective so you can move on. The outcome of a tournament round affects more than just you and your opponent.

We do this in home games as well all the time, "Hey dude, can you drop a quick 3rd party objective eyeball on this situation?"

 

Meant to respond to this part as well:

This is the real frustration I have with the whole discussion here. PIWIL people aren't saying PBI is BADWRONGFUN and should never be used. PIWIL people are saying that it's an agreement between people to smooth over a tricky rules situation when the normal rules just don't quite cut it. That doesn't make PBI suddenly PART of the rules. By it's nature it is rules-extra, otherwise it would just be... in the rules. And our written text calls this out in such a fashion. That infamous blue box blurb just says "hey sometimes things are a little tricky. You guys can work it out on your own if you need to, right? Like adults!"

What this has led to, however, is that extreme PBI is moving so far in the other direction to incorporate all of this friendly agreement to resolve tricky situations and edge cases into HOW YOU MUST PLAY ALL THE TIME, and PIWIL is going "woah... hey now... that's going a bit far..."

 

You seem to think that Intent players want you to submit to something that's impossible or illegal. That isn't true.

It doesn't mean they want a 4-4 model to move 5-5. It doesn't mean that they fudge distances. Intent-based play means that both players reach consensus as defined within what the rules allow.

The same logic applies to Cautious Move. Cautious move states that the active turn player is risking his miniature, by executing a legal move that disrupts the ordinary declaration of AROs. However, it imposes a risk. The active turn player agrees to submit to that risk, in order to deny his opponent an ARO. If he succeeds, then the opponent doesn't get their ARO. If he fails, the opponent does get their ARO. It's clear that discussing an intended outcome with your opponent doesn't really apply, because you're creating an opposed scenario. Functionally, it's no different than a F2F roll; the active turn player initiates a confrontation, hoping to succeed. The Reactive Turn player hopes they fail. Intent doesn't apply.

Instead, Intent based play takes things that a player could figure out for themselves, and adds a conversational shorthand by discussing things with the opponent to reach mutual consensus. It's not really any different than eyeballing the distance between two combi models, and realizing they're both within +3 range and rolling the dice without measuring first. The rules state you should get out the tape measure and check... But both players acknowledge that that's not necessary, clearly they're both in rifle range, and they're okay skipping that step and moving on because the tediousness of measuring is not necessary. No rules are being violated, but the game is being accelerated/operated more smoothly because both players recognize this situation is achieved to mutual satisfaction.

For general intent situations, I could walk around the table 20 times to verify my LoF... Or I can ask my opponent, and we can discuss. I can shovel terrain out of the way so that I can get down to eye level and come around a corner, or my opponent and I can acknowledge the sequence of events because we know it's all allowed within the confines of the rules, and can be executed very clearly without violating any rules.

With intent play, noone's trying to take anyone's lunch money here. Implying that Intent players somehow want to break the rules or create situations that aren't legal is either a deliberate or accidental misrepresentation of the what's being discussed. Either way, I think it's important to clarify that noone's talking about operating outside the rules.

 

Again, as I already stated, I have zero problem with this:

The rules state X, but by agreement you are not doing X. Done. No argument whatsoever. It should not, however, be claimed that not doing X is actually how it is SUPPOSED to work, per the rules. That would be incorrect.

I mean, if y'all want to say that I'm playing "PBI-Lite", I'd probably accept it. But there are extremes of PBI being represented that I have a problem with.

 

Sigh

Ok lets start again.
A few things.

First of all, slicing the pie is a legitimate technique and can have an impact on the game breaking a well defended area.
Second, I have to restate that "intent" in the game rules means something different from the common spoken language.
Third the rules about behaviour are a behavioural construct not a clear cut black and white real rule and varies in the perception of each individual, local meta, countries ectr, it really means play your best but remember both of you should be having fun playing the game.
Finally I remind you N3 rules are written with a risk reward in mind and should always be taken into consideration.

Since we cleared all the above let me explain again how the game is properly played.
A) Open information is always open, the moment a model is on the table all its open information is open that includes its LoF, you can check all the models LoF any time, you cannot check with a silhouette hypothetical LoF to a potential move of a figure though, you can just check were they have LoF.
B) Intent on the rules mean a clear description of the models intended path, including its desired final place, were you can place a silhouette marker as a placeholder, the model will try to reach this final position taking the desired path, if it will manage it is of no real importance, remember this applies on every move including dodging as ARO.
C) After a move short or long skill is declared the move is performed and then ARO are declared, the opponent must have full knowledge of were the model moved in order to check LoF and declare ARO.

So Player A declares that he (or she) activates model X checks LOF for enemy models C,D,E that have LoF to the end of the wall (or simply asks his opponent what models have LoF to the end of the wall) and descales first short skill move, he checks again the LOF tries to find were is the position that only model C would see model X if it moved there and places a silhouette marker were he thinks this position is, then describes model X path "that it intents to move towards the wall and then parallel to the wall until it reaches its final position marked with the silhouette marker", model X is moved along the intended path and is swapped with the marker (we assume movement was sufficient) and player B checks LoF from the model X starting position, along the models movement path and final position, if player A estimated correctly only model C can see model X and the player risked exposure to cut the pie and was rewarded, if player A estimated wrongly more models or no model can see model X he risked for a advantageous outcome but failed.
Player B then declares any and all ARO he is legally allowed to get and player A declares the second short skill.

This is how the game is played by the rules and this is an important thing to remember when risk reward are in place the rules should not be broken for speed of play, slicing the pie, correct distance for weapons, getting the opponent out of cover are all skill based decisions that reward the risk taken.

In the name of speeding up the game I can see out of game intention intervene in the game, but only were risk and reward is not involved, I stand that I do not see anything wrong in opponents cooperating to a model getting as far out as not been seen, it speeds up the game and we do not need to drag the game for another 10 minutes to check LoF for a really non move opponents should truthfully say what models have LoF to a spot when asked, waiting your opponent to fail because he really forgot a model who has done nothing the past 2 rounds except looking from a corner window inside a building is really unsportsmanlike, but declaring move with intention to lift risk, reward from your declarations is against the rules (how move is done and premeasuring) and against the spirit of the game (risk is rewarded).

Questions?

 

Thing is, Cautious movement is a different kettle of fish, theres an inherent estimation of where you move from thats unique to catious move, much like shooting its a movement rule that involves a range component and therefore its up to you to estimate the distance.

You can ask your opponent to help you find where you can cautios move to and be out of LOF, but the making it is up to you alone.

Way I see it, its the exception that proves the rule

 

you're going to need to back that up with more than just a youtube video that isnt hosted by CB. as per my last post LOF checking and the etiquette blurb allow you to check potential LOF that would disrupt the order, if that order contains a move component it can therefore be checked.

Considering Marduck, Plebian, Rory and the other top players and interplanetary have all come out and said that is how they play.